- 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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Delhi Public Schools to Category:Delhi Public School Society
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Delhi Public School Society. One problem with the current name is that it can be misinterpreted as meaning "Public schools in Delhi", and that would be quite wrong, since according to the article the schools run by this society are private and they also exist outside of Delhi. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. As I understand it the use of the term "public school" in India is modelled on the British use - see Private school (India and Sri Lanka) - but it confuses more than it helps. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Slaveholding Presidents of the United States (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. We've been down this road before, though not at this level of specificity:
- There are many things that could be said about this. One problem is essentially that of using a category to give undue weight to a historical fact that means something quite differently today than it meant at the time. To be a slaveholder in early America basically meant you were rich and not necessarily much else, whereas today of course it is viewed quite differently. Another problem if the category is kept is how we treat the previous decisions and where we go from here: if we don't categorize American people in general by slaveholding status, why do we categorize U.S. Presidents by that status? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Overcategorization, unnecessarily narrow category. Reso lute 19:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Brand management per the article of the same name.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Branding to Category:Brands or splitting to Category:Brands and Category:Brand management
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is not really about branding which is ambiguous given that livestock branding may be the most common term. Merging to Category:Brands or splitting to Category:Brands and Category:Brand management seems a better choice. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Branding (marketing). Otherwise leave as is. Certainly do not merge to brands.
Johnbod (
talk)
13:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- No objection to this option. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete under CSD G5. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Burials in Arizona (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: created by blocked user:Pastorwayne Kittybrewster ☎ 10:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Georgian military personnel to Category:Military personnel from Georgia (country)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep, but purge of individuals and repurpose. "Nepotism" may not be the best name for this category, so a renomination to rename it might be in order.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Nepotism (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Completely POV with ill-defined parameters. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 04:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete (or at least repurpose). I agree that in its current state this is a problem. It looks like it is categorizing people who some have said received their position based entirely on nepotism. This seems like a vast oversimplification in some of the cases. Perhaps a category is too blunt a tool to deal with this particular issue. If this merely categorized articles like Ethnic nepotism and Cronyism rather than people it could maybe be salvageable, but at this stage it is categorizing people and not those other articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete or repurpose but I have a preference for the latter. The problem with the category is that its current content is completely unacceptable and violates WP:BLP. That being said, articles like Wasta, cronyism, crony capitalism and even Cardinal-nephew could form a reasonable category. It could also include articles of the form accusations of nepotism against foo (if any exist). Pichpich ( talk) 03:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Patronage might be a way forward? Johnbod ( talk) 13:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not bad. It's a bit wider in scope. The important thing is to write explicitly something along the lines "this category should not contain individuals". Pichpich ( talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Precedent is quite strong against this type of category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop number-one albums (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Number-one albums categories have repeatedly been deleted by consensus in other discussions with lists being preferred over categories in these instances. I don't think the creation of a genre category should override any previous consensus. Please see the following CFDs:
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 27#Category:Number one albums in the United States
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 12#Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 7#Category:Number-one albums in Finland
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 30#Category:Oricon weekly number-one albums
- --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk)
03:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I don't see a problem with the category, I think it is somewhat beneficial to see which albums hit number one on the chart, and having them listed in a category is suitable. — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Delhi Public Schools to Category:Delhi Public School Society
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Delhi Public School Society. One problem with the current name is that it can be misinterpreted as meaning "Public schools in Delhi", and that would be quite wrong, since according to the article the schools run by this society are private and they also exist outside of Delhi. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. As I understand it the use of the term "public school" in India is modelled on the British use - see Private school (India and Sri Lanka) - but it confuses more than it helps. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Slaveholding Presidents of the United States (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. We've been down this road before, though not at this level of specificity:
- There are many things that could be said about this. One problem is essentially that of using a category to give undue weight to a historical fact that means something quite differently today than it meant at the time. To be a slaveholder in early America basically meant you were rich and not necessarily much else, whereas today of course it is viewed quite differently. Another problem if the category is kept is how we treat the previous decisions and where we go from here: if we don't categorize American people in general by slaveholding status, why do we categorize U.S. Presidents by that status? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Overcategorization, unnecessarily narrow category. Reso lute 19:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Brand management per the article of the same name.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Branding to Category:Brands or splitting to Category:Brands and Category:Brand management
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is not really about branding which is ambiguous given that livestock branding may be the most common term. Merging to Category:Brands or splitting to Category:Brands and Category:Brand management seems a better choice. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Branding (marketing). Otherwise leave as is. Certainly do not merge to brands.
Johnbod (
talk)
13:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- No objection to this option. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete under CSD G5. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Burials in Arizona (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: created by blocked user:Pastorwayne Kittybrewster ☎ 10:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Georgian military personnel to Category:Military personnel from Georgia (country)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 10#Category:Georgian people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture, where other "Georgian" categories were renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep, but purge of individuals and repurpose. "Nepotism" may not be the best name for this category, so a renomination to rename it might be in order.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Nepotism (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Completely POV with ill-defined parameters. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 04:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete (or at least repurpose). I agree that in its current state this is a problem. It looks like it is categorizing people who some have said received their position based entirely on nepotism. This seems like a vast oversimplification in some of the cases. Perhaps a category is too blunt a tool to deal with this particular issue. If this merely categorized articles like Ethnic nepotism and Cronyism rather than people it could maybe be salvageable, but at this stage it is categorizing people and not those other articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete or repurpose but I have a preference for the latter. The problem with the category is that its current content is completely unacceptable and violates WP:BLP. That being said, articles like Wasta, cronyism, crony capitalism and even Cardinal-nephew could form a reasonable category. It could also include articles of the form accusations of nepotism against foo (if any exist). Pichpich ( talk) 03:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Patronage might be a way forward? Johnbod ( talk) 13:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not bad. It's a bit wider in scope. The important thing is to write explicitly something along the lines "this category should not contain individuals". Pichpich ( talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Precedent is quite strong against this type of category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop number-one albums (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Number-one albums categories have repeatedly been deleted by consensus in other discussions with lists being preferred over categories in these instances. I don't think the creation of a genre category should override any previous consensus. Please see the following CFDs:
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 27#Category:Number one albums in the United States
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 12#Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 7#Category:Number-one albums in Finland
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 30#Category:Oricon weekly number-one albums
- --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk)
03:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I don't see a problem with the category, I think it is somewhat beneficial to see which albums hit number one on the chart, and having them listed in a category is suitable. — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- 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.