| < January 18 | January 20 > |
|---|
- 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Original Kings of Comedy franchise (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only two articles, not part of some larger scheme. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:50, 19 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Former populated places of Adams County, Pennsylvania to Category:Former populated places in Pennsylvania
- Nominator's rationale: Another entry in the Gettysburg Overcategorization Campaign consisting of two placenames. The parent category is small and is not broken up by county. Mangoe ( talk) 20:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:02, 20 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:ESPN25 to Category:ESPN
- Nominator's rationale: The ESPN25 category only serves articles pertaining to ESPN's 25th anniversary, which means that articles belonging in it would only occur within a one-year period (which has passed). Only two total articles in existence even qualify for ESPN25, and neither needs their own special category. I'd also like to point out that Category:ESPN25 was created in May 2005, when Wikipedia was at its general infancy and in the "see what sticks to the wall" mentality. We now have much more defined and stringent criteria for everything, including categories. Jrcla2 ( talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 20 January 2012 (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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Churches in the United States by state to Category:Church buildings in the United States by state
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Churches refers to building, religions or denominations. We renamed many of the building categories a while ago, so this is just getting one of those that was missed. If this is successful, then the subcats will follow as speedies. This could well be a speedy itself since it is a rename to the established form. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, overly ambiguous. 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 05:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Church can also refer to a gathered congregation without a building of their own, but such churches are unlikely to be notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Pakistani flying aces (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: As near as I can make out there is but one Pakistani ace. Is it worth having a category for one person? Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep That's because I saw you remove articles from that category without explanation. Even if there's only one article supposed to be in there, I presume that it's part of a broader categorisation system (there are other one-page "flying-ace" country categories too), so nothing wrong in keeping it. Mar4d ( talk) 13:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as there are several countries in the main and WWI/II subcategories for aces with only one member. And if one member in a few (eg Bulgarian) of the subcategories is not enough, is two enough or should they be deleted too? As with medal winners for Olympic/Commonwealth Games etc; America and Australia have hundreds, but a single medal winner from a small country eg
Natasha Mayers means creating two categories for one person.
Hugo999 (
talk)
19:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC) See
- Keep as a consistent piece of an established categorization scheme Pichpich ( talk) 05:37, 21 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:American Civil War sites in Franklin County, Pennsylvania to Category:American Civil War sites in Pennsylvania
- Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a case of overcategorization, particularly of inversection by location and narrow intersection. Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom and WP:OC#NARROW. This category has been created because it falls along the retreat route of the Gettysburg Campaign, apparently. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. No reason to have a category for a single article. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 05:27, 21 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Military sites by country (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Military sites in the United States (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Military sites in Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Military sites of the Pennsylvania National Guard (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Military sites in Adams County, Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:American Civil War sites in Adams County, Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Battlefields in Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Former military facilities in Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: In one of the more far-reaching sections of the Gettysburg Overcategorization Campaign, we have this whole structure erected to categorize a few locations related to the battle. None of the higher levels of this, you will be surprised to learn, exist for other countries/states/counties/wide-spots-in-the-road, nor do the other organizational subdivisions picked up along the way. As with all the rest, the bottom level categories are tiny and could only grow by subdividing the articles on the Gettysburg campaign still further. Mangoe ( talk) 17:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note Category:World War II sites in the United States will remain as part of the "historic sites" hierarchy. Brandywine Battlefield will be moved to Category:Battlefields in the United States. Mangoe ( talk) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Based on past performance and category contents (or lack of) We know that Target for Today has created this web of categories with no thought other than Gettysburg's unique place in the cosmos. I was wondering if we could rename as a military historic sites tree, to give it some clarity from all the other "military sites" we categorize, but then Category:Military memorials and cemeteries already seems to have that covered. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 22:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all -- gross overcategorisation. Can some one prevent user:Target for today from creating categories? He appears incorrigible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron ( talk • contribs)
- Upmerge all to the first parents one can find not created by user:Target for Today. There is no Category:Military sites but there is Category:Military locations; there is no Category:Former military facilities but there are Category:Closed military installations and Category:Former United States military facilities. Oculi ( talk) 20:15, 22 January 2012 (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: Upmerge Category:Oil and gas companies of Russia to Category:Energy companies of Russia. - jc37 05:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Oil and gas companies of Russia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Combination of two separate categories that already exist, Category:Natural gas companies of Russia and Category:Oil companies of Russia. I have placed the only company in the category in the appropriate other category. No need for the more broad category when there are more specific ones Jeancey ( talk) 17:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Dear Jeancey, I had created this category. But since two categories already exists that serve the purpose, please nominate for deletion. However, for other countries, categories with prefix "Oil and gas companies of..." exists. Is there a way we can standardize them? Can you please check? Thanks AKS ( talk) 17:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't think that you did it maliciously. I actually had no idea the others existed, but I checked when I saw only one category. I know for a fact that Libya has a Oil and gas companies category, since I'm quite active on that WP. I would have to assume that it was split because of the large amount of companies that fall under the combined category, but I really have no idea. Jeancey ( talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note emptied -- out of process.
Jeancey is evidently inexperienced; so I suggest no action
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I apologize. I was not aware of that. I will refrain from doing so in the future. Jeancey ( talk) 19:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge Category:Natural gas companies of Russia and Category:Oil companies of Russia into this category. Oil companies frequently also produce gas and vice versa, so that the rolled up version is appropriate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have added the two categories to this one. However we already have a parent in Category:Energy companies of Russia. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as a duplication of Category:Energy companies of Russia. Keeping just adds an additional level of navigation. While most of the companies may overlap into both fields, what do you do with those that don't? Better to list most of the companies in both categories when appropriate. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:38, 4 February 2012 (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 Category:Chat-related websites and Category:Guitar-related websites; no consensus on Category:Animation-related websites, for which I highly recommend a separate discussion. Actually, there is consensus to rename the 'Animation' category, with Category:Websites about animation appearing to be the favored name, but it is less clear what to do with articles that would no longer belong in the renamed category – i.e., animation-related websites that are not about animation. I will initiate a neutral nomination of the 'Animation' category in a few days if no one has nominated it by then. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Chat-related websites to Category:Chat websites
- Propose renaming Category:Animation-related websites to Category:Animation websites
- Propose renaming Category:Guitar-related websites to Category:Guitar websites
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_30#.28X.29-related_works, we have been turning away from "-related" in this type of category name.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom, no objections. -- GreyCat ( talk) 17:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom or rename to "Websites about X", which seems consistent with other media. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that would be the right move, but all the other categories in that tree are "(X) websites."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I support Guitar and Chat but I'm uncertain about Animation. There are a few others in the tree which use "Websites about __". "Animation websites" makes me think of webcomics – animation for the web – as opposed to websites about animation in general. "Websites about animation" might be clearer. –
Pnm (
talk)
22:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem (and that should probably be the subject of a separate debate) is that
Category:Animation-related websites contains both websites related to animation (
Big Cartoon DataBase,
Don Markstein's Toonopedia or
Animator.ru) and websites that produce or feature animation (
Bullseye Art,
Toon Goggles or
Homestar Runner). These should be in separate categories which have clumsy but perfectly unambiguous titles.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- You said it better, thanks. Support alt move to
Category:Websites about animation per Pichpich. The others should be recategorized into
Category:Webcomics,
Category:Webcomic publishers,
Category:Webcomic syndicates or split to
Category:Animated webcomics. –
Pnm (
talk)
19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the purge. It'd be weird to have only one category being "Websites about (X)" and the rest "(X) websites," but I am certainly supportive of switching the lot of them to the "Websites about (X)" format.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Even if that doesn't happen, it wouldn't be the only one:
Category:Websites about comics,
Category:Websites about digital media. I think whichever form is chosen as primary, there will be a few exceptions: "Websites about comics" is better than the ambiguous "Comics websites" but "Educational websites" is better than the outright-incorrect "Websites about education". Totally agree with losing "(X)-related websites". –
Pnm (
talk)
23:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Let's go with the clearest form, then.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Even if that doesn't happen, it wouldn't be the only one:
Category:Websites about comics,
Category:Websites about digital media. I think whichever form is chosen as primary, there will be a few exceptions: "Websites about comics" is better than the ambiguous "Comics websites" but "Educational websites" is better than the outright-incorrect "Websites about education". Totally agree with losing "(X)-related websites". –
Pnm (
talk)
23:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the purge. It'd be weird to have only one category being "Websites about (X)" and the rest "(X) websites," but I am certainly supportive of switching the lot of them to the "Websites about (X)" format.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- You said it better, thanks. Support alt move to
Category:Websites about animation per Pichpich. The others should be recategorized into
Category:Webcomics,
Category:Webcomic publishers,
Category:Webcomic syndicates or split to
Category:Animated webcomics. –
Pnm (
talk)
19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem (and that should probably be the subject of a separate debate) is that
Category:Animation-related websites contains both websites related to animation (
Big Cartoon DataBase,
Don Markstein's Toonopedia or
Animator.ru) and websites that produce or feature animation (
Bullseye Art,
Toon Goggles or
Homestar Runner). These should be in separate categories which have clumsy but perfectly unambiguous titles.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support the first and third. Undecided about the animation category (see above comment). Pichpich ( talk) 02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose 1 & 2 -- a chat related website need not have chat, whereas a chat website would have chat. A chat related website could be a review site, or a source code site. Similarly, an animation website would include animation, whereas an animation related website might just have reviews. "websites about X" is a much better convention to use.
76.65.128.132 (
talk)
05:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt there exists a notable website about chat that doesn't have chat. –
Pnm (
talk)
19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- All of the members of this category feature chat on their sites.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt there exists a notable website about chat that doesn't have chat. –
Pnm (
talk)
19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Suggest close as move for Guitar, move for Chat (since there are no websites about chat which do not also offer chat), and no consensus for Animation. – Pnm ( talk) 21:30, 28 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a case of overcategorization, since most of these articles are already in Category:Gettysburg Battlefield, while the rest can be placed in Category:Battlefields of the Main Eastern Theater of the American Civil War. Wild Wolf ( talk) 16:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete category and categorize towns and battlefields into parent Category:Gettysburg Campaign - I initiated this nomination at Category talk:American Civil War#Category tree for ACW geography (and also nominated the similarly named categories e.g., Category:Battles of the Gettysburg Campaign). Thanks for nominating it here. Lake Woodhouse in Denver ( talk) 18:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Comment struck as sockpuppet of User:Target for Today, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Confederate States of America memorials at the Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield memorials and monuments
- Nominator's rationale: Seems a case of overcategorization, especially of narrow intersection. Wild Wolf ( talk) 16:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:National Sweetheart delegates (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. A category primarily for non-winners of a pageant for non-winners of other pageants. Even the winners of this pageant (who receive a trivial $1000 scholarship and a pendant shaped like corn) rarely arise to notability, judging by the pageant's article, and most of the articles that contain this category make no mention of the pageant at all. Mbinebri talk ← 15:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Though being a delegate to National Sweetheart is, in itself, not a qualification for notability, it does add additional information to the articles of people who are notable for winning other state and national pageants. Five former Miss America winners (as well as 21 former Miss America delegates) are former National Sweetheart winners. 13 of the 53 delegates of this year's Miss America class were also former National Sweetheart contestants.
Ejgreen77 (
talk)
17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- If we can actually verify that many former Miss America delegates have won National Sweetheart, I wouldn't object to renaming the category "National Sweetheart winners" and purging it of non-winners. "Delegate" categories, I feel, should only be created for the most notable/prestigious pageants.
Mbinebri
talk ←
00:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the official website, which states that 9 former Miss America's competed in the pageant and only 5 have won. This is one of the reasons I feel like this delegate category should be notable enough to remain. MissPageantNews ( talk) 22:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- If we can actually verify that many former Miss America delegates have won National Sweetheart, I wouldn't object to renaming the category "National Sweetheart winners" and purging it of non-winners. "Delegate" categories, I feel, should only be created for the most notable/prestigious pageants.
Mbinebri
talk ←
00:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- Even if this were a category for winners, we would listify and delete as an awards category for a minor award. This is much worse: it is essentially a "performance by performer" category, where I think the consensus is a plain delete, though listgify is also an option. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Delegates of this pageant may not all be notable, however many contestants (not just winners) have gone on to win
Miss America, compete at
Miss America and
Miss USA, or become notable in another way. This pageant was a stepping stone to their future success and deserves a mention when discussing these ladies.
MissPageantNews (
talk)
02:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- How is National Sweetheart a stepping stone? Winning the pageant does not qualify a contestant for any higher-level pageant because it isn't officially affiliated with any. Arguably, it's just a tangential pageant that some contestants who achieve notability via other pageants participate in, but doesn't confer notability itself, even when winning it, and (that I can see) doesn't garner widespread coverage.
Mbinebri
talk ←
20:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I believe it is a stepping stone because it provides contestants with the experience that helps them do well in future pageants.
MissPageantNews (
talk)
22:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Could not the same be said of any pageant? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe it is a stepping stone because it provides contestants with the experience that helps them do well in future pageants.
MissPageantNews (
talk)
22:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- How is National Sweetheart a stepping stone? Winning the pageant does not qualify a contestant for any higher-level pageant because it isn't officially affiliated with any. Arguably, it's just a tangential pageant that some contestants who achieve notability via other pageants participate in, but doesn't confer notability itself, even when winning it, and (that I can see) doesn't garner widespread coverage.
Mbinebri
talk ←
20:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – we've had plenty of these. There is no excuse whatever for including non-winners as the parent is
Category:American beauty pageant winners (winners).
Oculi (
talk)
16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can't get to National Sweetheart without winning your local pageant first, so, therefore Category:American beauty pageant winners does indeed apply. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 06:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with Peterkingiron's assessment of this category: it is an example of performers-by-performance overcategorization. Being a delegate to any but the most well-known pageants is not defining – i.e., not something for which one is known or remembered – and the fact that most articles in this category do not even mention the National Sweetheart pageant is an indication that this pageant does not pass that threshold. A category for winners of the pageant would be more defensible but, even then, the information probably is more suited to a list, such as the one at National Sweetheart#Winners, than a category. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:19, 1 February 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:David Croft co-writers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Category by association that doesn't correspond to a sufficiently defining characteristic. Pichpich ( talk) 15:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, yeah I think I agree with this nomination that it's not particularly useful. Bob talk 19:13, 19 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Landforms of Adams County, Pennsylvania to Category:Geography of Adams County, Pennsylvania
- Nominator's rationale: Yet another entry in the Gettysburg overcategorization campaign. Most of these are actually subarticles of the battlefield, and in any case no other Pa. county has this level of hierarchy. The geography category is small and most of what is in it could be placed in this category anyway. Mangoe ( talk) 13:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Seems to me like another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Roads and routes in Adams County, Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sole entry is a redirect which is adequately categorized. The state category is not over populated where it needs to be divided by county. Also 'roads and routes' is a dual purpose category which is generally avoided. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. More collateral damage of the Gettysburg categorisation campaign. Oculi ( talk) 10:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Seems to me to be another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:07, 20 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Death industry in the United States (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. How about a POV title that may be confusing? In any case, Category:Cemeteries which is a parent for the only content here is appropriately categorized. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Despite the existence of death industry, I find it hard to believe that this is not a bit of a pejorative term, and that funeral homes, crematoria, headstone sellers, etc. actually refer to themselves as part of the "death industry". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Cemeteries, as a rule, do not strike me as industrial.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, I removed the company parent category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The more common phrasing is death care industry or even deathcare industry, but in any case this category seems unnecessary. There are relatively few articles about individual funeral parlors or undertakers, so subdivision by country is premature.- choster ( talk) 17:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- There is a current WP:RM on the main article. It is also subject to a merge nom to Deathcare. I have suggested the target should become Funeral industry, currently a redirect to "death industry". Probably Merge with parent, which will need to be renamed to match the main article (when its location is settled). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – we already have Category:Undertaking, but there seems no need for a 'by country' sub-scheme. Oculi ( talk) 09:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm not an expert in its application in the US, but it would seem that at this time in WP it is synonymous with [Cemeteries...]. But my major objection would be that [Death industry...] is an unsympathetic term that isn't used much. Ephebi ( talk) 17:16, 25 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Pavilions in the United States to Category:Pavilions
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. OCAT. Single entry category where the parent category only has 15 articles. No need to breakout by country at this time. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge – not Gettysburg again ... Oculi ( talk) 11:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge -- The parent is too small a category to require splitting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Cuban Missile Crisis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category for a film. Main article provides ample navigation for the topic. Since the article and crisis have been around for a while, I really question the need for the category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I've added some other things that should be in the category. Rather than this category, there's probably a better case to be made for Category:Media about the Cuban Missile Crisis or some such similar category for the books, plays, a films about the event. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Important historical event with multiple articles. As populated, this looks fine to me.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did I just favor keeping a Target for Today category? I'm standing by it, this category is OK.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe, but with the additions since the nomination, a rename to Category:Media about the Cuban Missile Crisis or some such, as suggested by Good Ol’factory, would be more accurate. So you still have a chance not to support this with a keep. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did I just favor keeping a Target for Today category? I'm standing by it, this category is OK.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- If so, please keep in mind that, per consensus, it would need to be
Category:Works about the Cuban Missile Crisis, thanks.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would favor the current name for now. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep now it has been populated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I chanced across this Cfd while recategorising the mess that is the Category:Cold War (it was an impenetrable mess of over 400 articles, as well as the subcats). The Cuban Missile Crisis is an important and very notable historical event and therefore should have its own category, although there does not seem to be a lot of related articles about it. I am opposed to a Category:Media about the Cuban Missile Crisis until such time that there is a lot of other articles in this category (note likely in the short term). Note that there is a Category:Works about the Cold War . And peace man... -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as a topic about the events of that time. The list of movies etc is best represented as a list. Ephebi ( talk) 17:20, 25 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Cold War docudramas (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with limited growth potential. Sole article has ample categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 05:30, 21 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Ridges in Adams County, Pennsylvania to Category:Ridges of Pennsylvania
- Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to both parents. There are only 3 in the state category and one in this one. Growth potential appears limited. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. More collateral damage of the Gettysburg categorisation campaign. Oculi ( talk) 10:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. Seems to me to be another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:08, 20 January 2012 (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.
| < January 18 | January 20 > |
|---|
- 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Original Kings of Comedy franchise (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only two articles, not part of some larger scheme. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:50, 19 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Former populated places of Adams County, Pennsylvania to Category:Former populated places in Pennsylvania
- Nominator's rationale: Another entry in the Gettysburg Overcategorization Campaign consisting of two placenames. The parent category is small and is not broken up by county. Mangoe ( talk) 20:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 21:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:02, 20 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:ESPN25 to Category:ESPN
- Nominator's rationale: The ESPN25 category only serves articles pertaining to ESPN's 25th anniversary, which means that articles belonging in it would only occur within a one-year period (which has passed). Only two total articles in existence even qualify for ESPN25, and neither needs their own special category. I'd also like to point out that Category:ESPN25 was created in May 2005, when Wikipedia was at its general infancy and in the "see what sticks to the wall" mentality. We now have much more defined and stringent criteria for everything, including categories. Jrcla2 ( talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 20 January 2012 (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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Churches in the United States by state to Category:Church buildings in the United States by state
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Churches refers to building, religions or denominations. We renamed many of the building categories a while ago, so this is just getting one of those that was missed. If this is successful, then the subcats will follow as speedies. This could well be a speedy itself since it is a rename to the established form. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, overly ambiguous. 76.65.128.132 ( talk) 05:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Church can also refer to a gathered congregation without a building of their own, but such churches are unlikely to be notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Pakistani flying aces (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: As near as I can make out there is but one Pakistani ace. Is it worth having a category for one person? Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep That's because I saw you remove articles from that category without explanation. Even if there's only one article supposed to be in there, I presume that it's part of a broader categorisation system (there are other one-page "flying-ace" country categories too), so nothing wrong in keeping it. Mar4d ( talk) 13:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as there are several countries in the main and WWI/II subcategories for aces with only one member. And if one member in a few (eg Bulgarian) of the subcategories is not enough, is two enough or should they be deleted too? As with medal winners for Olympic/Commonwealth Games etc; America and Australia have hundreds, but a single medal winner from a small country eg
Natasha Mayers means creating two categories for one person.
Hugo999 (
talk)
19:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC) See
- Keep as a consistent piece of an established categorization scheme Pichpich ( talk) 05:37, 21 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:American Civil War sites in Franklin County, Pennsylvania to Category:American Civil War sites in Pennsylvania
- Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a case of overcategorization, particularly of inversection by location and narrow intersection. Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom and WP:OC#NARROW. This category has been created because it falls along the retreat route of the Gettysburg Campaign, apparently. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. No reason to have a category for a single article. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 05:27, 21 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Military sites by country (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Military sites in the United States (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Military sites in Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Military sites of the Pennsylvania National Guard (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Military sites in Adams County, Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:American Civil War sites in Adams County, Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Battlefields in Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Former military facilities in Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: In one of the more far-reaching sections of the Gettysburg Overcategorization Campaign, we have this whole structure erected to categorize a few locations related to the battle. None of the higher levels of this, you will be surprised to learn, exist for other countries/states/counties/wide-spots-in-the-road, nor do the other organizational subdivisions picked up along the way. As with all the rest, the bottom level categories are tiny and could only grow by subdividing the articles on the Gettysburg campaign still further. Mangoe ( talk) 17:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note Category:World War II sites in the United States will remain as part of the "historic sites" hierarchy. Brandywine Battlefield will be moved to Category:Battlefields in the United States. Mangoe ( talk) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Based on past performance and category contents (or lack of) We know that Target for Today has created this web of categories with no thought other than Gettysburg's unique place in the cosmos. I was wondering if we could rename as a military historic sites tree, to give it some clarity from all the other "military sites" we categorize, but then Category:Military memorials and cemeteries already seems to have that covered. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 22:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all -- gross overcategorisation. Can some one prevent user:Target for today from creating categories? He appears incorrigible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron ( talk • contribs)
- Upmerge all to the first parents one can find not created by user:Target for Today. There is no Category:Military sites but there is Category:Military locations; there is no Category:Former military facilities but there are Category:Closed military installations and Category:Former United States military facilities. Oculi ( talk) 20:15, 22 January 2012 (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: Upmerge Category:Oil and gas companies of Russia to Category:Energy companies of Russia. - jc37 05:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Oil and gas companies of Russia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Combination of two separate categories that already exist, Category:Natural gas companies of Russia and Category:Oil companies of Russia. I have placed the only company in the category in the appropriate other category. No need for the more broad category when there are more specific ones Jeancey ( talk) 17:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Dear Jeancey, I had created this category. But since two categories already exists that serve the purpose, please nominate for deletion. However, for other countries, categories with prefix "Oil and gas companies of..." exists. Is there a way we can standardize them? Can you please check? Thanks AKS ( talk) 17:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't think that you did it maliciously. I actually had no idea the others existed, but I checked when I saw only one category. I know for a fact that Libya has a Oil and gas companies category, since I'm quite active on that WP. I would have to assume that it was split because of the large amount of companies that fall under the combined category, but I really have no idea. Jeancey ( talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note emptied -- out of process.
Jeancey is evidently inexperienced; so I suggest no action
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I apologize. I was not aware of that. I will refrain from doing so in the future. Jeancey ( talk) 19:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge Category:Natural gas companies of Russia and Category:Oil companies of Russia into this category. Oil companies frequently also produce gas and vice versa, so that the rolled up version is appropriate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have added the two categories to this one. However we already have a parent in Category:Energy companies of Russia. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as a duplication of Category:Energy companies of Russia. Keeping just adds an additional level of navigation. While most of the companies may overlap into both fields, what do you do with those that don't? Better to list most of the companies in both categories when appropriate. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:38, 4 February 2012 (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 Category:Chat-related websites and Category:Guitar-related websites; no consensus on Category:Animation-related websites, for which I highly recommend a separate discussion. Actually, there is consensus to rename the 'Animation' category, with Category:Websites about animation appearing to be the favored name, but it is less clear what to do with articles that would no longer belong in the renamed category – i.e., animation-related websites that are not about animation. I will initiate a neutral nomination of the 'Animation' category in a few days if no one has nominated it by then. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Chat-related websites to Category:Chat websites
- Propose renaming Category:Animation-related websites to Category:Animation websites
- Propose renaming Category:Guitar-related websites to Category:Guitar websites
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_30#.28X.29-related_works, we have been turning away from "-related" in this type of category name.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom, no objections. -- GreyCat ( talk) 17:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom or rename to "Websites about X", which seems consistent with other media. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that would be the right move, but all the other categories in that tree are "(X) websites."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I support Guitar and Chat but I'm uncertain about Animation. There are a few others in the tree which use "Websites about __". "Animation websites" makes me think of webcomics – animation for the web – as opposed to websites about animation in general. "Websites about animation" might be clearer. –
Pnm (
talk)
22:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem (and that should probably be the subject of a separate debate) is that
Category:Animation-related websites contains both websites related to animation (
Big Cartoon DataBase,
Don Markstein's Toonopedia or
Animator.ru) and websites that produce or feature animation (
Bullseye Art,
Toon Goggles or
Homestar Runner). These should be in separate categories which have clumsy but perfectly unambiguous titles.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- You said it better, thanks. Support alt move to
Category:Websites about animation per Pichpich. The others should be recategorized into
Category:Webcomics,
Category:Webcomic publishers,
Category:Webcomic syndicates or split to
Category:Animated webcomics. –
Pnm (
talk)
19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the purge. It'd be weird to have only one category being "Websites about (X)" and the rest "(X) websites," but I am certainly supportive of switching the lot of them to the "Websites about (X)" format.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Even if that doesn't happen, it wouldn't be the only one:
Category:Websites about comics,
Category:Websites about digital media. I think whichever form is chosen as primary, there will be a few exceptions: "Websites about comics" is better than the ambiguous "Comics websites" but "Educational websites" is better than the outright-incorrect "Websites about education". Totally agree with losing "(X)-related websites". –
Pnm (
talk)
23:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Let's go with the clearest form, then.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Even if that doesn't happen, it wouldn't be the only one:
Category:Websites about comics,
Category:Websites about digital media. I think whichever form is chosen as primary, there will be a few exceptions: "Websites about comics" is better than the ambiguous "Comics websites" but "Educational websites" is better than the outright-incorrect "Websites about education". Totally agree with losing "(X)-related websites". –
Pnm (
talk)
23:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the purge. It'd be weird to have only one category being "Websites about (X)" and the rest "(X) websites," but I am certainly supportive of switching the lot of them to the "Websites about (X)" format.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- You said it better, thanks. Support alt move to
Category:Websites about animation per Pichpich. The others should be recategorized into
Category:Webcomics,
Category:Webcomic publishers,
Category:Webcomic syndicates or split to
Category:Animated webcomics. –
Pnm (
talk)
19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem (and that should probably be the subject of a separate debate) is that
Category:Animation-related websites contains both websites related to animation (
Big Cartoon DataBase,
Don Markstein's Toonopedia or
Animator.ru) and websites that produce or feature animation (
Bullseye Art,
Toon Goggles or
Homestar Runner). These should be in separate categories which have clumsy but perfectly unambiguous titles.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support the first and third. Undecided about the animation category (see above comment). Pichpich ( talk) 02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose 1 & 2 -- a chat related website need not have chat, whereas a chat website would have chat. A chat related website could be a review site, or a source code site. Similarly, an animation website would include animation, whereas an animation related website might just have reviews. "websites about X" is a much better convention to use.
76.65.128.132 (
talk)
05:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt there exists a notable website about chat that doesn't have chat. –
Pnm (
talk)
19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- All of the members of this category feature chat on their sites.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt there exists a notable website about chat that doesn't have chat. –
Pnm (
talk)
19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Suggest close as move for Guitar, move for Chat (since there are no websites about chat which do not also offer chat), and no consensus for Animation. – Pnm ( talk) 21:30, 28 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a case of overcategorization, since most of these articles are already in Category:Gettysburg Battlefield, while the rest can be placed in Category:Battlefields of the Main Eastern Theater of the American Civil War. Wild Wolf ( talk) 16:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete category and categorize towns and battlefields into parent Category:Gettysburg Campaign - I initiated this nomination at Category talk:American Civil War#Category tree for ACW geography (and also nominated the similarly named categories e.g., Category:Battles of the Gettysburg Campaign). Thanks for nominating it here. Lake Woodhouse in Denver ( talk) 18:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Comment struck as sockpuppet of User:Target for Today, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Confederate States of America memorials at the Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield memorials and monuments
- Nominator's rationale: Seems a case of overcategorization, especially of narrow intersection. Wild Wolf ( talk) 16:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:National Sweetheart delegates (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. A category primarily for non-winners of a pageant for non-winners of other pageants. Even the winners of this pageant (who receive a trivial $1000 scholarship and a pendant shaped like corn) rarely arise to notability, judging by the pageant's article, and most of the articles that contain this category make no mention of the pageant at all. Mbinebri talk ← 15:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Though being a delegate to National Sweetheart is, in itself, not a qualification for notability, it does add additional information to the articles of people who are notable for winning other state and national pageants. Five former Miss America winners (as well as 21 former Miss America delegates) are former National Sweetheart winners. 13 of the 53 delegates of this year's Miss America class were also former National Sweetheart contestants.
Ejgreen77 (
talk)
17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- If we can actually verify that many former Miss America delegates have won National Sweetheart, I wouldn't object to renaming the category "National Sweetheart winners" and purging it of non-winners. "Delegate" categories, I feel, should only be created for the most notable/prestigious pageants.
Mbinebri
talk ←
00:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the official website, which states that 9 former Miss America's competed in the pageant and only 5 have won. This is one of the reasons I feel like this delegate category should be notable enough to remain. MissPageantNews ( talk) 22:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- If we can actually verify that many former Miss America delegates have won National Sweetheart, I wouldn't object to renaming the category "National Sweetheart winners" and purging it of non-winners. "Delegate" categories, I feel, should only be created for the most notable/prestigious pageants.
Mbinebri
talk ←
00:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- Even if this were a category for winners, we would listify and delete as an awards category for a minor award. This is much worse: it is essentially a "performance by performer" category, where I think the consensus is a plain delete, though listgify is also an option. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Delegates of this pageant may not all be notable, however many contestants (not just winners) have gone on to win
Miss America, compete at
Miss America and
Miss USA, or become notable in another way. This pageant was a stepping stone to their future success and deserves a mention when discussing these ladies.
MissPageantNews (
talk)
02:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- How is National Sweetheart a stepping stone? Winning the pageant does not qualify a contestant for any higher-level pageant because it isn't officially affiliated with any. Arguably, it's just a tangential pageant that some contestants who achieve notability via other pageants participate in, but doesn't confer notability itself, even when winning it, and (that I can see) doesn't garner widespread coverage.
Mbinebri
talk ←
20:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I believe it is a stepping stone because it provides contestants with the experience that helps them do well in future pageants.
MissPageantNews (
talk)
22:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Could not the same be said of any pageant? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe it is a stepping stone because it provides contestants with the experience that helps them do well in future pageants.
MissPageantNews (
talk)
22:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- How is National Sweetheart a stepping stone? Winning the pageant does not qualify a contestant for any higher-level pageant because it isn't officially affiliated with any. Arguably, it's just a tangential pageant that some contestants who achieve notability via other pageants participate in, but doesn't confer notability itself, even when winning it, and (that I can see) doesn't garner widespread coverage.
Mbinebri
talk ←
20:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – we've had plenty of these. There is no excuse whatever for including non-winners as the parent is
Category:American beauty pageant winners (winners).
Oculi (
talk)
16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can't get to National Sweetheart without winning your local pageant first, so, therefore Category:American beauty pageant winners does indeed apply. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 06:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with Peterkingiron's assessment of this category: it is an example of performers-by-performance overcategorization. Being a delegate to any but the most well-known pageants is not defining – i.e., not something for which one is known or remembered – and the fact that most articles in this category do not even mention the National Sweetheart pageant is an indication that this pageant does not pass that threshold. A category for winners of the pageant would be more defensible but, even then, the information probably is more suited to a list, such as the one at National Sweetheart#Winners, than a category. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:19, 1 February 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:David Croft co-writers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Category by association that doesn't correspond to a sufficiently defining characteristic. Pichpich ( talk) 15:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, yeah I think I agree with this nomination that it's not particularly useful. Bob talk 19:13, 19 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Landforms of Adams County, Pennsylvania to Category:Geography of Adams County, Pennsylvania
- Nominator's rationale: Yet another entry in the Gettysburg overcategorization campaign. Most of these are actually subarticles of the battlefield, and in any case no other Pa. county has this level of hierarchy. The geography category is small and most of what is in it could be placed in this category anyway. Mangoe ( talk) 13:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Seems to me like another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Roads and routes in Adams County, Pennsylvania (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sole entry is a redirect which is adequately categorized. The state category is not over populated where it needs to be divided by county. Also 'roads and routes' is a dual purpose category which is generally avoided. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. More collateral damage of the Gettysburg categorisation campaign. Oculi ( talk) 10:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Seems to me to be another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:07, 20 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Death industry in the United States (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. How about a POV title that may be confusing? In any case, Category:Cemeteries which is a parent for the only content here is appropriately categorized. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Despite the existence of death industry, I find it hard to believe that this is not a bit of a pejorative term, and that funeral homes, crematoria, headstone sellers, etc. actually refer to themselves as part of the "death industry". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Cemeteries, as a rule, do not strike me as industrial.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yea, I removed the company parent category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The more common phrasing is death care industry or even deathcare industry, but in any case this category seems unnecessary. There are relatively few articles about individual funeral parlors or undertakers, so subdivision by country is premature.- choster ( talk) 17:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- There is a current WP:RM on the main article. It is also subject to a merge nom to Deathcare. I have suggested the target should become Funeral industry, currently a redirect to "death industry". Probably Merge with parent, which will need to be renamed to match the main article (when its location is settled). Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – we already have Category:Undertaking, but there seems no need for a 'by country' sub-scheme. Oculi ( talk) 09:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm not an expert in its application in the US, but it would seem that at this time in WP it is synonymous with [Cemeteries...]. But my major objection would be that [Death industry...] is an unsympathetic term that isn't used much. Ephebi ( talk) 17:16, 25 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Pavilions in the United States to Category:Pavilions
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. OCAT. Single entry category where the parent category only has 15 articles. No need to breakout by country at this time. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge – not Gettysburg again ... Oculi ( talk) 11:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge -- The parent is too small a category to require splitting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Cuban Missile Crisis (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category for a film. Main article provides ample navigation for the topic. Since the article and crisis have been around for a while, I really question the need for the category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I've added some other things that should be in the category. Rather than this category, there's probably a better case to be made for Category:Media about the Cuban Missile Crisis or some such similar category for the books, plays, a films about the event. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Important historical event with multiple articles. As populated, this looks fine to me.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did I just favor keeping a Target for Today category? I'm standing by it, this category is OK.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe, but with the additions since the nomination, a rename to Category:Media about the Cuban Missile Crisis or some such, as suggested by Good Ol’factory, would be more accurate. So you still have a chance not to support this with a keep. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did I just favor keeping a Target for Today category? I'm standing by it, this category is OK.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- If so, please keep in mind that, per consensus, it would need to be
Category:Works about the Cuban Missile Crisis, thanks.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would favor the current name for now. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep now it has been populated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I chanced across this Cfd while recategorising the mess that is the Category:Cold War (it was an impenetrable mess of over 400 articles, as well as the subcats). The Cuban Missile Crisis is an important and very notable historical event and therefore should have its own category, although there does not seem to be a lot of related articles about it. I am opposed to a Category:Media about the Cuban Missile Crisis until such time that there is a lot of other articles in this category (note likely in the short term). Note that there is a Category:Works about the Cold War . And peace man... -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as a topic about the events of that time. The list of movies etc is best represented as a list. Ephebi ( talk) 17:20, 25 January 2012 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Category:Cold War docudramas (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with limited growth potential. Sole article has ample categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 05:30, 21 January 2012 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Ridges in Adams County, Pennsylvania to Category:Ridges of Pennsylvania
- Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to both parents. There are only 3 in the state category and one in this one. Growth potential appears limited. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. More collateral damage of the Gettysburg categorisation campaign. Oculi ( talk) 10:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. Seems to me to be another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf ( talk) 18:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. Mad Man American ( talk) 23:08, 20 January 2012 (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.