WIKIPEDIA:CATEGORIES FOR DISCUSSION LOG 2010 APRIL 4

< April 3	April 5 >

April 4

Western Asia

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: do not rename. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 01:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Southwest Asia redirects to Western Asia (Note:the supracategory is already at Category:Western Asia) Mayumashu ( talk) 03:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment --Siberia is in Western Asia, but not Soutwestern Asia. We should be reversing this change, not encouraging it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
We'll need to alter the article page then - both it's name and the map on it Mayumashu ( talk) 17:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. Unreferenced assertions do not help.
AIUI, the reason for this proposed change is that article Western Asia asserts that international organisations such as the UN have replaced Middle East and Near East with Western Asia. Unfortunately, the reference provided for this is just a link to the homepage of the United Nations Cartographic Section Web Site, which provides no evidence at all either of usage or of any rationale for it. The discussion at Talk:Western Asia suggest that the whole subject is controversial and complicated, and the move discussion as Talk:Western_Asia#Western_Asia was closed as move "per United Nations, World Bank, NASA and common University definitions, and WikiProject Western Asia" ... but nowhere in the RM discussion or on the article are there any links to those definitions.
So, from what I can see, categorisation of sub-regions of Asia is being done without a solid evidence base. For that reason I oppose any change until we have an evidence-based consensus on a naming scheme which can be applied consistently. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Opppose per BHG. Johnbod ( talk) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 21:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: Considering the long-standing consensus that category titles generally should match article titles and noting that "Western Asia" is a UN-defined geographical sub-region (see [1]), I am relisting this nomination for additional discussion in lieu of a "no consensus" close, and notifying the relevant WikiProject in the hope of drawing attention to the issue of sourcing/evidence. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 21:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
- Comment our usage does not match this one, since Iran in Wikipedia usage is generally in W/SW Asia, while the linked to UN website says that Iran is in S Asia. 65.94.253.16 ( talk) 04:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose in the light of my comment above: Asia is a continent whose extent is certain, bounded by the Red Sea, Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus, Caspian Sea, and Urals. There may be dispute over the precise boundary in the Caucasus region, but that is not in point. Describing Siberia as in Asia cannot be WP:OR; it would imply that the whole of Russia was in Europe, which is clearly nonsense. If Vladivostok and Kamchatka are in Asia (as they are), surely so is Siberia. It is the westernmost region of Asia for most of the length of its boundary with Europe. UNO deals with countries not provinces, so that its classifications will not necessarily fit continental boundaries. Turkey incorporates Asia Minor, and must clearly be part of Asia, even though Turkey aspires to be a European nation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of the National Register of Historic Places

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 to Category:National Register of Historic Places so that the single article is not left uncategorized. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 01:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category contains only one page (with same name as the category) and has little or no potential for growth. Orlady ( talk) 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete over zealous subcategorisation. Agree with above. Place member in sup-cat. Shortfatlad ( talk) 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths by beating

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) 00:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: This is an over-specific categorisation. Notable deaths like that of Steve Biko are not included, and most will be categorised as assault (beating being a rather loaded term). Guy ( Help!) 19:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Question How do you suggest that we recategorise these individuals? Or do you simply want to remove the category from the articles? There is no death by assualt subcategory of Category:Deaths by cause, and I don't see how this is any more specific than, say, Category:Deaths by drowning. Nyttend ( talk) 03:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable and defining characterstic linked to an idividual. Steve Biko is now in the category, and using the arguement that he wasn't in as grounds for deletion doesn't work. I've added in 20 or so people (from Jeffery Dahmer to Jody Dobrowski). However, I'm not 100% sure on the wording of the category, so maybe it could be renamed to something else. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
keep and populate. There is no obvious substitite name that describes the crime that occurred. Hmains ( talk) 04:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Appearances by Eminem

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 all. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 00:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: This a categorized version of the artist's discography page. Most discographies feature a list of guest appearances of such artists and making a category for them is just redundant. Are the categories, at some point, promoting the artist in these categories? Esanchez_{(
Talk 2 me or
Sign here)} 19:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete as overcategorisation / redundant. Guy ( Help!) 19:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete This will needlessly create hundreds or thousands of other categories in which the info is better served in the musician's discography page. I was going to nominate these later today. Spellcast ( talk) 20:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete – a guest appearance is not a defining characteristic of an album (or song). Occuli ( talk) 21:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: Only the first of these categories has been appropriately marked for CFD. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 04:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Tagged at this timestamp. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. I agree that guest appearances are not something we want to categorize by. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete -- This sounds like a performance by performer category; it is not quite that but somewhat more substantial. This is a sub-cat of albums. On the other hand, perhaps we should merge with a parent category for the artist. Most musical artists are not so prolific as to need a complicated category tree for theri work. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. The discography articles already serve that purpose. Blackjays1 ( talk) 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts

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 to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts and a new Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The formulation of this newly created category seems to have been based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The category consists entirely (or at least nearly so) not of "drinking establishments", but of historic taverns, which were primarily places for the overnight accommodation of travelers. Contents should be merged back into the parent category from which they were removed. Orlady ( talk) 18:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

comment The first sentence in Tavern states "A tavern or pot-house is, loosely, a place of business where people gather to drink alcoholic beverages and, more than likely, also be served food...". as opposed to 'inns' where people slept. If these Massachusetts Taverns are all wrongly named, then are they genericly 'hotels'? Hmains ( talk) 21:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The meaning of "tavern" in the 21st century is not the same as it was in the period when these "taverns" were operated (the oldest was built in 1659; the newest entries in the category were built in 1812). Even if they once served as inns, none would fit a modern definition of "hotel." Most of the articles are minimal stubs with no details on the functions of these properties. Of those that have information, a couple are museums, one once housed prisoners of war, and at least one has been a private home. Regardless, to place them all in a category based on a single word in their titles is to misinform through overcategorization. -- Orlady ( talk) 00:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment – it seems to me that it would be greatly preferable to create first Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places and see how that is received (ie scrutiny US-wide rather than just 1 state). Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places itself is not subcatted by any state other than Massachusetts (although some of the subcats are). It does at present rather look like 'categorisation by shared name,' which is frowned upon. Occuli ( talk) 01:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Merge per Occuli's comment — it's best to have a nationwide category before statewide categories are created. Moreover, Orlady's point about the name is crucial; categories can't be based on article names. Nyttend ( talk) 03:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places per Occuli. If this becomes heavily populated it can then be split by state, but the parent should exist first. Add to nom target category if necessary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Merge - Orlady is correct in that taverns of the 18th and 19th centuries, while they did serve alcohol, were more like inns or lodges than bars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bms4880 ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 April 2010
Comment - The one commonality between all taverns (past and present) is providing alcohol (as far as I know). There is certainly a huge benefit to Hmains' further refining of the categories assuming we can define things properly. I'm really not sure though of the nuances between taverns, orderlies, publick houses, inns, etc... Swampyank ( talk) 13:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

But what is the basis for treating the provision of alcoholic beverages as a defining characteristic appropriate for creation of a subcategory within the broader National Register of Historic Places category? -- Orlady ( talk) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree. Almost any building can become a drinking establishment, or might have been one in the past. If we really must, I say this should be for places whose historical significance is, and continues to be, that they were bars. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

There is no indication that the former provision of alcoholic beverages in these establishments has any particular relevance to their historic significance. -- Orlady ( talk) 17:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

keep as is. There is nothing difficult here. Taverns are drinking establishments, just as are bars, etc. The parent category is Category:Drinking establishments in the United States. Just because these are historical does not mean they cannot and should not fit here. Hmains ( talk) 04:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Logic work group articles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 21:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: obsolete/duplicate project category Greg Bard 18:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

How is it obsolete? It has subcagtegories, etc. What is it a duplicate of? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~. WikiProject Logic appears to be a live task force of the philosophy project, so I have no idea why the nominator refers to the category as "obsolete/duplicate". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. I have just left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic, which the nominator should have done. This discussion has now been listed for 7 days and is due for closure, but ay I request that this discussion should be relisted rather than closed, to allow members of the project time to comment? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It is a duplicate category. I should have requested a speedy. Greg Bard 19:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

What exactly does it duplicate? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It duplicates Category:Logic_task_force_articles which is part of the assessment bots work. Greg Bard 20:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that, but it's not quite a duplicate. Category:Logic task force articles contains 1542 articles, but apparently no-sub-cats ... whereas Category:Logic work group articles contains two sub-cats. And we also have Category:WikiProject Logic, which contains everything in Category:Logic work group articles, but not Category:Logic task force articles. So between the task force, the workgroup and the project, we actually seem to have three overlapping category trees. The solution will probably some sort of merger, but more than one step will be needed. I can't support any change until I can see where this is all going. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The "Logic_task_force_articles" category is required to make the assessment tables work. This is obviously an unnecessary duplicate. I don't how much more obvious it needs to be. Greg Bard 00:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete. The Logic task force (or Logic work group – they are the same thing) is rather small, and Gregbard is one of its most active members and created the category 2 1/2 years ago. If he says this purely technical category is redundant and CBM agrees (I expect this to happen, but I could be wrong, in which case I might change my mind), then I will simply trust him.

I think I can clear up the issue of duplication: As far as I can tell, up to one or two pages that are probably mistakes, after flattening the subcategory structure Category:Logic task force articles, Category:Logic articles by importance and Category:Logic articles by quality have exactly the same 1540 members: Those article talk pages to which Template:Philosophy has been added with the parameter "logic=yes". Thus the only additional value of the category would be an alphabetical listing of all Logic work group articles. If CBM and Gregbard don't need that, it's unlikely to be of use for anybody. If it is needed in the future, it's trivial to create the category again. Adding or removing all of its members involves no more than a single edit to Template:Philosophy. I note that neither Category:WikiProject Philosophy articles nor Category:WikiProject Mathematics articles seems to have such a flattened structure in addition to the hierarchical one, so the category under discussion appears to be an oddity. Hans Adler 04:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I have struck my keep !vote, because if the logic work group is aware if this discussion and wants rid of the category, I won't stand in their way. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete per User:BrownHairedGirl. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09

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:

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 12#Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09. The category was not tagged for deletion. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary category for only one article. Categories take into the article. -- Nordlicht8 ( talk) 17:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

As of now, it could be C1'ed as empty. Since all but one of the events appear to be non-notable, we can get rid of this category for that reason too, so delete. As the nominator, you should tag the category to point to this discussion, however. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 19:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Not Delete. I was wrong, sorry. Exactly like the Category: 2008 Samsung Super League is also the category Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09 also for individual tournaments in the series. Articles of this tournaments didn´t exist at this moment. -- Nordlicht8 ( talk) 12:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:All Blacks

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:New Zealand international rugby union players. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 00:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:All Blacks to Category:New Zealand international rugby union players

Nominator's rationale: As per parent article New Zealand national rugby union team Gnevin ( talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:New Zealand international rugby union players per everything else in Category:International rugby union players. Occuli ( talk) 15:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename per nom. Perhaps keep a redirect from this team-nickname to the properly-named category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename per the main article. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Strong keep The "All Blacks" are one of the great iconic sports teams like the Dallas Cowboys, the MCC, Brazil and the Barbarians. Wallie ( talk) 21:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Compilation albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 21:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Compilation albums to Category:Music compilations

Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with the other subcategories of Category:Compilations. The category relates specifically to music but there is no mention of music in the title. Cjc13 ( talk) 14:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep – consistency with the subcats of another parent, Category:Albums, would be lost. Occuli ( talk) 14:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Is that important? In general usage, compilation and album have similar meanings. Also Albums is a subcategory of Category:Recorded music, so the rename would be consistent with that parent. Also Albums includes subcategories such as Category:Bootleg recordings, so the Albums category itself is not entirely consistent. Cjc13 ( talk) 17:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Making consistency in one category tree at the expense of another is not an advance. You could argue for Category:Music albums but I expect it would fail as I don't think any non-music albums are categorised. (There is current opposition to changing 'Country albums' to 'Country music albums' on the rather bizarre reading that this is something to do with 'music albums' rather than 'Country music'.) I expect Category:Bootleg recordings would be renamed if nommed. Occuli ( talk) 21:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Suggestion Would Category:Music compilation albums be acceptable?-- Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Alternatively, since the term compilation is primarily used in relation to music and there is currently a cfd to move Category:Compilations to Category:Collections, would Category:Compilations be acceptable for just music compilations? Cjc13 ( talk) 09:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep as is. The corresponding article is Compilation album, not "music compilation album" or "music compilation". The two alternatives proposed are artificial and would sacrifice clarity for a very marginal gain in consistency. Pichpich ( talk) 19:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: See related discussion at Talk:Compilation album#Requested move. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 01:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Spal 1907 players

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:SPAL 1907 players. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 00:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Spal 1907 players to Category:SPAL 1907 players

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article name. Darwinek ( talk) 09:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Rename Per nom and keep the former as a redirect category. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename player categories should match the parent article. Big Dom 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Motion comics

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. May be re-created in the future if there is a rough consensus that it is needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Delete. 1) Small category covering animation crated from static comic book panels. While it is possible this will expand, it is not needed "right now." Also, the category name is a relatively new marketing term for a process that has been around for decades. J Greb ( talk) 02:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Weak keep I added two more, so it's a little bigger. You are correct that the term is a bit of a neologism and it's not strictly necessary to have it now, but if this catches on it's a bit silly to delete it in March and recreate it in July. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
- And that is crystal balling - if it's invalid or improper now, that is all that matters. If it were to be come common with many, many more articles on notable titles in 4 or 6 months time, then it would be reasonable to create, or recreate, it at that time. The deletion proposed does not include salting, and it can be overturned/reversed at a later time when the category may be valid or appropriate. - J Greb ( talk) 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep. This is what these things are. They're not comics and they're not cartoons. It is appropriate to categorize them by the name they have.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 02:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: WikiProject Comics has been notified. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete this is a very thinly populated category based on a rare format. It is possible that it really takes off in years to come but it is equally possible it dies or is superseded. We can return to this if it becomes massive and a category is needed but at the moment it could be dealt with in a rather small list on motion comics, a category just isn't needed at the moment. ( Emperor ( talk) 16:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)) reply
Delete: The category has a pretty insignificant reach, is based upon a relatively recent blip in utilization, and half of the links are to comics that are more notable for their published versions than their later adaptations. The Watchmen Motion Comic, I would even suggest merging into Watchmen under "Adaptations" due to its seeming lack of notability, much like Astonishing X-Men or the very bare Spider-Woman page. I agree that a list on the page for Motion Comics would be more appropriate given its limited number of titles (at this point a total of 6). That would also probably help out the Motion Comics page anyway, given how scant it is on content right now. Luminum ( talk) 21:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prestige format comics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 00:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded split of the category Category:Graphic novels using a term generally used as a marketing term by a single company. J Greb ( talk) 02:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: WikiProject Comics has been notified. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Weak delete, it isn't a child of "graphic novels" (to count as a graphic novella you'd need to have an ISBN attached which most prestige format comic books don't have) and while the term was created by DC it does describe a specific format (longer page length, usually no ads and a heavier cardstock cover) and it has been used by other companies, Marvel's The Transmutation of Ike Garuda and The Legion of Night being two I can think of. However, it seems a rather obsolete term (it is more a 1990s thing that seems principally used for Elseworlds titles and will, presumably be superseded by graphic novella) so I am unsure this really needs a category as it is unlikely to get much bigger, so while I can see an argument being made if this was a lively and growing format it is about as big as it is ever going to get so I don't see much reason to keep the category when the list at prestige format would suffice. That said I don't think it is a bad category so wouldn't lose any sleep over keeping it, I am just not convinced of it being very useful or widely used. ( Emperor ( talk) 15:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)) reply
Weak delete: I'm not convinced that the category is that useful, considering that it's still treated like a trade, albeit having more pages, larger formatting, and a cardstock cover. For all intents and purposes, it seems to be treated as a more expensive, nicer quality monthly issue rather than a graphic novel. Is there anything else that distinguishes a prestige format comic? If yes, then a weak keep, but if no, then I maintain weak delete. Luminum ( talk) 20:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
A prestige format comic book is longer than a usual comic book (typically 40-70 pages) square/perfect bound (rather than stapled) and has a heavier cardstock cover. I'd need to check if it has ads or not, I just grabbed Twilight (comic book) and that has none, which supports my impression they usually don't have them. It is a significantly different format from your average American comic book (and is closer to a graphic novella or a trade paperback, except for latter collects issues together and both have ISBNs so count as an actual book. Gotham by Gaslight and Master of the Future are interesting as they were released as essentially prestige format one-shots but with ISBNs so would be called graphic novellas these days but are both collected in a trade called Gotham by Gaslight and it is tricky to tell the two apart, other than the longer page numbers) and is worthy of a note in an article but whether that translates into a category is tricky to assess. ( Emperor ( talk) 00:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)) reply
Comment I can remember quite a lot more stuff being printed in this format than is currently on the list - off the top of my head Marvel produced " The Thanos Quest" (now added to the cat; it later had a non-prestige reprint), "Spider-Man/Kingpin: To the Death", "Untold Tales of Spider-Man: Strange Encounter" and "Squadron Supreme: New World Order", and many more. A lot of the cross-company one-shots like Superman & Silver Surfer, Green Lantern & Silver Surfer and Superman & Incredible Hulk were also released this way. In terms of publishing and continuity they were generally treated as one-shot specials alongside the regular series, whereas graphic novels tended to be rather more remote. Timrollpickering ( talk) 09:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Compact Disc and DVD copy protection

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:Optical disc copy protection. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 00:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Compact Disc and DVD copy protection to Category:Optical disc copy protection

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's kind of a messy category name to begin with, and seems arbitrary. I think this category can be extended to articles relating to Blu-ray and other forms of optical disc without any harm to the intended context. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 11:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. Since there is an article Copy protection, would a Category:Copy protection be sufficient? Cjc13 ( talk) 18:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply
That seems suitable to me. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 02:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename per nominator to allow inclusion of other types of optical disc. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: There is consensus to rename, but it is not clear whether Category:Optical disc copy protection or Category:Copy protection would be a better name. Additional discussion of the topic would be helpful. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Copy protection, as this would match the existing article Copy protection and would allow inclusion of any other forms of disc copy protection. Cjc13 ( talk) 13:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Optical disc copy protection. I'm not sure Category:Copy protection works here. Paper money in the US and other countries is designed to make copying difficult. Documents can have various features that indicate a copy has been made. Paper checks have features that make identical copies difficult to produce. Same for drivers licenses and passports. So, maybe as a parent category for this area that would make sense. If fact, I'm not even convinced about using the phase 'copy protection' since that is probably not completely accurate, albeit in general use. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Optical disc copy protection per above comments and, if necessary, create Category:Copy protection or some other name as a parent category for all such anti-copying mechanisms. Timrollpickering ( talk) 09:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Country albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename, as the arguments for over-disambiguating these categories were valid concerns that were not addressed. I would suggest in engaging in discussion with WikiProject Music and/or WikiProject Music genres to further examine this issue with all genre-related categories as these listed below to and come to a consensus as to where disambiguation would be best. — ξ ^xplicit 22:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Country albums to Category:Country music albums

Nominator's rationale: To clarify that it's country music we're talking about; see rationale in CFD below. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer)} 13:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Rename as per nom. Mayumashu ( talk) 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename per clarity. Occuli ( talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename as more clear. Orderinchaos 06:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Does it really clarify ? It seems to say that these are "music albims", but so are most albums. It does not seem necessary, as per below. Cjc13 ( talk) 11:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose per comments in the discussion below. "Music albums" is an unnecessary tautology. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: The argument against renaming has not been addressed (or even discussed), so I am relisting the nomination so that discussion can take place. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Country singers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename, as the arguments for over-disambiguating these categories were valid concerns that were not addressed. I would suggest in engaging in discussion with WikiProject Music and/or WikiProject Music genres to further examine this issue with all genre-related categories as these listed below to and come to a consensus as to where disambiguation would be best. — ξ ^xplicit 22:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Country singers to Category:Country music singers

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article country music and corresponding category tree Category:Country music groups, and make it clearer that all categories pertain to country music. (Also, there has got to be an easier way to bundle CFDs.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer)} 13:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Rename. That it matches the parent article is incidental - the meaning of 'country music' is clearer Mayumashu ( talk) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename per clarity. Occuli ( talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename as more clear. Orderinchaos 06:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename for clarity. I suppose the same reasoning would apply to Rock singers, wouldn't it? Jafeluv ( talk) 14:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose. I see the logic, and I see the scope for ambiguity in "Country singers", which could also mean singers from the countryside. But how far are we going to go down this road? Jafeluv points to Category:Rock singers, but Category:Classical musicians is also potentially ambiguous (does it mean popstars in ancient Greece?). And does Category:Electronic musicians refer to a box of wires performing on stage or a musician with an electronic instrument? Are Category:Traditional musicians performers of trad msuic or people who conform to some old stereotype of a musician?
I really suggest that we need to take a wider look at the consequences of renaming musicians-by-genre in this way. Category:Musicians by genre and Category:Singers by genre have a lot of sub-cats which would be renamed if we continue this, and I don't see why the nominator has singled-out country music. In practice, these theoretically-ambiguous genre names don't seem to be causing problems in categorising articles, so why the rush to create ugly tautological category names of "foo music singers"? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Oppose per BHG. "Music singers" seems wrong, as what other types of singers are there? Country is an established genre of music and should not need clarification, as for instance Category:Folk singers and Category:Pop singers. Cjc13 ( talk) 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. "Country singer" is much more widely-used. See 272,000 ghits for "country music singer", but 1,120,000 ghits for "country singer" ... and trying the plurals, I get 39,600 ghits for "country music singers" against 226,000 ghits for "country singers". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: The argument against renaming has not been addressed (or even discussed), so I am relisting the nomination so that discussion can take place. -- Black Falcon ^(
talk) 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:B-side collections

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 as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:B-side collections to Category:B-side compilation albums

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:Compilation albums. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Rename Per nom. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:B-side compilations to be consistent with article List of B-side compilations. Cjc13 ( talk) 17:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rename per nom. Consistency within Category:Compilation albums is a Good Thing. Occuli ( talk) 14:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 4

Western Asia

Category:History of the National Register of Historic Places

Category:Deaths by beating

Category:Appearances by Eminem

Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts

Category:Logic work group articles

Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09

Category:All Blacks

Category:Compilation albums

Category:Spal 1907 players

Category:Motion comics

Category:Prestige format comics

Category:Compact Disc and DVD copy protection

Category:Country albums

Category:Country singers

Category:B-side collections

April 4

Western Asia

Category:History of the National Register of Historic Places

Category:Deaths by beating

Category:Appearances by Eminem

Category:Drinking establishments on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts

Category:Logic work group articles

Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09

Category:All Blacks

Category:Compilation albums

Category:Spal 1907 players

Category:Motion comics

Category:Prestige format comics

Category:Compact Disc and DVD copy protection

Category:Country albums

Category:Country singers

Category:B-side collections

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook