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) 05:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Sandbox albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are only two pages in the category, which I think makes it not notable. If there are more pages that could be in this category, it should not be deleted, but should be added to. pluma Ø 21:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Explicitly part of a larger scheme per WP:SMALLCAT and the guidelines of WP:ALBUM. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep as part of the bigger scheme of EPs by artist. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep – part of the large and long-established scheme Category:Albums by artist; but rename to Category:Sandbox (band) albums per Sandbox (band) and convention. Occuli ( talk) 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment Can we have the accepted exceptions to WP:SMALLCAT explicitly listed there? It might help to reduce CfD effort. Uniplex ( talk) 15:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist" seems explicit enough. (There are hundreds of similar schemes.) Occuli ( talk) 23:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• How does Category:Songs by artist explicitly define the hundreds of similar schemes that are accepted? (e.g. aircraft manufacturers as mentioned below). Uniplex ( talk) 12:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" - explicit explanation; "such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist" - example of one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Music and aircraft manufacturers are two cases of small cats being perfectly fine. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2011 OCT 27. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional Miami-Dade Police Department detectives ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After rm'ing all the entries for Dexter (as the real Miami-Dade was never called "Miami Metro" as used in Dexter), the category consists of 11 entries for CSI: Miami characters and two for Crockett and Tubbs from Miami Vice. As the franchises bear no relation to one another and have their own categories, and because it is overwhelmingly a CSI: Miami cat, this is obvious overcategorization. MSJapan ( talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Parallels Category:Fictional New York City Police Department detectives, Category:Fictional Los Angeles Police Department detectives, and Category:Fictional Baltimore Police Department detectives. I understand your rationale for removing the Dexter entries, but please don't remove entries before nominating a category for deletion.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - If I hadn't removed the incorrect entries, I wouldn't have seen how small the cat really was, and would not have nominated it if those entries were correct. Also, I would argue against parallelism because the cats you mention have over 30 entries apiece spanning multiple decades, TV programs, and films, so there's a lot of crossref space. This one has 13 entries for two shows set 25 years apart, and is overwhelmingly biased towards the later of them in a ratio of just over 5 to 1. Both programs also have their own franchise cats, while some of the entries in the other cats do not. MSJapan ( talk) 05:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Ventilator Facilities in Kentucky ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Categorizing hospitals according to the equipment they possess is a bad idea and a certain recipe for category clutter since most modern hospitals have a very long list of high-tech facilities. In this case though, ventilators are extremely common. The category was created specifically for Rockcastle Regional Hospital and Respiratory Care Center which appears to have a particularly well-known specialized ventilator care facility but categories don't really allow us to draw a line at "facility with ventilators" + "famous for this". Pichpich ( talk) 20:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• delete with a strong caveat. There are some facilities which are rare enough at times to warrant a category. When MRI technology was new there were maybe half a dozen places in the nation that had it, that's notable. Ventilators there are probably half a dozen places per county in the US. There are coming medical technologies that could be rare enough to be notable and special, but ventilation is not one of them. HominidMachinae ( talk) 21:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Even in such cases, I would argue that a category wouldn't be the right way of conveying the information. Using the MRI example, it would be awkward to create a "hospitals with MRI equipment" category only to delete it when the equipment becomes completely standard. I think a list in the MRI article or even a standalone list would be more appropriate. Pichpich ( talk) 16:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• delete A case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Obviously this information is going to change constantly and as Pichpich says, there's a good chance it will become the norm to have this equipment. Mangoe ( talk) 14:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The aircraft category has not been nominated here, so should be nominated separately.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Military equipment of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) to Category:Military equipment of the Global War on Terror

Propose renaming Category:Tanks of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present) to Category:Tanks of the Global War on Terror

Nominator's rationale: Proposed renaming per the CfD here. While the parent category for the war itself is appropriate, these military-equipment categories should have a slightly more generic name, as (as noted in the original CfD) the same equipment is used in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. and having a seperate category for each conflict could lead to nasty category pileups (and WP:OCAT). As the wars/conflicts/interventions are more or less related under the GWOT umbrella, the categories should be likewise. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• keep as is. There is no article named the Global War on Terror (other than a rename) and no category tree named Category:Global War on Terror so such category renames as proposed here would be an orphan. In any case, the 'Global War on Teror' name is more of a propaganda/political term than reflective of any facts. The cited CfD should not have been accepted since it is just as wrong. Hmains ( talk) 03:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

In that case, these two categories, along with the "Aircraft of..." category, should be deleted as overcatagorisation, as War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq, War in Libya, etc. are not in the least defining for the vast majority of these weapons systems. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

That could well be the case: these categories are thin on content. See if anyone else has comments here. Hmains ( talk) 03:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete these military equipment categories whether War on Terror or War in Afghanistan etc. They are light on content, but if they were filled up with all the equipment used in the war(s) they would be unwieldy. As with the Military Equipment by country categories where it seems to be agreed that the “by country” category should not be for “equipment used by the country” but just for equipment developed/manufactured there (except for articles on individual ships used by a country). List users of equipment in the article on the item or a separate list. See Category: Modern aircraft of the Australian Army and Category: Fleet Air Arm aircraft (Oct 7) and Category: Military equipment of the Philippines (Sept 29). Hugo999 ( talk) 23:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Per the above, I'll change my !vote here to Delete all three categories invovled. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:+44 albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale:There is only one album shown so that the category is currently unnecessary. Drift chambers ( talk) 19:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per Wikipedia:SMALLCAT, this is part of a larger scheme — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

*Note I took the liberty of formatting this nom myself. To the author: please change it as you see fit. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. One album by a side band which is now on hiatus does not make it a subcat of the group, which I assume is also a subcat of Blink-182. This is the sort of thing to which SMALLCAT applies, but in the sense of what to avoid. A side project on hiatus will likely never be populated with more than a few entries. MSJapan ( talk) 22:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Response The guidelines of WP:ALBUM explicitly allow for categories that only contain one article or even just redirects (e.g. Category:The Balham Alligators albums.) — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep as part of the bigger scheme of EPs by artist. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep – part of the large and long-established scheme Category:Albums by artist; but rename to Category:+44 (band) albums per +44 (band) and convention. Occuli ( talk) 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:!!! EPs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale:There is only one EP shown so that the category is currently unnecessary. Drift chambers ( talk) 19:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per Wikipedia:SMALLCAT, this is part of a larger scheme (note: creator.) — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• By the way This was inappropriate. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge with Category:!!! albums. In 15 years, this group has only put out four EPs (three of which do not have articles). Considering that the group has also put out four albums in that time, a much better alternative is to merge all their recordings into one cat and forget about distinctions of type. MSJapan ( talk) 22:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Response The guidelines of WP:ALBUM explicitly allow for categories that only contain one article or even just redirects (e.g. Category:The Balham Alligators albums.) So the other EPs should have redirects made. Plus this diffuses Category:EPs. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep as part of the bigger scheme of EPs by artist. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep as part of the bigger scheme of EPs by artist. This is standard. Occuli ( talk) 13:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Category:!!! albums. No need for this cat. Neutrality ^talk 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles 04:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Victims of repression ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this category should be deleted because there isn't any way to figure out who should be in it and who shouldn't. "Repression" is very vague and one person's "repression" is another person's "proper punishment". 76.201.156.37 ( talk) 18:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment A cursory look at the entries show they are all Romanian or Moldovan. I think the category was meant to categorize people censored during the communist era on those polities, but I don't know about their histories to verify this. I think if we were to keep this category, the inclusion criteria would be quite broad. Curb Chain ( talk) 18:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - indiscriminate categorisation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
• Delete Per above, but rename if there actually is some identifiable scheme of Romanian and Moldovan victims. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete Looking at a few of these articles shows a surfeit of Romanian political prisoner etc. categories, most of them IMO excessively narrow. This is obviously misnamed as such and vaguely so at that. I don't think renaming is a good idea at the moment given the likelihood of essentially duplicating what's already there. Mangoe ( talk) 14:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - subjective. Neutrality ^talk 18:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename for now to Category:Fantail helicopters, which seems to have been identified as the best of some bad options. Feel free to re-nominate if a better name is identified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Fenestron-using helicopters to Category:Fenestron-equipped helicopters

Nominator's rationale: No particular reason on this except that I just like the phrasing better.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Support - Never really cared for the original name, but couldn't think of anything better. This one sounds better but still not "right" - still better though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I know this is a rename cfd, but this is categorization by a part of the whole, and therefore it seems to be overcat to me. Also, I do not support the rename, as it's not really "equipped" - "equipment" can generally be removed or replaced (armaments, external fixtures, etc.), but the tail can't be taken off and replaced (AFAIK). Therefore, it is an integral part of the helicopter. nor is it something the helicopter "uses"; again, it's an integral part of the manufacture. MSJapan ( talk) 22:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• It's also a very distinctive and defining charactersistic - thus a logical and useful categorisation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - On further perusal (and I may be missing something here), isn't Category:Ducted fan-powered aircraft essentially the same thing without using the Fenestron trademark, and therefore a potential upmerge target? MSJapan ( talk) 04:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• That's a fair question, actually, but the answer's no. A ducted fan is a type of propulsion for a conventional aircraft - see RFB Fantrainer (better pic here) or XV-11 Marvel for examples of ducted-fan powered aircraft. A Fenestron (which is, while technically an Aerospatiale/Eurocopter trademark, pretty much like "Jeep" in that the trademark has been applied generically to the genre) is a type of ducted fan, but only found in helicopters, thrusting sideways as a fully-shrouded (=ducted) replacement for a conventional tail rotor, as opposed to thrusting aftwards for forwards thrust. The Fenestron/ducted tail rotor never provides forwards thrust, while a ducted fan in the sense of aircraft propulsion (and Category:Ducted fan-powered aircraft) always does. Now, that said, it's possible that Category:Fantail helicopters could be a potential rename target, using the "generic" (but less well-known) term for the Fenestron arrangement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• After further thought, I'll support Rename to Category:Fantail helicopters - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I'm down with that too.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure I like Fantail as it is not really used outside of the US. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Me either, honestly, but it reads better than "Fenestron helicopters" ( Defenestrated helicopters?) and avoids the trademark... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
      • The related article is at Fenestron not fantail so it doesnt have a problem with using the term. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Category:Fenestron helicopters then? None of the names really seem to "snap". :( - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
          • As a counterpoint (from the US), I've known what a fantail is for a while, but had to look up Fenestron when I saw this category name.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC) reply
            • As did I. I'd prefer the generic term. A lot of our categories don't have snappy titles, but that's not what they're there for, either. MSJapan ( talk) 05:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2011 OCT 27. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Tibetan Nobel laureates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is a narrow and non-notable intersection that only applies to one person and has no potential for growth. Tibetan Nobel laureates are not themselves "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". Although that one categorized person (the 14th Dalai Lama) does not identify himself by his nationality for obvious political reasons, any future Nobel laureates of Tibetan ethnicity likely would, making this almost an eponymous category. Quigley ( talk) 14:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete We have no cats on other ethnic groups. POV pushing and nonnotable intersection. Curb Chain ( talk) 17:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. In thinking about closing this, I get where the nominator is coming from, but I just can't do it. The Dalai Lama, like all other Nobel laureates, deserves a country category. But the only other ones that apply are Category:Chinese Nobel laureates and Category:Ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates. None of the categories for the Dalai Lama uses the word "Chinese," so I can't see how either of them applies to him. Like everything else with Tibet, I file this under "It's complicated."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia does not maintain vanity categories that contain only one article. I know that for BLPs we don't do categories for religion and sexual orientation that the subject does not identify with, but I'm not aware of a similar policy for nationality. In any case, the Dalai Lama actually identifies as a stateless refugee, not as some sort of "citizen of Tibet", so I see no problem with simply not putting him in any "Nobel laureates by nationality" category if putting him in the "Chinese Nobel laureates" category is unpalatable. Quigley ( talk) 19:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Mike Watt project bands ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Mike Watt (which, if this is deleted, would be too small to be sustainable), with no main article. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Mike Watt. There are a lot of entries, but so many of them are one-offs that the category is not as substantial as it might appear, and it actually might be good to merge them all into one good article somewhere down the line. MSJapan ( talk) 22:16, 9 October 2011 (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.