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 as container category, and depopulate, along the lines of Category:English-language singers. There is scope for this to become useful by adding new sub-categories for English-language songs of countries where English is not the mother tongue, so I have started by adding Category:English-language Greek songs. I will leave the nominated category populated for four days in case other editors want to help create sub-categories and move entries down into them; on 14 September I will clear out what is left, leaving only lists & sub-cats. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: As I had previously commented on this CfD, I ought not have closed it myself. I forgot that I had commented, and did not even notice when I read the arguments below. I apologise for breaking the general rule. – Fayenatic L ondon 12:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:English-language songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Somebody is presently populating this category with every song sung in English by any singer, and, as such, it would be non-defining and fail Wikipedia:Overcategorization by about 60,000 members (there are presently 2100 plus entries including one instrumental with la-la-las only!). If it was intended, as I suspect, to be songs sung in English by non-english speakers it needs to be renamed to avoid confusion. In any event there are now so many members that starting afresh would be the simplest way to proceed. Richhoncho ( talk) 21:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment This is the English WP, so in my opinion it should go without saying that anything written or spoken would be in English unless otherwise specified. Nevertheless, Category:English-language culture is with us and growing.- choster ( talk) 21:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Response. Bit like ivy then, might look good growing up the wall, but if left unchecked will wreck the house. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 21:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-defining.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 07:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Choster and Homer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt with an explanation. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep the language of a song is a basic and very defining characteristic of a song. Since English Wikipedia covers topics that occur in languages other than English (such as the Russian National Anthem, or songs that are not in any language at all, but still contain vocals, or multilingual songs, etc), I don't see a problem with this sort of categorization. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 05:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It's WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • It doesn't seem to fall under any of the three criteria listed for that -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 07:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Common sense. As it stands now, as mentioned by the nom, the category has over 2100 entries - and that's merely scratching the surface of notable songs sung in English. At the very least this needs to be a container category - but how would it be split? "American English-language songs" etc. would be just asking for battlegrounding. The scope of this category is simply far too large for categorisation - on the English-language Wikipeida, a song being in English is not defining. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
        • A container cat would work. We could divvy it up by location of origin of the song, instead of dialect of the song. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 09:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• A container category of what? By artist (we already have that)?, By label (we already have that)? Where recorded (defining - not)? Where does a song by a multi-linguistic or multi racial band go (no idea)? At what point does classifying, say, every Bob Dylan song as "english language" become necessary or useful in the english version of Wikipedia (this is why I nominated the category)? I am curious to know how and why anybody would wish to use a category or container category with 60,000 odd entries other than a editor with a severe bout of edititis. So many questions! -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• If a song is French, is "French-language" a defining characteristic? If it is, then "English-language" is also a defining characteristic. If it is a multi-lingual song, then it is not an English-language song, so it would be categorized as "multi-lingual". Does English Wikipedia contain articles on songs that are not in English? If it does, then English is not a characteristic that every single article on songs on English Wikipedia has, so can be used to distinguish from songs that do not have that characteristic. What use is all this? It can be used with the category-intersect tool to sort out English-language songs by Swahili-speakers, or other sortings. How would you divide up the songs? The songs have a primary publisher, the record label to which the singer/songwriter is signed to that recorded it first (similar to how we determine if a book is British or American), the songbook publisher that published the first version of the song for the songwriter (similar to how we determine if a book is British or American), the first licensed recording by a singer of the songwriter's work (similar to how we determine if a book is British or American) ; Labels can record songs by different artists in different languages, so does not determine if the song is in English or Spanish or French or Arabic. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 12:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Your argument is suggesting that, say, Category:Articles containing Japanese language text should replicated for English text as it exists for Japanese text! It is notable that, say, The Beatles, recorded songs in French and German, but not that they recorded songs in English! Nobody is suggesting that other language songs categories should be deleted. We are only talking about the English-language WP. Thanks for replying. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• No I am not. That is an administrative category, and not a content category. Category:English-language novels is the equivalent of what this category under nomination does. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 12:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Category:English-language novels is really standing in for Category: English-language novels by country. That doesn't seem to be the intent here. Mangoe ( talk) 15:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Which just points out that this can be converted to a container category, but categorization by language of the work is something that is done on Wikipedia even for English, as shown by the novels category. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close You should suggest that the entire scheme of Category:Songs by language be deleted—why single out English? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF, and it's been thoroughly explained above why English is "singled out" - on the English wikipedia, a work being in English is not defining. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Response I fail to see how that's a reasonable assumption. Why is it since I'm an English speaker I should think that these works were composed in English? Note all of the other categories of English-language media as well (e.g. Category:English-language films.) — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Since this is the English WP, the default assumption is that categories will be English language. This would be suitable as the parent-only category to a larger tree, but I cannot see how the next level down would be constructed. CAtegories are a navigation aid, but a category as large as this is useless for that purpose. We deleted a similar "index" of biographic articles some years ago; possibly a list article, rather than a category, as not useful. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment songs are credited to songwriters. So we can categorize by dividing up with songwriter category equivalencies. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 23:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep the language of a song is defining. There is no reason to assume that most songs will be in English. In general this category should not be applied to songs not originally in English. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It's reasonable to assume most songs with articles on en.wiki will be in English though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • No that is not a resonable assumption. Inclusion is supposed to be based on the notability of the song, and that is not a function of the language it was in. Right now the English wikipedia is hopelessly English-done things centric, but I at least hope that the day will come when it will have become the truly international in scope encyclopedia it is supposed to be. I will not let us create categories that perpetuate are parochial views. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Why? Can anyone explain to me why we would assume that a piece of media is in English because it is being discussed in English? Where did anyone get this idea? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply
        • WP:COMMONSENSE... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• I note that Category:English-language singers, which is specifically for non-native English speakers would be good place to look for a good example of WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 14:22, 9 September 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:78rpm record labels ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This and Category:Cylinder record producers‎, with only 2 articles, are the only children in Category:Record labels by format. What record formats were used is more an issue of technology available over time then something defining for a company. If needed, convert to a list and show the years the company produced records in that format. Also, I wonder how many companies produced records in 78, 45 and 33 1/3 formats. I suspect a few. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep According to WP:CAT, the purpose of categories is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. There are editors/readers who are specifically interested in articles about 78rpm records, and who may not want to have to wade through the List_of_Record_Labels, currently dominated by "indie" Internet-only labels, or companies to find articles they are interested in. A list showing what years a company produced records in a given format would provide for much unsourced speculation, as this is not precisely known for many companies (last known 78 issue for a given company is a hot topic of discussion for some 78rpm collectors); you just wouldn't be able to find many reliable sources for this information. Lots of speculation in blogs and self-published articles, yes. What is wrong with giving editors/readers with an interest in "vintage recordings" an easy way to navigate to those articles which they seek, and potentially have the expertise to contribute? 78.26 ( talk) 21:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

further comment. The category was not intended to imply that these companies produced only 78rpm records. Perhaps a re-name to something like "Record Companies producing 78rpm discs" or some such would be better. 78.26 ( talk) 21:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As Vegaswikian notes, the style of record produced is a product of technology at a time and not a defining characteristic of a record label. It would be equally silly to have Category:Movie studios whose movies were produced on VHS cassettes. Reso lute 00:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete All this category means is record labels that were trading when 78s were the viable medium for selling records, as such it is a repeat of record companies establishment by year. I also note that the Conqueror Records article states, The record sleeves state that the proper playing speed for Conqueror Records is 80rpm. so there is an argument that doesn't belong in this category. My opposition to this category should not deter anybody from creating an article, fully referenced, about the rise, the fall and the players in the 78 story.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 04:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment The record companies established by year is too specific and cumbersome to navigate to be of much use to those who would wish to edit 78rpm related articles. I believe that 78rpm discs are a defining charactaristic because of the number of collectors and researchers who collect the format itself, rather than by music genre, in ways that are not applicable to collectors of vinyl or CDs. By the way, Richhoncho makes an astute observation regarding speed, as 78.26 rpm (North America, it's very slightly different in 50 Hz countries) was not standardized until the late 1920s. Pre 1910 discs speeds are all over the place between 70 and 90 rpm, American Record Company discs tend run at about 72 rpm for instance. They are still called "78s" in general terms. I could go for re-naming the category "78rpm-era record companies", but the problem is that the 78rpm era is generally defined as 1888 to 1960. It's a bit fuzzy, because except Berliner there were very few disc manufactures before 1901, all the major labels had ceased producing 78rpm discs by 1958 for "pop" releases, childrens records were commonly pressed as 78s until about 1964, and one company that deserves an article (Red Raven, mentioned in Praxinoscope), produced 78s in the United States until 1972, and in other countries where electricity service was often unavailable or spotty, 78s were also produced much later. I wish to be collaborative and not combative. I am not trying to be "silly" nor am I trying to be inflexible. My goal is to help those editors interested in 78rpm-related artices, and there are a few of us, "quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics". 78.26 ( talk) 15:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Response. Hi 78.26. I note that 78rpm is a redirect to gramophone record, there's no article for 78rpm record labels, all of which you could address. Please take my responses to this nomination as an encouragement that WP deserves better than an arbitrary category. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- This is largely about a historic era. Before the introduction of vinyl c.1950, all records were 78 rpm, so that all pre-1950 record labels will belong. There was then a period of technological change when wax records continued to be produced for those who had not yet bought the (relatively expensive) equipment to play LPs and EPs. This is not a useful category. Labels established by decade and and those disused by decade will be far better. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Not that it affects this discussion, but not all records before 1950 (you're actually thinking 1949) were 78s. There were cylinder records, of course. Pathe made records at 120 rpm. The 16" movie soundtracks of the late 1920s and early 1930s that ran at 33rpm, as well as radio transcriptions, are neglected. There was "Victor Program Transcription" of 1931 - 1933, an early attempt to bring 33rpm records to the general public (great idea, bad timing). There was even an attempt at a linear velocity record in the 1920s. This paragraph for educational purposes, not argumentation. 78.26 ( talk) 15:05, 27 August 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Entourage (TV series) images to Category:Screenshots of television
• Propose merging Category:Ghost Whisperer screenshots to Category:Screenshots of television

Nominator's rationale: Single-file categories that are best merged into the parent, as there are not likely to be additional screenshots meeting NFCC to be added. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 23 August 2012 (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, without prejudice either way to the creation of other categories for bootleg recordings. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Bob Dylan bootleg recordings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: One two albums and a main article--upmerge — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I note that one of the members of this category Great White Wonder is also a member of Category:Trademark of Quality compilation albums which has one member, and that category is a member of Category:Trademark of Quality albums, which again has only one member. These were created by the nominator of this nomination. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 20:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment Right--I don't understand your point. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Response. My comment is that you nominate categories with 2 members for deletion (there were more members but you removed them!) whilst at the same time create categories with only one member. I do trust you can explain this, because I can't. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• WP:SMALLCAT has an exemption for established category trees. If it's a broad tree, such as aircraft by manufacturer, for instance, even a single-article category is appropriate and allowed. Category:Bootleg recordings, however, is not a broad and established category tree - therefore the WP:SMALLCAT exemption does not apply in this case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The significance of Bob Dylan bootlegs is established, the deletion nomination (by the same nominator as this) for the main page looks like a speedy keep with a flawed nomination. There is potential growth for this category, it may be emptier at the moment because official releases have supplanted the bootleg versions (Live at the Royal Albert Hall, anybody?). Thanks, Bushranger for your response, I had hoped Justin might answer, but it doesn't like he will.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Response Bushranger is right. There is no established tree for Category:Bootleg recordings by artist, but there is a huge one for Category:Compilation albums by record label. It's a very straight-forward application of WP:SMALLCAT. The prospect for growth isn't enough of a rationale to keep a category and that is true of virtually any category that we could conceive. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Thanks. Accept this as justification. Not sure I would categorize a bootleg seller as a record label, but that might be for another day. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 06:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep; while small, upmerging would have the problem of categorising these under "Bob Dylan albums", which would give the misleading impression of them having the same status as the "real" albums in that category. Retaining the subcategory avoids confusion. Andrew Gray ( talk) 22:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Response Then do you propose making an "[X] bootleg recordings" category for every artist that has a bootleg recording article? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:53, 13 September 2012 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Songs written by Junior Walker ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, doesn't seem likely to expand. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 19:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep – part of Category:Songs by songwriter, defining characteristic of a song. Oculi ( talk) 23:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep - needs expanding not deleting.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 07:27, 24 August 2012 (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 to "based on" in all cases; revisit individuals if necessary. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Conan the Barbarian games to Category:Video games based on Conan the Barbarian
• Propose renaming Category:Frankenstein video games to Category:Video games based on Frankenstein or Category:Video games inspired by Frankenstein (Past CfDs suggest "Foo inspired by bar" is discouraged, but parent is Category:Works inspired by Frankenstein)
• Propose renaming Category:Sherlock Holmes games to Category:Video games based on Sherlock Holmes or Category:Video games inspired by Sherlock Holmes (See above; parent is Category:Works inspired by Sherlock Holmes)
• Propose renaming Category:The Hardy Boys video games to Category:Video games based on The Hardy Boys
• Propose renaming Category:Middle-earth games to Category:Games based on Middle-earth (Parent is Category:Works based on Middle-earth)
  • Propose renaming Category:Middle-earth video games to Category:Video games based on Middle-earth
• Propose renaming Category:Nancy Drew video games to Category:Video games based on Nancy Drew
• Propose renaming Category:Oz (franchise) video games to Category:Video games based on Oz (franchise)
• Propose renaming Category:The War of the Worlds video games to Category:Video games based on The War of the Worlds
• Propose renaming Category:Where's Waldo? video games to Category:Video games based on Where's Waldo?
• Propose renaming Category:Zorro video games to Category:Video games based on Zorro

• Nominator's rationale: The various discussions here suggests that "Foo based on Bar" is the preferred format for this sort of thing; and, indeed, the parent category itself here uses the "Video games based on..." format. Therefore I believe that it would be best for these categories to follow that clear format. Note also the "flip side", as it were, with the format of subcategories of Category:Novels based on video games being uniformly Foo based on Bar. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support. This looks like a reasonable way to continue an existing pattern down the tree of subcategories. Actually with all these fictinal characters and worlds, "Foo games" could even be mistaken for a category of in-universe games from a certain setting. De728631 ( talk) 11:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:26, 27 August 2012 (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: speedy rename. Erronious prior renaming was probably the result of a slip of the fingers when instructing the bot; no need to wait to fix it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Films based on works by Edgar Allen Poe to Category:Films based on works by Edgar Allan Poe

Nominator's rationale: His name was Edgar Allan Poe, not Edgar Allen Poe. This used to be titled correctly, and for some reason a bot renamed it to the incorrect name last November.   Mogism ( talk) 09:17, 23 August 2012 (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 to Category:Miami metropolitan area. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:South Florida metropolitan area to Category:Miami – Fort Lauderdale – Pompano Beach metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: This is a somewhat complex naming case. The main article is at Miami metropolitan area, but the official name of the region is "Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area". "South Florida metropolitan area" may be WP:COMMONNAMEish but seems too ambiguous - which one? Naples? Fort Myers? - but "Miami metropolitan area" seems too restrictive. One subcat, "People from...", uses the proposed naming which I believe strikes a balance between ambiguity and overpreciseness. Subcats would be speedied if this passes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Prefer rename to Category:Miami metropolitan area to match main article, or maybe split into cats for the different major cities. I am wary of too much reliance on these census agglomerations; they tend to change over time and particularly in a case like this, I suspect that people outside the census would divide things up differently, in particularly splitting Miami from Fort Lauderdale. There is an ongoing problem in Wikipedia of using the census as our definitive gazetteer, I would guess because one can get definite population numbers on CDPs but not on smaller places; this example shows how problematic that authority is. Mangoe ( talk) 14:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I guess the question is, what is the intended focus of the category? Given that the main article is at Miami metropolitan area that rename could make sense. Using the census names is problematic for many reasons, but on the other hand without outside sources for a given name and a clear definition of what is included, are we moving into WP:OR? I'll point out that we see this in other places as well since the census bureau in the past tended to classify by counties, or counties and neighboring related small population centers. So as areas grew, some of the census areas tended to be coterminous with counties and were split over time. One solution could be to rename to Category:Miami metropolitan area per Mangoe and make it a parent category for the cities mentioned above. But given that the area covers three counties and at least 5 major cities I'm not sure that the parent category idea would work unless it was restricted to the three counties. Also, does anyone know when the census bureau will be changing their definitions? When digging into one of these in the past, the definition changes seem to happen about 2 or 3 years after the census. My position at this time is unsure but leaning to supporting Mangoe. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Miami metropolitan area. The main article arrived there just a few months ago after discussion at Talk:Miami metropolitan area#Requested move. OMB or Census definitions of metropolitan areas are not always the most reliable— state government economic or environmental divisions may be more accurate as well as more stable— and in any case, almost no one ever uses the lengthy governmental names. I have no objection to retaining South Florida metropolitan area if the main article is returned there, as the names of regions are just names, not survey markers. Northern Virginia actually excludes the northernmost part of Virginia, and Southern Maryland the southernmost part of Maryland. By the same token, a Brooklyn resident would never say she lived on Long Island, however true that is to a geographer.- choster ( talk) 21:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Note: I'd be alright with Category:Miami metropolitian area if it isn't thought to be confusing (since, as pointed out, it included a heck of a lot more than just Miami!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Miami metropolitan area. The reason the main article was moved was because "South Florida metropolitan area" is a made-up construct that doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. It's not a common name, it's not a useful descriptive title, it's just a confusing mess. "Miami metropolitan area" has problems, to be sure, but it's substantially better than the awkward, unused construct "South Florida metropolitan area".-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 21:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Miami metropolitan area per Mangoe and others. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:46, 3 September 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Central Florida ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Sole article already categorised in parent Category:Regions of Florida. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 23 August 2012 (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 to Category:Barrier islands of Florida. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Longboat Key, Florida ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Two-article category with interlinked articles that has little chance for expansion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - I just added one other item, and tried for a second. Does that help? If not, naybe it can be merged into Category:Barrier Islands of Florida, or some category like that. ----DanTD 21:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's veerrrrrrrrry borderline...probably still WP:SMALLCAT. Wouldn't object to a merge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 27 August 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Egmont Key State Park to Category:Florida state parks

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Single-article category that is not part of a category tree and has little to no potential for expansion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Strong Support - I can definitley go with this one, and it reminds me of the time some other user created a category just for Windsor, Vermont (Amtrak station) a while back. Really, I'm not kidding! ----DanTD 22:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. There is no reason to have single-article categories for state parks. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:28, 27 August 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Categorisation of roads by designation as part of this highway - which is not notable enough to be categorised in the context of the roads; the information is adequately conveyed in the main article for the category, which is already appropriately categorised elsewhere. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not needed. Dough 48 72 15:19, 23 August 2012 (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: withdrawn. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Bridges in Seminole County, Florida ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - only one article in the category that is not a well-established tree, with little chance of further expansion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment I don't know about little chance of further expansion, because there are at least three other potential bridge articles that can be written which would deserve this category, maybe more. You can see some of them here. ----DanTD 14:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, more than I'd thought - I count at least four others. So I'm withdrawing this one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:25, 23 August 2012 (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: withdrawn. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Sports in Florida by county to Category:Sports in Florida

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded level of categorisation; there is only one sports-by-county-in-Florida category, and it can be placed directly under the main parent cat. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Question Was there some plan to subdivide this into other counties? It would appear that there is some potential to create a Sports in Polk County, Sarasota, County, Manatee County, etc. category. ----DanTD 14:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No idea. If you think the tree's valid, though, go ahead and create them and I'll withdraw this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I just started one, and there's more to come. ----DanTD 21:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice work - withdrawing this nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 25 August 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who support President Bashar al-Assad ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Divisive political support/oppose category. Extensive, unanimous precedent for deleting such categories here. Does not help Wikipedia or help foster collaboration in any way to maintain this category. VegaDark ( talk) 06:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Does not aid collaboration. Reso lute 00:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete we do not categorize as supports of x, whether it be ideas or people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who like Stave Puzzles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly-narrow scope. This category is for users who like Stave Puzzles, a puzzle company with only one article that could be used for collaboration. Collaboration better accomplished on the talk page. Only one user despite being created almost 4 years ago. Finally "who like" does not imply a collaborative function. I like lots of things I'm not interested in collaborating on. VegaDark ( talk) 06:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (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 to Category:Orlando City U-23 players. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Central Florida Kraze players to Category:Orlando City U-23 players

Nominator's rationale: The Central Florida Kraze soccer club was renamed before the 2012 season as Orlando City U-23. As this is the same club by a new name, the category is a duplicate and should be merged to the current name's player category. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Reso lute 00:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment/Idea: so players over 23 who played for CFK are now to be described as players of an under-23 team? Seems a bit odd. My suggestion would be to keep the CFK player cat, add players who stay on to both the CFK and City U-23 cats, and have the CFK players housed inside the City U-23 one. Malpass⁹₃! ( what I've been ^up to/ _drop me a ^___) 17:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I'm pretty sure CFK was always a U23 club? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • There's no mention of that in the CFK article, but if you can find a source that states it, then by all means disregard my previous comment. Malpass⁹₃! ( what I've been ^up to/ _drop me a ^___) 12:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Aha, found it. The Kraze played in the USL Premier Development League, which is "for players under 23". [1] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply
        • That source (to me at least) seems to say that the team is under-23, not that the league is. Malpass⁹₃! ( what I've been ^up to/ _drop me a ^___) 00:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply
          • "The Portland Timbers U-23s will play in the United Soccer Leagues' Premier Development League for players 23-years-old and younger. " [2] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply
            • Good enough for me. I now definitely say merge. Many apologies for being such a pedant on this by the way. Malpass⁹₃! ( what I've been ^up to/ _drop me a ^___) 01:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply
              • Not a problem at all - it's good to be sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom and Malpass93. Mentoz86 ( talk) 12:00, 1 September 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Miami FC to Category:Fort Lauderdale Strikers

Nominator's rationale: Miami FC was moved and renamed before the 2011 season, becoming the latest incarnation of the Fort Lauderdale Strikers. Therefore this category is now a duplicate/redundant one. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete Category:Fort Lauderdale Strikers already exists, so right now the best option would be to just get rid of the Miami FC category. – Michael ( talk) 21:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • But the upmerge would ensure the articles in the Miami FC category would be properly categorised, which a deletion would not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Really? I never knew that. I've been on wikipedia for like five years, and still I have a lot to learn. I guess you do have a point. – Michael ( talk) 03:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per Bushranger's rationale. Malpass⁹₃! ( what I've been ^up to/ _drop me a ^___) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Space simulation narrative-based game ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Rather nebulous and possibly made-up intersection that seems to be of the sort that "hey, this game has X, and Y in it, that should be called Z". Google search for the term appears to turn up nothing but Wikimirrors. WP:OC. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm not really getting it from the category's introduction text, and noting there is no tree of "narrative-based" games. Tim! ( talk) 06:06, 24 August 2012 (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/merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Kaiser Wilhelm II Land geography stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very sparse population of even the permanent cateogry ( Category:Kaiser Wilhelm II Land). Propose deleting category and upmerging template (to Category:Antarctica geography stubs). No prejudice against category recreation, if 60 articles found for template. Dawynn ( talk) 02:56, 23 August 2012 (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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:2012 in amusement parks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:2011 in amusement parks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are the only two in the tree. They also contain mostly rides which are not always at parks. If we really want to keep this type of structure, then Rename to Category:2012 in amusement rides and similar. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:01, 23 August 2012 (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 - C2C as the only sub-subcat of Category:Heavy metal subgenres not using "Y X" format. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Subgenres of black metal ---> Category:Black metal subgenres - other genre categories are styled this way Lachlan Foley ( talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Note. The category page is not tagged. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I've now tagged it. And I support the change. De728631 ( talk) 11:58, 23 August 2012 (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.