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. delldot ∇. 05:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:10th Mountain Division (United States) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category's contents are not defined by their inclusion, which should be the standard for category use. Milhist does not have categories by formation components (think about it, logically we would have every article associated with the U.S. Army directly in one category, which defeats the purpose of the hierarchical categorisation system). As it is, the category is WP:RECENTIST; if done fully with all imaginable notable articles for the divisions since WW II, it would be completely unmanageable. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep "Not defined by their inclusion"? What? The articles in the category clearly relate to the 10th Mountain Division. I see no justification for deletion in this nomination. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• keep a perfectly ordinary category with perfectly ordinary reasons for existence: it aids in navigation to articlces therein: all about the subject of the category. If a number of articles exist for other US Divisions of any time period, then categories should be created if they are lacking. No problem whatsoever. Hmains ( talk) 01:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - of course -- This is a stupid nom. There are quite enough articles for a category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Really strange proposal there. Lost me. -- Marco ( talk) 16:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a rather clearly defined category within a rather well-defined parent Category:Infantry divisions of the United States Army. Why is that admins seem to have more trouble than most understanding how things are categorized in the real world and how they are categorized within Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• Keep: p b p 19:44, 13 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 05:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Christian church councils to Category:Church councils

Nominator's rationale: " Church" is an exclusively Christian word. Please rename all sub-categories as well. JFHutson ( talk) 21:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Not very bothered as creator. It helps make it clear it is all Christian councils, not just those of one particular church. Johnbod ( talk) 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Church as in parish or church as in denomination? Two very different things for the same word. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- This category seems to be for something ratehr more substantial than Parochial Church Councils, responsible for a single parish, but the governing body of each parish or other church might go in if changed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Not sure how "Christian" is helpful for this disambiguation. Local churches are Christian churches. Anyway, I don't care so much, it just sounds redundant and makes for long category names. -- JFHutson ( talk) 15:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep there are non-Christian groups that use Church, such as the "Church of Scientology" and the Church of Satan, so to claim Church=Christian and is thus redundant is actually incorrect. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:00, 14 January 2013 (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, with the possibility to recreate as a container category at some point if it's agreed it's needed. delldot ∇. 05:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Kurdish women to Category:Kurdish people

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't believe we have really discussed whether we are going to category every person by sex, by nationality and sex intersection, and by ethnicity and sex intersection, so virtually every biography will be in 3 categories in addition to all the categories they already have: Category:wo(men), Category:Fooish (nationality) (wo)men, Category:Xooish (ethnicity) (wo)men. Is this either necessary or desirable? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge In theory this category would be acceptable as a contained cat, with no bio articles and just having sub-cats like Category:Kurdish actresses, Category:Kurdish women writers and Category:Kurdish female singers. However since we do not have those, no reason to have this category, since it is currently being misused to directly hold articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge for now and allow of possibility to recreate as a container category at some point, per User:John Pack Lambert's comment Mayumashu ( talk) 09:27, 13 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 05:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu albums to Category:The KLF albums

Nominator's rationale: Same band, different name. Main article redirects to The KLF. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. We should only have one members cat per musical group (at the msot, not all musical groups need members cats, but there is no reason to have two for one gorup). John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:16, 11 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 06:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Kurdish men by occupation to Category:Kurdish people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need to break this out by sex. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep it is a proper holding category for its one content category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• keep This is part of an established pattern found by looking at the parent category Category:Men by nationality and occupation. No valid reason provided for its deletion. Hmains ( talk) 01:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Men are not women. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Given parent category. -- Marco ( talk) 16:37, 13 January 2013 (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. delldot ∇. 06:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Kurdish male singers to Category:Kurdish singers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need to specify by sex. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep it is standard to split singers by gender. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• keep This is part of an established pattern found by looking at its parent Category:Male singers by nationality. No valid reason is provided for deletion. Hmains ( talk) 01:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Split is standard. -- Marco ( talk) 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment This is an by ethnicity, not by nationality, category. It is odd that it is in a category by nationality. This problem should be fixed. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:07, 15 January 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Power Plants of India templates by state to Category:Power stations of India templates by state

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with the categorization of Indian power stations. Beagel ( talk) 18:31, 11 January 2013 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:The Amazing World of Gumball Censorship ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category created for single editors pages, all at afd & probably will be deleted. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- The three article appear to be about editorial changes made to The Amazing World of Gumball in various regions, but we do not have (or need) a category for it. At least two of the articles are up for speedy deletion. This shopuld go too. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Category is incorrectly named (these are self-regulated time and content edits, not censorship by any authority); at that the articles are filled with 'type what I see' OR and with the editor's articles up for probable speedy and WP:SNOW AfD's, this will be an empty and useless category soon enough. Nate • ( chatter) 04:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Marco ( talk) 16:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete the use of the term "censorship" in this case seems to amount to POV pushing. A network editing a show is not really "censorship". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:51, 14 January 2013 (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 delete G6, G7, C1. James086 ^Talk 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Films shot in Congo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I created this category but then I realized that there are 2 'Congo' so I created the Category:Films shot in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and now I'm requesting the deletion of the other category to avoid any confusion. Sofffie7 ( talk) 14:26, 11 January 2013 (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: merged. — Darkwind ( talk) 21:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Indian women actors to Category:Indian actresses

Nominator's rationale: The category tree uses "actresses," not "women actors."  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • No objection. AshLin ( talk) 14:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support Rename to match the other categories within the structure and to use the unambiguous term for female thespians. Alansohn ( talk) 18:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Ideally we maybe should create Category:Indian female actors, but that should probably follow a rename of Category:Actresses and its subcats. Since there are large numbers of non-adult females involved in acting, I really do not see the current name as worth while. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge -- Despite what Women's lib would have us believe, the feminine of actor is actress. I suspect that this is about an equal rights pay issue in Hollywood, which has propbably not penetrated to Bollywood. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge as proposed, for consistency in the name. Mayumashu ( talk) 09:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- Marco ( talk) 16:33, 13 January 2013 (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: no consensus to delete. delldot ∇. 02:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Brand New ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 11:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Methinks a lot of music fans just leap onto the categories bandwagon. No thought of what will go into the category. -- Marco ( talk) 12:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Category holds fifteen articles - not sure how that's too little content. Plus, WP:OVERCAT doesn't set a minimum for the number of articles a category should have; rather, it only states that a category, however small, should simply have the potential for growth, which this one does, considering Brand New is an active band.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep – category has plenty content already; deleting category would inhibit navigation and hinder growth of articles (which is certainly likely considering that the band is active, perhaps re-read article OP) Seb26 ( talk) 19:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete we only count direct content, and that is three articles. Albums and songs categories do not neccesitate having an eponymous holding category, so we should ignore those two subcats in considering whether to keep this category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Can you point me to the policy that sets a minimum limit for category content? I can't recall seeing such a policy. I also genuinely don't understand why an artist would have categories for albums and songs but with no eponymous holding category. Why intentionally make things less easy to navigate?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• If kept rename category and article to "Brand New (band)" to prevent it being populated with irrelevant new things. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've nominated the article for renaming, according to Peter's suggestion. See Talk:Brand New (disambiguation) -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 07:53, 15 January 2013 (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: upmerge to Category:Pokémon species. delldot ∇. 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Pokémon species by type ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Water type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Steel type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Rock type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Psychic type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Poison type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Normal type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Ice type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Ground type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Grass type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Ghost type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Flying type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Fire type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Electric type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Dragon type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Dark type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Bug type Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial, WP:INUNIVERSE designation. There aren't that many articles on Pokemon species anyway, so they can all be upmerged to the parent. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete all per nom. Add no value. -- Marco ( talk) 12:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment - At first, categories were only for those that had a certain amount(~10 or more). Then somebody decided to come and make the rest of the categories. So yes, Steel and Dark(which only have 1 entry each) should obviously not have categories, but the others were made with a purpose. _Blake ^{( Talk· Edits)} 16:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete unneccesary, overly specific calssification of articles by a fictional characteristic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:Pokémon (without keeping any redirects). The noraml solution to characters in a TV series is to merge all the articles into one article, after which a category is unnnecessary. While this may not be a TV series, the distinction is not great. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep the traditional types (Fire, Water, Electric, Fighting, Grass, Psychic), and upmerge the rest: p b p 16:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Traditional types? What is that? Why would you keep Electric(with 4 articles), and not Poison(with 10)? _Blake ^{( Talk· Edits)} 17:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Yes, because Electric was one of the six original basic energies, and Poison wasn't. <Crotchety>Back in my day, there were only six types of Pokemon</Crotchety>. Sorry for going all old-school p b p 19:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Oh, is that referring to the TCG? I never played much of that. _Blake ^{( Talk· Edits)} 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Pokémon species, not Category:Pokémon as Peterkingiron suggests.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per WP:POKEMON, all the article should be merged into a list, so there is no need for categories -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 07:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • As much as I don't want to get worked up about your comment and go on a rant, I will do it anyways... First off, "WP:POKEMON"(The Pokémon Test) was an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" arguement for AfDs in the form of "Pokémon have articles, so why not this". All of the Pokémon were then merged, other then a few select ~5, so that argument is no longer valid. Ever since around almost 3 years ago, various articles have been recreated using reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Some of the recreated are still quite lacking, and we notice that, but a good deal have been made that do. So I take offense when anybody says that "Every Pokémon should be deleted/merged", because it just shows that they have the highest level of ignorance. _Blake ^{( Talk· Edits)} 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps you would like to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pokédex then? Many fictional characters more notable than most individual Pokemon/species have been merged into lists, I see no reason for Pokemon to be exceptional in this. There are not so many Pokemon that need full articles (as opposed to sections in a list) to need such a hierarchy of categories. There exists "pokemon.wikia.com" and "bulbapedia" for your uses. -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 05:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • See, there you go with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again, and attacking the subject as a whole. We have found sources to establish notability for select articles(88 articles out of 649 species, but some articles have multiple Pokémon, so its probably between 100-110 species.) If you want to discuss individual articles, just start a discussion on the talkpage of the ones you feel to be weakest, and I am sure we can come to an agreement. _Blake ^{( Talk· Edits)} 15:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Forgot to comment on the matter of reviving the "Wikiproject Pokedex" proposal. I am one of the people who opposed that. I am not saying ALL Pokemon need articles. It is not an "all or nothing" situation. Some can be notable while others aren't. _Blake ^{( Talk· Edits)} 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • And my opinion is not an all-or-nothing proposal either. (even my first statement is not an all-or-nothing proposal, since it would likely involve multiple lists, thus not "nothing") I just feel that the threshold for needing an article (as opposed to having an article) is higher than what you apparently do. That higher threshold would mean that no category hierarchy would be needed, as all articles would be comfortably housed in a single category. -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 05:31, 19 January 2013 (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: no consensus for rename. delldot ∇. 06:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1) to Category:Wikipedia pending changes (level 1) protected pages

Nominator's rationale: Also Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2) to Category:Wikipedia pending changes (level 2) protected pages.

It makes more sense (to me anyway) that the level of protection would be together rather than split. For example, we don't have Category:Wikipedia protected pages (semi). It should be a relativiely easy rename because {{ Pp-pc1}} should be the one of the few (if not only) change required. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Rename both per nom. -- Marco ( talk) 12:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Nominator comment also helps if in the future we create subcategories based on the reason for protection (as with semi). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: If we're just arguing aesthetics and clarity, I think the meaning of Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1) is easier to understand than Category:Wikipedia pending changes (level 1) protected pages, and I like the sound of it better. If we're going to have the parenthetical no matter what (to use Callanecc's "Wikipedia protected pages (semi)" analogy), which I don't see any way around, then why disrupt the flow of the thought by sticking the parenthetical right in the middle? Incidentally, as a procedural note, since I don't feel too strongly either way here, {{ pp-pc2}} (now in use on four articles) would need to be changed too - it's only semi-protected, so anyone could do this, though. —  Francophonie&Androphilie^{( Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:50, 13 January 2013 (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) 03:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:American Music Award for Favorite Pop/Rock Album ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#AWARD and where the list (see American Music Award for Favorite Pop/Rock Album) in such cases is better than categorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete we generally discorage award categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep First off, this is slightly askew from WP:OC#AWARD, since that refers to persons and not albums. Over the course of his life, Paul McCartney has won innumerable awards, but McCartney II probably isn't winning a lot today. It's reasonable to conclude that an album will be given an award within a year or so of its release or probably not at all. And since there are only a handful of awards for albums that merit an article, I think it's fair that we could keep this scheme. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Albums can eventually be defined as "the Grammy-winning album" when referred to in reliable sources after it wins such an award. I doubt any of these albums in this category are ever described in the same manner for winning an American Music Award. This could lead to creating a category for every award category for every type of award, which is what WP:OC#Award is trying to prevent, whether for people, films, albums, songs, etc. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 18:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Don't agree with award categories at all. Should be done by list per nom. -- Marco ( talk) 12:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- it is an awards category. No need to listify as there is a list already. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:28, 12 January 2013 (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: no consensus on Category:Murdered American mobsters of Irish descent and Category:American mobsters of Irish descent (now placed directly in Category:American people of Irish descent; merge and delete the rest. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose delete

• Category:American people of Irish descent by occupation

• Propose merging

• Category:American comedians of Irish descent to Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American comedians
• Category:American boxers of Irish descent to Category:American people of Irish descent (already categorized in Category:American boxers by state)
• Category:Murdered American mobsters of Irish descent to Category:Murdered American mobsters and Category:American people of Irish descent
• Category:American mobsters of Irish descent to Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American mobsters
• Category:American religious figures of Irish descent to Category:American people of Irish descent (There isn't Category:American religious figures)
• Category:American writers of Irish descent to Category:American people of Irish descent (Already subcategorized in Category:American writers by genre)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Triple intersection of citizenship, ancestry, and occupation. Mayumashu ( talk) 00:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. There is no reason to have any of these triple intersections. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete and merge per nom. Triple intersection is the polite term. I just call it a fine mess. -- Marco ( talk) 12:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete a right fine mess. :-) Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• do not delete or change Category:Murdered American mobsters of Irish descent and Category:American mobsters of Irish descent. This nomination fails to discuss their parent which is Category:Irish American organized crime, which is a recognized subtype of American organized crime. These people and their articles make up what constituted that criminal organization. These deletions will not help Wikipedia navigation to these articles which is what categories are for. Hmains ( talk) 18:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Do not delete Category:Murdered American mobsters of Irish descent and Category:American mobsters of Irish descent per Hmains, but delete the rest per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep the mobsters (as not of Italian descent) and the murdered ones; Keep the comedians since they may be purveying Irish humour. I doubt the rest are useful. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep, and recreate Category:American politicians of Irish descent: Irish-American is the second-largest American ethnicity; there are thousands of bio articles on Irish-Americans on this Wiki; certainly enough to properly populate these and other categories p b p 16:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Ancestry, not ethnicity. Then there should one for Americans of English descent (the most common ancestry), of Italian descent, and of German descent, of Scotch-Irish descent, of French descent, etc. ?? Mayumashu ( talk) 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

For one, German is the most common, not English. For two, why the heck not? Your response smacks of being an invalid "other-stuff-doesn't-exist"/"slippery slope" argument p b p 14:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

English is but is not likely documented as being so, I'll grant you. There were categories of Americans by occupation and ancestry but they've been gradually upmerged over the last year or so. I guess some users think it should depend on the occupation, then the debate goes on as to which occupations. I prefer doing all occupations or none at all. Mayumashu ( talk) 00:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

This all just sounds like a personal preference ('I like it' or 'not') and thus has no place in any nomination or discusson here, which is all about how to best have and name categories so that their navigation use can help users find articles. Hmains ( talk) 04:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Especially Murderered American mobsters of irish descent. That's a quadruple intersection. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 17:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

So? If it's populated enough, it should still be kept p b p 00:17, 13 January 2013 (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.