Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 21

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:Prime Ministers of Tibet. To deal with potential confusion related below, I'll add a hatnote to make it clear this title is unrecognized internationally.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tibetan prime minister to Category:Kalons Tripa

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a category for the people who have been the Kalon Tripa of the Central Tibetan Administration, which is the Tibetan government in exile. You could call this person the "prime minister" of the Central Tibetan Administration, but the main article is Kalon Tripa. It could be Category:Prime Ministers of Tibet to match other subcategories of Category:Prime ministers, though that would be a bit deceptive since the government is in exile from Tibet. The position was created in 2001, so the Kalon Tripa has never actually been the prime minister of Tibet. Only one person has ever held this position, BTW. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We do have Category:Prime Ministers of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as far as precedent for heads of unrecognized governments. The terminology is otherwise quite inconsistent. For the most part, where titles translate directly into prime minister/first minister/head minister (e.g. Başbakan, Premier Ministre, Perdana Menteri), the category name is Prime (M)inisters of Foo. In some cases, an alternative translated term is used, e.g. Category:Chancellors of Austria, Category:Minister-Presidents of Flanders— should that be Ministers-President?— while in others, we completely ignore the closest translation (no Category:Grand Viziers of Pakistan) or don't bother to translate (e.g. Category:Taoisigh of Ireland).- choster (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, though the comparison with the "Prime Ministers of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is a bit off wrt "Prime Ministers of Tibet". If we were to adopt the Sahrawi approach, the category would be named "Prime Ministers of the Central Tibetan Administration". "Prime Ministers of Tibet" is more comparable to "Prime Ministers of Western Sahara". If an English generic is generally preferred, I would be fine with Category:Prime Ministers of the Central Tibetan Administration. To call it "Prime Ministers of Tibet" would be factually incorrect, as would saying "Prime Ministers of Western Sahara". That may be why "Tibetan" was used as an adjective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Tibetan prime minister is more appropriate, as it may comprise both Tibetan in exile and Tibetan in Tibet. There is an article about a Tibetan prime minister from Tibet on the french wiki : fr:Lukhangwa. I guess it is only a matter of time before it exist on the english wiki. Then, category Tibetan prime minister will feet for it also. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is true that in the case of the London Poles, only those who were prime minister of the Polish government in exile while it it was recognized by any UN member are listed and categorized under Category:Prime Ministers of Poland. Independent Tibet is not recognized by any UN member. But: come on. It is recognized my millions and millions of people across the world, which is even better. And it is recognized de facto as an important entity by the government of the US and others -- it is a topic of discussion, for instance, when the US President and the Chinese President meet. This is not the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic we are talking about here. This is the major leagues. Kalons Tripa is a term which few people know. Per above, we should not rename it to Prime Ministers of Tibet either. We should leave it as it is. Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UN Security Council has repeatedly recognized the right of self-determination for Western Sahara, but it has never done so for Tibet—on that score at least, Western Sahara is even more "major league" than Tibet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Junior Classical League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete To my knowledge, aside from the American, National Junior and National Senior Classical Leagues, there are no other "Classical Leagues" in name. Further, the American Classical League (ACL) is the parent organization of both the National Junior and Senior Classical Leagues (NJCL, NSCL). As such, I find the category "American Classical League" more appropriate for these three articles and any articles related to them. To be fair, there were a select few other articles found under category "National Junior Classical League", a sub-category of "Classical_leagues", but only 4: National Junior Classical League state chapters, Certamen (quiz bowl), National Junior Classical League itself, and Ontario Student Classics Conference (OSCC), which itself is, technically, not affiliated with the National Junior Classical League (NJCL) or its parent, the American Classical League (ACL). There is a state-level NJCL chapter in Ontario, and though this apparently led to the creation of the OSCC, they are separate. To sum up, there were basically 6 articles found in two categories here, and the second category was a sub-category of the first. All of them would fall nicely under the single category "American Classical League". Why not keep things as simple as possible (while still logical and appropriate per Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc.)? Note: I was in the process of moving the 6 articles to the new ACL category when another user suggested I nominate the NJCL sub-categ for deletion instead of "depopulating it." I was merely being "bold" as is also suggested on Wikipedia. I had hoped this good faith reorganization did not need discussion, but here we are. LVClb1 (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To answer the above, the reason why we would have a separate tree for JCL and SCL is to allow their contents to be classified in the appropriate branches for youth and student organziations. The number of articles about JCL or SCL, however, is small and unlikely to grow, and so there is no current need for this level of granularity.- choster (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Classical associations and societies. — ξ^xplicit 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classical leagues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete UPDATE: Merge to Category:Classical associations and societies. To my knowledge, aside from the American, National Junior and National Senior Classical Leagues, there are no other "Classical Leagues" in name. Further, the American Classical League (ACL) is the parent organization of both the National Junior and Senior Classical Leagues (NJCL, NSCL). As such, I find the category "American Classical League" more appropriate for these three articles and any articles related to them. To be fair, there were a select few other articles found under category "National Junior Classical League", a sub-category of "Classical_leagues", but only 4: National Junior Classical League state chapters, Certamen (quiz bowl), National Junior Classical League (article) itself, and Ontario Student Classics Conference (OSCC), which itself is, technically, not affiliated with the National Junior Classical League (NJCL) or its parent, the American Classical League (ACL). There is a state-level NJCL chapter in Ontario, and though this apparently led to the creation of the OSCC, they are separate. To sum up, there were basically 6 articles found in two categories here, and the second category was a sub-category of the first. All of them would fall nicely under the single category "American Classical League". Why not keep things as simple as possible (while still logical and appropriate per Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc.)? Note: I was in the process of moving the 6 articles to the new ACL category when another user suggested I nominate the NJCL sub-categ for deletion instead of "depopulating it." I was merely being "bold" as is also suggested on Wikipedia. I had hoped this good faith reorganization did not need discussion, but here we are. LVClb1 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Update: removed category internal link. LVClb1 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Classical associations and societies, which intent this category duplicates.- choster (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Classical associations and societies is for professional organizations. American Classical League is the only article from the category under discussion which belongs in the "associations and societies" category (in fact, it's already in there). The National Junior and National Senior Classical Leagues are youth organizations; National Junior Classical League state chapters is obviously an extension of the NJCL; Certamen (quiz bowl) is a competition held at various levels (local, state, national) of the NJCL. These other articles are not professional organizations. I still feel that the newly created Category:American Classical League is more appropriate here. LVClb1 (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see any stipulation restricting the category to professional organizations. For most scholarly fields, there are not enough articles to justify separate branches, and in many, there are organizations which admit a combination of students, scholars, practitioners, and "lay" enthusiasts which defy such division in the first place. See, for example, Category:Literary societies, Category:Theatrical organizations, Category:Historical societies.- choster (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to "Merge." (see above) LVClb1 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support revised nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Horatio Nelson to Category:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are no other Horatio Nelsons of which I'm aware. The article title seems overdisambiguated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like one of those cases where sticking to the article name is a bit like overkill. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per M Selinker. Good grief - why on earth is the article at that name?? I thought we left titles out of article names. Cgingold (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I have requested that the the article be moved. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The aristocracy-philes are at it again. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Assuming that the main article gets moved. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. The name is ambiguous, which is probably why "1st Viscount Nelson" is appended to the article name. There is Horatio Nelson, 3rd Earl Nelson, and, of course, Horatio Nelson (horse). I would be inclined to think that the category should be named to match, despite what those above have said. Unless, of course, the article is moved b/c this is undoubtedly the primary usage, but I can't seem to see an actual proposal to do that anywhere. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I used {{db-move}} on the old redirect Horatio Nelson with a link to this CFD for support. The proposed move has already happened and been reversed because it was considered "somewhat controversial"! [1] This time I've proposed the move on the article talk page, to be added to WP:RM for discussion. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contribute at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson#Requested move to Horatio Nelson. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whether or not the main article is moved. No other use would warrant a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zahi Hawass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough here to warrant a category. Cgingold (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ernst Haeckel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norman Bethune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Courcelles (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Napoleon I of France to Category:Napoleon I

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Article was moved from Napoleon I of France in February; this should now follow. After renaming, I think the subcategories should be nominated to follow. Some use "Napoleon I of France" and some just use "Napoleon". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per main article. Beagel (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bruno Granholm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aya Ueto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Ocat, small. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary category. – allen四names 16:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dracula to Category:Count Dracula

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the lead article is Dracula, not the character article. The bulk of the material in the category relates to the Dracula "franchise" (for lack of a better term) as a whole, not just the character. The current name is a much better reflection of the contents. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per the above. Especially the fact that the term Count is used only occasionally, even in Stoker's book. The average reader may not even remember that he is a Count. MarnetteD | Talk 23:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 04:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dolls by character name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - nominated once previously, closed no consensus. I was mystified by this category then and I remain mystified by it now. There are dolls. Dolls have names. The fact that dolls have names doesn't mean we should slap every doll with a name into a category. I have no idea what the inclusion criteria could possibly be. The category description is of absolutely no help. The category serves no purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the person responsible for this, I don't think it's an useful category in retrospect. My reasoning at the time was that there are well known brand names for dolls, as opposed to generic types of dolls, but I'm not actually sure I'd thought it through. Mabalu (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify: brand names where a given name/character name is used to define a specific type of doll, such as Ken, Sindy, Kewpie etc, as opposed to a general brand name coverall such as "Barbie" (who is in herself a doll by a character name, but other Mattel products in the same line are also marketed as a Barbie adjunct, ie, Friend of Barbie.) Mabalu (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Doll brands as some are not in there already. I think that will be fine, clear and fitting enough, even if some are sub-brands of Barbie. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have added Category:Barbie to Category:Doll brands, which incorporates the Barbie-brand dolls (including Ken, Midge, etc.) into that category. I added the ones that weren't already in the brands category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Vehicle electrification. No clear consensus is reached, but the category doesn't currently describe its contents, so something needs to change. This seemed the simplest possible change, but another nomination might be possible.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electrification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems to be a place to collect electric powered vehicles. As such it probably duplicates Category:Electric vehicles. Articles already have parents in the correct area for the few I checked. I'll note that none of these appear to meet the definition in the listed main article, the modification of a system so that it operates using electricity. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep further reading of the main article Electrification finds the following statement: "Electrification of transportation (electromobility)[1] is the use of hybrid electric and all-electric vehicles instead of all-petroleum vehicles.[2]" The subcats and articles meet one or both of the two definitions. Electrification is certrainly the common term used to describe/categorize such activities. And the contents do/should not duplicate Category:Electric vehicles, which is a proper sub-category. Hmains (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then, the category name is clearly ambiguous. Maybe a rename to Category:Vehicle electrification and cleanup? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Electrification of transport or Category:Transport electrification. I would envision this category becomes the new umbrella, while Category:Electric vehicles is re-scoped much more narrowly to include only types of or individual electric vehicles. Around here, "electrification" usually refers to the expansion of the electrical grid, especially in rural areas.- choster (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to avoid transport/transportation in the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coal phase out (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. OC small for starters. Then what exactly are the criteria for inclusion? This appears to be about previous power plants. I did remove one advocacy group that pushes for many things including the elimination of large hydroelectric plants. All of the included material has other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a small category without clear guidelines for inclusion. Right now this category is about former coal-fired power stations but not all these power stations are decommissioned due the coal phase-out. Beagel (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The only article directly in it is a power station scheduled for closure but reprieved. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:John Oswald albums. Plunderphonics is not a musical artist; Oswald is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Plunderphonics releases to Category:Plunderphonics albums

Nominator's rationale: Per huge precedent, possibly speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not so sure - as it is placing under Category:Albums by artist, shouldn't it be Category:John Oswald albums or Category:John Oswald (composer) albums? Though the only other one with a specific page is Grayfolded. AllyD (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete all. Courcelles (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1000 Ways to Die (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:1000 Ways to Die episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Category is not needed to hold the episode list and the episodes sub-cat which contains only the episode list. It is highly unlikely that much additional material will be generated about this series. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Category:Television episodes by series is for articles about individual episodes, not a list. Occuli (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 and replace with a navbox. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strangers with Candy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is a small category named for a canceled TV series. It's unlikely that any additional articles relating to the series will be generated and the existing articles are all interlinked via text. Category isn't needed. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with navbox following many precedents; copy one from Category:Television templates. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 2010 AUG 13 CFD. Ruslik_Zero 12:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Business qualifications to Category:Business degrees

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The contents are all academic degrees; the current name is ambiguous and might be taken to imply professional qualifications. I do not think there is a need for a category that does embrace the latter as "business qualifications" ia vague and far-reaching, including various disciplines such as financial services and engineering. Fayenatic (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/comment as the category stands, things like Certificate in Business Excellence are not degrees, & one or two are not academic at all. Would Category:Academic business qualifications work? (or Category:Business academic qualifications)? Certified Business Manager is a professional qualification, if just being in business is a profession. Should possibly be moved, as should other more specific engineering etc qualifications/degrees. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, but most of the member articles are academic degrees; if the cat is moved, I would tidy it up afterwards.

If we were starting from scratch, isn't "business qualifications" too vague to be desirable as a category? It could have sub-cats for these business degrees, plus accountancy / financial services / engineering / IT qualifications, but could probably also hold most of the other current members of Category:Professional certification. I don't think it is useful.

In contrast, a category for business degrees is useful and clear-cut, alongside Category:Medical degrees and Category:Religious degrees. I could have just created it and nominated the current one for deletion, but I thought I'd let a bot do the work as there is a close match! - Fayenatic (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Courcelles (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Test hat-trick takers to Category:Test cricket hat-trick takers

Nominator's rationale: Really needs the word cricket adding, all other "test" articles have "test cricket" in them. Lugnuts (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - knowing nothing of cricket, Test or otherwise, is this really the sort of accomplishment within the sport that merits categorization? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• IMO, it would be equivalent in magnitude (but obviously different in many other ways) to Category:Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a perfect game. (By the way that name is a little ambiguous, does it include Major League pitchers who pitched a perfect game in the minors as well?) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few people who have done it relative to people who have played Test cricket as bowlers - it is quite a feat. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support name change to include "cricket" per nominator. Others may want to consider Category:Cricketers who have taken a hat-trick in a Test match perhaps. It seems overly wordy to me but more in tune with the "house style" for names here at CfD. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, 'Test' is not a term reserved for cricket alone, and does not automatically link itself to cricket for he who is not aware of the world's greatest sport. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Title definitely should specify "Test cricket", not just "Test". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and above comments. Harrias ^talk 13:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per nom. "Test cricket" it should be. Johnlp (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nom. A hat-trick is relatively unusal, so that this is a worthwhile category. It is where a bowler takes three wickets with successive balls. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Six of the seven entries were already categorized in Category:Turkish basketball players, while the seventh categorized in one of its subcategories. All entries were categorized in Category:Turkish expatriate basketball people in the United States. As such, there's nothing to merge and could safely be emptied out. — ξ^xplicit 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish NBA players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Intersection of non-defining characteristics with information already covered elsewhere, e.g. Category:Turkish expatriate basketball people in the United States. TM 10:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Turkish expatriate basketball people in the United States. (Most of the articles are in several redundant Turkish categories.) I couldn't find Category:NBA players (or similar) but in any case this is far too specific. Occuli (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• PS – I found Category:National Basketball Association players but it is mainly subcatted by club (perfectly reasonable) and not by nationality. Let us hope it stays that way. Occuli (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Upmerge to Category:Turkish basketball players and Category:Turkish expatriate basketball people in the United States.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 all. Courcelles (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following up this similar college nomination, these are all subcategories of Category:High school sports in the United States and should be named to match. As a side note, I don't see the difference between Category:High school football games and Category:High school football competitions; those could end up being merged.Mike Selinker (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the proposed name change for the "HS basketball games" category. Jlhcpa (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The odd Canadian one that might be thrown in can be taken out at some point. Mayumashu (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. Added "by state" and "rivalries" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Icelanders' sagas to Category:Sagas of Icelanders

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Reword category to match main article Sagas of Icelanders. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support The corresponding categories on the Icelandic, Swedish and both Norwegian Wikipedias are Islänningasagorna (in Swedish) or the equivalent, which would translate literally as The Icelander Sagas — admittedly not the sweetest sounding English, but Sagas of Icelanders is many times more common (if you put any faith in the number of results you get from a Google search) than Icelanders' sagas or The Icelander Sagas or any of a half dozen other permutations I tried. And there's nothing wrong with consistency (it is a "foolish consistency [that] is the hobgoblin of little minds.") — Robert Greer (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Icelandic sagas. This the term that I have always heard used for them in English. They are a well-known literary genre and so the title does not need to be translated from Norwegian. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 all. Courcelles (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Legal academics by nationality to Category:Legal scholars by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category, Category:Legal scholars, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 7#Category:Legal academics by specialty. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 all parents. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Charlotte Church pop albums to Category:Charlotte Church albums and Category:Teen pop albums and Category:Dance-pop albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per this recently closed discussion, this is a triple intersection (artist/genre/format). Category contains only one of Church's albums.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – but also into the other 2 parents. Occuli (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call. Nomination adjusted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to parents as it is small, without prejudice against better-populated intersections at this level e.g. this still-open discussion. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to follow up, that one's now closed as a "delete".--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This was created recently and deleted by Cydebot with reference to this prior CfD discussion of Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame. I acted on a request to undelete, as there was no discussion of this category and I do not think it is identical to the deleted category. Though this may be roped in under some of the arguments made at the prior discussion, I think the fact that this is for fictional characters makes many of the arguments distinguishable such that deleting out of hand, simply per that discussion, is unwarranted. In any event, if felt that this is close enough, then CSD G4 could come into play. Otherwise, I leave it to CfD regulars to review this on applicable policy and guideline. I am nominating this procedurally and take no position.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or turn into List as creator. I created it because I felt it would ease navigation (having to look through the hundreds of names at the List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame article for the handful. One of the arguments that carried the day in the 2008 CfD was that since (some of whom aren't very well known), it is a relatively minor honor. This is not the case for the few fictional characters that have received the honor; many are the faces of their respective studios or breakthroughs in animation, and almost all of them are very well-known. If the category fails, I'm sure there's a strong case for making this a seperate list Purplebackpack89 04:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: What with the bot and all, not all characters in the category have been tagged. A full list can be found here Purplebackpack89 05:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Apparantly, they're all there now Purplebackpack89 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and break out the fictional characters into a separate section of the existing list. I don't agree that the arguments against the previous category are all that distinguishable from this category. Category creator has a good point about locating the fictional characters on the main list so a separate table for them is warranted. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but listify per above comments. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because we deleted the parent Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame. Without a parent, it makes little sense to break down those with stars into subcategory types. No problem to create a separate list or a subsection within the main list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hybrid electric truck manufacturers to Category:Hybrid electric trucks

Nominator's rationale: Merge. OC small. How detailed do we need to split up truck manufactures? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – the parents are wrong: a manufacturer is not a truck. Correct parents would be Category:Truck manufacturers and a Hybrid one, such as Category:Hybrid vehicle manufacturing. Simplest would just be to delete these mac-cats, created at random, and inserted at random into category trees. Occuli (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can delete away. But this would probably add to the DRV work load. It is a pain to discuss these, but I think it is what we are forced to do. Now the nopetrol ones after some date can be shot on sight as having been from a banned user sock. And we have to remember the ones like Category:Microelectronics which have a chance to be retained. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is only one article in this category and this manufacturer produce every kind of trucks. It is also categorized into category:Truck manufacturers, which is sufficient.Beagel (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to having this deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Renewable materials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After over two years, this really does merit deletion as OC small. Add to that the fact that the name really leads to no clear inclusion criteria. That could explain why there is one article and one subcategory. I guess the lack of interest and use points to the fact that it is not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as small cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 05:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Microelectronics to Category:Electronics

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is another category by Mac that appears to be reasonable. But after almost 2 years has 1 subcategory and two articles. Something here tells me the community at large has not found a need for this one. I will point out that Category:Nanoelectronics is well populated. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate. A distinct field within electronics, from their own peculiar solid state physics to fabrication technology. The large and well-populated category:Integrated circuits, in my opinion, is not a proper replacement for microelectronics; it focuses on the products, rather than the research that made them possible. People like Jack Kilby, Bob Widlar and Donald Pederson are better categorized under science, rather than product, categories. Even limited to products, "microelectronics" and "integrated circuits" don't overlap: there are plenty of products that fit one category but not the other (like thick film filter assemblies that are "integrated" but not "micro", or discrete devices that are definitely "micro" but not "integrated").

  Disclaimer: yours truly received his first university degree in microelectronics. East of Borschov 09:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Was this category depopulated incorrectly? If you know of articles that belong, please do add them. Seeing what should be there can make the decision easier. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not watch any de-process, cannot comment on this. I struck my keep after looking at a modern British textbook that is #1 pick of Googlebooks ([2]). They define "microelectronics" as "digital systems built from one or more integrated circuits". This ruined my day- is this the brave new world devoid of analogue apps? At least Bob Widlar cannot see it anymore ... or can he? East of Borschov 13:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does that surprise you? We stopped using analog computers years ago. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Analog computers" - yes, "analog" in general - no. Raw electrical power remains analog, and so do human senses. East of Borschov 17:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking around the categories and articles here, it could be that Category:Integrated circuits will constitute the bulk of/all things that make up microelectronics. Any engineer comment? Hmains (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is correct, in the opinion of one engineer. The only question I had with the proposal was do we need Category:Integrated circuits in both Category:Electronics and Category:Electronic circuits. I decided it would not do any harm. Microelectronics clearly, for me anyway, belongs in Category:Electronics. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ran an inventory, too... here's the deal. The bulk of articles related to microelectronic technology and IC business in general is at Category:Semiconductor device fabrication which includes Category:Semiconductor companies but not the people of the trade (try tracing Category:Advanced Micro Devices people for example). These better stay where they are. Then, reduce Category:Integrated circuits to just that, products, excluding people, companies and technology. And then repopulated back because a lot of articles on ICs are categorized elsewhere (scan the whole Category:Electronics and more). All this makes poor old category:Microelectronics an unnecessary orphan. East of Borschov 04:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Thin-film silicon cells to Category:Thin-film cells

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I fail to be convinced that a category for mostly materials that are used to produce one type of cell improves navigation. This point is made by the fact that 60% of the articles are already in both categories. So this appears to be another splinter category with little usefulness and either unneeded or something. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support another unhelpful solar splinter category by banned user Mac/Nopetro. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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