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. Kbdank71 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Better name for the category contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that examples elsewhere on Wikipedia, like Category:Nokia and Category:Sony Ericsson should be followed. That would involve the old category staying (and everything that has been removed from it, being put back into it) and a new subcategory, Category:Sendo mobile phones, being created. Dark-Fire (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this, but with only the company article and the ones on the phones I decided that it was not needed and would be over categorization. Category:Sendo could be added again in the future if there were more articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Rename. Dark-Fire (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the other articles in the parent category although IMHO they really should all be listified and deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per Otto's suggestion and no time like the present. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A small category with no obvious potential for expansion. Jack Chick is just one person, and his individual publications are not actually that important in themselves; last time I AfDd one it was a shoo-in. WP:OVERCAT, I would say. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a company. --Lquilter (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think all items appear in its main article, so that the category serves little purpose. Some of the tracts are (or were) good; not sure about them all, but that is not a reason to keep the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2008 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Category only has two entries and appears to be a clear case of over categorization. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2008 (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. BencherliteTalk 19:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Domotics" gets 79K Google hits vs. over 12M for Home automation, "domotics" is currently redirected to "Home automation", and particularly in tech articles which have many non-native-English readers, category names should not be obscure. Also, there is little activity in these few articles, and many are already tagged "Home automation". Dank55 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Domotics is a neologism which redirects in any case to home automation. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My unencyclopedic theory is that a few academics were having a hard time getting a grant to study dishwashers and vacuum cleaners, but then they said they were studying domotics, and hey presto. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first CfD nomination, so let me know if I got the timing wrong...I moved everything from Domotics to Home automation early this morning, the category is ready for deletion. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you did get the timing wrong, but no harm done... Once you've nominated the category at CFD, you don't have to do the legwork afterwards: an admin will close the discussion after 5 days or so; if (as here, so far) the consensus is delete, then the admin will list the category for a bot to depopulate so that you don't have to. BencherliteTalk 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Illinois River Road: Route of the Voyagers[edit]
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. Kbdank71 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category includes highways which have part of their length included in the "Illinois River Road." In many cases this is only a small fraction of the highway. There does not even appear to be an article for the "Illinois River Road" (not to be confused with River Road (Illinois).) --EliyakT·C 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does the lack of an article violate a categorization policy I'm not aware of? I know it's redlinked, but that's mainly because it was easier to categorize than it was to write an article, at the time. —Rob(talk) 22:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article-ify and delete - put together a stub article for the road designation and list the constituent roads in it. The other similar categories should probably be lisitifed too. Otto4711 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - Listify and delete the list can them be expanded to an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are thousands of these in Southern California - named freeways that have differing numbers etc., we can't have categories for all of them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:09, 25 February 2008 (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 on feb 25. Kbdank71 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My only concern is that genre is a fairly broad term. Right now board games have been broken out into two main categories, by mechanics and by theme. Genre could encapsulate both of these. Perhaps that's what is intended, but I do think that the distinction is a significant one between how the game plays and what the game is about, thematically. Could we, perhaps, keep both the theme and mechanics categories as subcategories of the Board games by genre category? -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how mechanics could be defined as a genre. Boardgamegeek, for example, categorizes game by two things: subject matter and mechanics. So Monopoly is under the Category "Negotiation" and the Mechanics "Roll-and-Move". Roll-and-Move is pretty clearly not a genre for games the way "color" is not a genre for film.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what you're saying because it certainly is a genre. Genre is not just what a product is about. It includes things like technique and other aspects of design. I could talk about the auction genre or the roll-and-move genre, certainly. Here's Merriam-Webster's def: "a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content." I think it's broader than you seem to think it is. I agree that subject matter and mechanic should be separated. I simply disagree that genre is an appropriate term for that, due to it's over-arching nature. As I said, if we need to make a by genre category for the purposes of making everything look the same, that's fine, but I still think we should keep theme (or subject matter if you prefer) and mechanics as subcategories of that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree to that, but I don't think that there's an accepted use of the word "genre" in reference to board games when it comes to theme/mechanic. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Board games by type, which is something different than genre but these are types of games - some of which are overlapping, e.g. based on tv show, licensed, played at parties, and kids games could all encompass the same game - the Dora version of CandyLand comes to mind. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Buildings and structures in Kiev city[edit]
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. Kbdank71 18:09, 25 February 2008 (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. — CharlotteWebb 16:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. That the individuals were politicians of Germany is already implied by the inclusion of "Weimar Republic". Olessi (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - were there any non-German W.R. politicians? Otto4711 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the German Empire had encompassed many non-Germans, I imagine there were quite a few politicians with German citizenship who were not ethnic Germans, although I'm not aware of any off the top of my head. I see the category as simply concerning politicians of Weimar Germany; I don't see why their ethnicity would be relevant. Olessi (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if there's no useful distinction to be drawn between German and non-German W.R. politicians, deleterename per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, It's mostly coterminus with the upmerge category; it is otherwise unnecessary; and creates overcategorization. —Markles 11:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a good idea to me. Otherwise I want to start putting in food labeling bills. --Lquilter (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, unless this is adressing the green-ness of the paper on which they were printed.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Formal sections" is vague, and does not describe precisely what this category is for, which is a subcategory of Category:Musical form. RobertG ♬ talk 10:38, 19 February 2008 (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 as duplicate category. — CharlotteWebb 16:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete: duplicate category of Category:Belgian nobility. Only article in this cateory (Axel Merckx) is also listed in the more complete Belgian nobility one. Redundant. Fram (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The whole of the Category:Noblemen tree, created by User:Stijn Calle should be deleted for the same reason; they could be added here. Plus the only article in the Belgian cat is only the heir to a title, so should not be categorised as noble I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. unnecessary duplication. Sting auBuzz Me... 12:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt; these various "noble-x" trees keep getting recreated by nobility fans who have missed the preexisting structures. --Lquilter (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:08, 25 February 2008 (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.
