Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 20

< August 19	August 21 >

August 20[edit]

Category:World record holders[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: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 13:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no definition as to who purports to certify anything is a record, what the record is of or for, and whether or not the record is anything sought after (world record for longest prison term? worst pollution?) and many "world records" are susceptible to interpretation (which film holds the world record as the most honored?) or are sufficiently narrowly defined (the largest farm tractor - as opposed to any other kind of tractor) or are not really "world"- but limited to the league in which the accomplishment was done (the most home runs in MLB, the most yards passing in the NFL), or subject to criteria not universally adopted (what is the world standard for eating hot dogs: is it how much you can cram down in a fixed amount of time, or is it how fast you can eat a fixed number of dogs? and who says so). These things have nothing meaningful in common except that someone contends that they have a "world record" in something: so Usain Bolt (a sprinter), Big Bud 747 (a tractor), Guiding Light (a tv show), Dominic "The Doginator" Cardo (eats lots of pickled cow tongue fast), Bluey (Australian cattle dog) (a dog that may have lived 29 years, but whose lifespan and record cannot be verified according to the article), get dumped in this catchall category from which one may naviguess among them to what purpose. Listify according to accreditation (if such exists) if that's useful, but this category is not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BUT split. This ought to be a parent category only. The individuals should be sorted into categories according to the field of endeavour. For example, I do not see an "athletics" (or "track and field") subcat, which ought to contain some of the most important. When this is done, it should be possible to see which are trivial entries and elimonate them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Peterkingiron. This should be the top level category. Lugnuts (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, only as container category - per the concerns expressed in the nomination over inclusion criteria and definitional issues. Otto4711 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not split. Because per definition, there can be only 1 world record holder per discipline, and we should definitely not make categories for just 1 article. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2009 (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:Women rabbis[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: Keep. --Xdamr^talk 17:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women rabbis to Category:Female rabbis

Nominator's rationale: According to the rules of English grammar, the appropriate name is "female rabbis", not "women rabbis". Accordingly, the associated article is Female rabbis. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What rule of English grammar says "women" can't be an adjective? The Library of Congress classification system uses "women" as an adjective all the time (as in "women authors"), so I think it's more a matter of preference than anything else. The Jewish Virtual Library has an article entitled "Women Rabbis" and there is a book of the same name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was taught that "women" is used as a plural noun, not an adjective. I just checked three dictionaries—American Heritage, Concise Oxford, and Merriam-Webster's Unabridged—and they all define women as the plural of woman with no reference to its use as an adjective. Maybe you're right and it is just a matter of preference, but I "women rabbis" sounds wrong to my ears, which is why I proposed renaming it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think 20th-century feminism popularized the word as an adjective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Good Olfactory and my previously stated preference for "women" as a preferred term for human females. Totally subjective, I know, but there you go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion/neutral. I think both are/can be appropriate. I personally don't have a preference, though I wish it were standardized across categories. But I don't think it's correct to say one or the other is "wrong". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is a standard formulation in the UK, eg there are many stories about 'women drivers' and 'women priests' and none about 'female drivers' or 'female priests'. Occuli (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all women rabbis and female rabbis alike. Or did I misunderstand the question? Perhaps rename to "so-called rabbis". If I can't have it my way, then make it "female". Debresser (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above support and previous discussions on related name changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (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:Mayflower Descendants[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. --Xdamr^talk 17:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We've always deleted categories of the "descendants of FOO" type. What about this one? In America it's often mentioned that a particular person is descended from Mayflower passengers, and it's often said with the implication that the person is a "true", "loyal", or "authentic" American. I don't think I would say it rises to the level of being defining, though—it's more like an interesting genealogical fact, kind of like being descended from Queen Victoria or from Louis XIV. My wife is a descendant of a woman who was on the Mayflower, and she's not even an American. (If kept, needs to be renamed to Category:Mayflower descendants or something else.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial for most non-17th century sorts, and likely to be unverifiable too (at least compared to Queen Vic's progeny). If kept, should be renamed Category:Descendants of Mayflower passengers. Grammatically, one descends from a ship by disembarking (not by being born of one its former passengers), which would equate the current formulation grammatically with Category:Mayflower passengers, surely not the intent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those records are completely verifiable as the Mayflower Society keeps detailed and extensive genealogical records on all Mayflower descendants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooteristi (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of Mayflower descent are more like "sometimes verifiable". The records are quite complete and published for the first five generations, but later records are quite spotty and hard to trace. To assemble the records for the 15 to 19 generations needed for a single person (of the 35 million descendants) alive today is a substantial, often impossible, task. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). The more I think about this the more ridiculous it seems. The Mayflower landed in 1620. If we say a "generation" is 25 years, that was (almost) 16 generations ago. 16 generations back, each person is descended from 16,384 couples, or 32,768 different people ("different" only if we assume there is no intergenerational incest or cross-marriage of distant cousins within the family tree, which is not always a good assumption). This category is singling out people because they are descended from usually one or two of those 32,768 people. How many descendants does the average Mayflower passenger have? At this point, it could well be into the thousands. This may have made sense in the 17th or 18th century, but at this point it verges into the ridiculous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of Mayflower descendants is estimated to be 35 million by a Mayflower society.[1] This seems reasonable from other NE "number of descendants" discussions I've read. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per same entries above. If kept, the name should be "Mayflower descendants". —ADavidB 01:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have had a number of these sorts of categories and most have been deleted on the grounds that a person's ancestry (at least at that distance) is a trivial characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ultimately trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial characteristic. feydey (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Membership in this exclusive group was once very important socially and politically, and would be informative on articles on 18th, and 19th century figures, as User:Good Olfactory accidentally makes clear. Also, even today these people continue to exert more power and influence than their numbers warrant. The Mayflower Society knows every single descendant, and has chapters in all 50 states, DC and Canada. Abductive (reasoning) 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mayflower Society does not know every single descendant (estimated by them at 35 million), but only a very small proportion, those researched by people interested in joining. The society only has 25,000 members out of the many millions of potential members. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally made something clear? Probably not. The Mayflower Society knows every single descendant? Definitely not. My wife and I only just discovered that she was a Mayflower descendant, and the Mayflower Society does not have any information on my wife. Or my children. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, like they'd tell you about the files on your wife and kids, auslander. Otto4711 (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ix-nay on the Outhern-say Emisphere-hay, upid-stay. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Abductive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2009 (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:Super NES[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:

--Xdamr^talk 17:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Super NES to Category:Super Nintendo Entertainment System

Nominator's rationale: Also rename Category:Super NES emulators->Category:Super Nintendo Entertainment System emulators and Category:Super NES games->Category:Super Nintendo Entertainment games. All to match the parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator, and per often cited guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't that last be Category:Super Nintendo Entertainment System games? Anomie ⚔ 00:04, 29 August 2009 (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.

(American) Civil War ships[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 all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 12:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: These are all subcats of Category:American Civil War ships (and ultimately, Category:American Civil War). Proposed names avoid the presumption that "Civil War" could only mean the American Civil War. Although the "of the United States" for some of the suggested names may seem superfluous, it allows for possible parallel categories for the Confederate States of America. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nominator. Took me a few seconds, but the argument is correct. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The meaning of the term "Civil War" is informed by the context in which it appears. When used in the context of "ships of the United States", etc, "Civil War" very clearly refers to the American Civil War. Category names of the form "American Civil War ships of the United States" are annoyingly redundant, if not outright insulting to readers. The proposed scheme also presents the prospect of having names such as Category:American Civil War ships of the Confederate States of America, making the repetition even more unpleasant. Erik9 (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2009 (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:Joinery[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: Keep. Non-admin closure. Jafeluv (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Joinery to Category:Woodworking joints

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article. Also, the term "joinery" is ambiguous as it is synonymous to joining which is the name of this category: category:joining. Wizard191 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The term joinery is wider than just the joints used - what about people who work in joineries, joinery companies, and joinery tools? And "joinery" and "joining" despite sharing similarity of word origin and some overlap are no more synonymous than "cutlery" and "cutting" (or "politics" and "polite", for that matter). Create Category:Woodworking joints as a subcategory of this one to match the article, but don't rename this one. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. UK usage is joinery for the wider aspect of a wood-working skill; not just the joints. The article Joinery is a disambiguation page which demonstrates the different usages of the word (in US/UK/Australia). Wikionary has the prime use as the building where the activity takes place. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- in UK, a joiner is a carpenter who is mainly concerned with woodwork in building construction - stud walls, floor and roof joists, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2009 (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:Billboard Top 40 Mainstream chart number-one singles[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 Category:Billboard Top 40 Mainstream chart number-one singles to Category:Billboard Pop Songs number-one singles. --Xdamr^talk 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Billboard Top 40 Mainstream chart number-one singles to Category:Billboard Pop Songs number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: Chart was renamed a couple months ago. Category should reflect current name and shouldn't have "chart" in the name since it's just "Pop Songs" not "Pop Songs Chart" (compare Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles et al.). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. To match the newly named chart. — Σxplicit 19:25, 23 August 2009 (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:Rich Shapero albums[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. --Xdamr^talk 17:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As per below, Shapero has only 1 cd, a self published, mostly promotional piece for the novel he wrote. regardless of his general notability, this category is not needed. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:ALBUM#Categories which states Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future). Lugnuts (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1.) Rich Shapero isn't the performing artist on the album, and 2.) I redirected it since it was a very short, infobox-less stub with no sources or notability (couldn't find a thing about it online). It only had a limited, free distribution, so there's no chance it could ever be an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete based on the above. Sorry, I assumed the album was notable before the category was brought here. Cheers TPH. Lugnuts (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it doesnt apply in this case, but thanks for the link to the rule for categories. thats a nice policy i didnt know about, and makes sense to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and in blatant disagreement with that cited consensus. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (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:Novels by Rich Shapero[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. --Xdamr^talk 17:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Author is not particularly notable, and has only 1 self published book to his name. regardless of his notability, he absolutely doesnt need a category here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Book was self published and shouldn't have had an article (which is why I redirected). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2009 (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:Brazilian footballers[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: No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 13:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brazilian footballers to Category:Brazilian male footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To parallel with Category:Brazilian female footballers. Powers ^T 16:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename – the present set-up is just fine - we have Category:Brazilian footballers with the subcat Category:Brazilian female footballers. Occuli (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But all the male players are in the parent category; moving it and creating a new parent category seems the sensible solution. Powers ^T 01:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it is done throughout the Category:Football (soccer) players tree (and in many other trees, such as Category:Politicians). There are pros (in many cases there would be a category 'Fooian footballers' with an empty subcat 'Fooian female footballers' and all articles in 'Fooian male footballers' (eg Iran, at a guess)) and cons (there is no ready subcat scheme for 'Sportsmen' but there is for Category:Sportswomen). Occuli (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, could you clarify for which situation those are pros and cons? Are they for my suggestion or for the current status quo? Powers ^T 13:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom. Female and male footballers compete separatedly, so having two separate cats makes sense. (Then the current cat page can be recreated to house the two sub-cats, as suggested by the nominator.) It is time that catting for sports be separated by sex Category:Sportswomen and Category:Sportsmen as nearly all sports at an elite/notable level are contested separatedly. Mayumashu (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2009 (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:Casco class light draft monitors[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 Category:Casco class light draft monitors to Category:Casco class monitors. --Xdamr^talk 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Casco class light draft monitors to Category:Casco class monitors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the styling of defining article, Casco class monitor. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and in accordance with precedent to simplify ship types in class names (i.e. 'carrier' rather than 'light carrier'). Maralia (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2009 (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:Korean Buddhism[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 Category:Korean Buddhism to Category:Buddhism in Korea for consistency. --Xdamr^talk 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Korean Buddhism to Category:Buddhism in Korea

Nominator's rationale: Rename per main article Buddhism in Korea and other categories in Category:Buddhism by country. PC78 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Rather move the article to Korean Buddhism. The first sentence of this article reads "Korean Buddhism is distinguished from other forms of Buddhism". From which it is evident that Buddhism in Korea is not the same as in other places, and should therefore rightfully be called "Korean Buddhism". Debresser (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I actually did that. A little bold, but the article itself uses "Korean Buddhism" consistently. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Just to spell it out, this means we can now add another reason for the rename "to match the main article". Debresser (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair comment about the article, but one would have to assume that Buddhism in Korea is not restricted to Korean Buddhism (if you see what I mean). For example, can we say with any degree of certainty that all Korean Buddhists are followers of Korean Buddhism? That would seem comparable to categorising Category:Russian Christians in Category:Russian Orthodox Church. I still think that "Buddhism in Korea" is the more appropriate category name. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. But there is no info about non-Korean Buddhism Korean Buddhists. And isn't that one of the nicest plays on words of this day? Debresser (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No info where? In the article? On Wikipedia? Anywhere? And does that matter? I'm still not comfortable with a blanket assumtion that all Buddhism in Korea is Korean Buddhism. (Isn't this fun?) PC78 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article. Which is what counts when determining the name of an article. Debresser (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is not being contested. Still, I won't argue the point any further because this isn't really my subject area. PC78 (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2009 (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:Peruvian Navy ships[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 Category:Peruvian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Peruvian Navy. --Xdamr^talk 17:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Peruvian Navy ships to Category:Ships of the Peruvian Navy

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Both categories are intended for ships of the Peruvian Navy. The suggested merge target (which I am guilty of creating in June 2009 because the former category was not itself fully categorized) is most consistent with other subcats of Category:Ships by navy. That naming style has a pretty broad consensus from a previous CFD. — Bellhalla (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per previous discussions (plural). Debresser (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2009 (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:Unassessed Symbolism and Art Nouveau articles[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. --Xdamr^talk 17:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Obsolete project category that should be deleted. Bringing to CfD as original speedy tag was removed. WOSlinker (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2009 (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:Unassessed Bluegrass Region articles[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. --Xdamr^talk 17:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Obsolete project category that should be deleted. Bringing to CfD as original speedy tag was removed. WOSlinker (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2009 (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:Unassessed Orphaned, abandoned and removed children articles[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: Speedy delete, C1. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Obsolete project category that should be deleted. Bringing to CfD as original speedy tag was removed. WOSlinker (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2009 (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:Unassessed Jordan-related articles[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. --Xdamr^talk 17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Obsolete project category that should be deleted as articles now at Category:Unassessed Jordan articles. Bringing to CfD as original speedy tag was removed. WOSlinker (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Actually, IMHO, those who work with this WikiProject should just have deleted this category themselves. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (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:Top-importance Jordan-related articles[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. --Xdamr^talk 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Obsolete project category that should be deleted as articles now at Category:Top-importance Jordan articles. Bringing to CfD as original speedy tag was removed. WOSlinker (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Actually, IMHO, those who work with this WikiProject should just have deleted this category themselves. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2009 (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:Unassessed Sex workers articles[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 all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Categories are obsolete and articles are now categorised at Category:Sex work articles by quality so should all be deleted including the two with redirects that were just recently created.WOSlinker (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 'Stub-class sex' sounds rather disagreeable. Occuli (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL - you made my day!! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL Debresser (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2009 (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:Unknown-importance Marshall Islands work group articles[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. --Xdamr^talk 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not used by project. Should be deleted. WOSlinker (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this category not being used because of some principles used in that WikiProject, in which case I would support deletion, or is it just empty? Debresser (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer, there is a category called Category:Unknown-importance Marshall Islands articles which is in use. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2009 (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:Musical groups from Louisiana (U.S. state)[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: Administrative close: merged by creator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Musical groups from Louisiana (U.S. state) to Category:Musical groups from Louisiana

Nominator's rationale: Simple duplication. Chubbles (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging I made the LA(US State) page I apologize, I didn't know there was another page. I will do the merger myself. Sorry! Ashfromthepast

Delete All of the artist have been moved. I can't figure out how to delete the page.--User:Ashfromthepast

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:Motherboards with built-in keyboards[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. --Xdamr^talk 17:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Motherboards with built-in keyboards to Category:Computers with built-in keyboards

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nom. Quoting from the talk page:

"I'd suggest renaming this category - at least - it should be 'computers with built-in keyboards'

The keyboard is not built in to the motherboard in any of these cases, but is a seperate component in the case.

However - I don't see the rationale for the category at all. --Speedevil (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)" NW (Talk) 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too vague... includes every laptop, and is this really a defining feature? Why not categories for computers with built-in moniters? speakers? microphones? NICs? If it's important to note that a computer had a built-in keyboard, the article text is the place to do that. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2009 (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:Chancellor of Delaware[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 Category:Chancellor of Delaware to Category:Delaware Court of Chancery judges. --Xdamr^talk 13:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Chancellor of Delaware to Category:Chancellors of Delaware #3 [pluralization fix] — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this merge is that there are two subsets of Category:Chancellors of Delaware and this is one of them, the other being Category:Vice Chancellors of Delaware. If merged the Vice Chancellors will again be orphaned hierarchically. I do not recommend the merge unless a satisfactory way can be found to solve the problem noted. stilltim (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not just keep the Vice Chancellors a subcategory of the Chancellors (as it is now), and include the bio articles of chancellor individuals in Category:Chancellors of Delaware? Or we could link the categories with template:CatRel. Having Category:Chancellor of Delaware doesn't make a lot of sense—it's just an unnecessary layer unless we have a lot of articles about the position itself rather than the people who have held the position. And if it contains bio articles (which is does now), it is clearly misnamed per criterion #3. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge and comment I see no need for the separate Category:Chancellor of Delaware. "Chancellor" and "Vice Chancellor" are simply titles for the judges of the Delaware Court of Chancery. Now, if you were going to rename the category to something like Category:Delaware Court of Chancery judges, that would be a little more justifiable, as this title would be a bit clearer to readers who are not trained in law. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy rename section at this point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per nom; or rename the parent to Category:Delaware Court of Chancery judges with 2 subcats, namely 'Chancellors' and 'Vice-Chancellors' (assuming I have understood Eastlaw's remarks). Occuli (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, that is exactly what I meant. :-) --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as I read the articles, the Chancellor is the (single) chief judge of the court and Vice-Chancellors are assistant judges. Accordingly rename Category:Chancellors of Delaware to Category:Delaware Court of Chancery judges, then rename Category:Chancellor of Delaware to Category:Chancellors of Delaware. In England, we had one Chief Justice of Common Pleas and various puisne judges. It would not be appropriate to amalgamate all these into a sicne category, any more than the Lord Chancellor, Master of the Rolls, and Vice-Chancellor (all originally English Chancery judges) ought to be amalgamated, since they are separate offices. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily merge as a matter of capitalisation only. I fail to see the problem raised above. If a category will need a small adjustment, then just do that. Debresser (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2009 (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:Archaeological sites in the Arab League[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An unnecessary layer of categorization above above the country-level subcategories of Category:Archaeological sites by country. This is like having Category:Archaeological sites in La Francophonie—not a terribly useful mix of archaeology/history and modern linguistic/political relations. (I've found the articles being added are already in the appropriate by-country subcategory. Where this has not been the case I've tried to subcategorize them into the appropriate country, but more are being added.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.being the creator of this category, i agree with your opinion, and now do believe that their is no necessity for this Category anymore. Arab League User (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[reply]

Comment – the present set-up neatly brings the included articles into Category:Arab League which seems desirable. I agree that Category:Archaeological sites in the Arab League should only include country subcategories and no top level articles. Occuli (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it be desirable to have Category:Arab League as a launching pad into the archaeological sites categories? I doubt anyone would navigate to Category:Arab League for that purpose. It seems far more obvious that you would navigate to the category for the appropriate country (e.g., Category:Tunisia) and go from there, or just find Category:Archaeological sites from the start. I'm having a hard time envisaging what the exact connection in thought would be between "Arab League" and "archaeological sites". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Distribute contents to countries, then upmerge categories to Category:Archaeological sites by country -- Mesopotamia and Egypt had distinct civilisations and are thus disparate. We might substitute "in Middle East", but I doubt that is useful, partly becasue the extent of the area is ill-defined. The Arab League is a modern artefact. Its extent is not useful for categorising archaeology. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly or wrongly, "Arab League" is emerging as the standard term in categorization for the Arab World, Middle East, or whatever. By their very definition, "archaeological sites" are not very related to modern political boundaries, least of all in the Arab World, and a regional category is highly appropriate & encyclopedic, as the region was in the past frequently all or mostly part of a the same empires. We have Category:Archaeological sites in the Near East, excluding North Africa, & including Turkey & Israel, and should refashion this to add a North African category. We already have categories for Europe, Asia, Oceania, Africa etc etc, but North Africa has an almost entirely distinct archeological history. However there aren't enough North African sites, so just Merge to Category:Archaeological sites in the Near East, where nearly all already are. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (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.