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:Rename. The existing category is too limiting, does not allow for Wagner's autobiographical and other writings. See discussion at WikiProject Richard Wagner which is in favour of such a change. Smerus (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Without renaming here, you would need another page for prose works that are not essays, then you would have to merge the two. Wwmargera (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you would need another category, but, no, you would not have to merge them; to do so would be to lose the place in the essay categories, a thought that does not seem to have occured to anyone at the RW project. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I agree the small 'w' for works, of course--Smerus (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Do we have any other "Prose works of .." categories? A search suggests not. But we have many "Books by..." and "Essays by.." categories. Wagner would no doubt thoroughly approve of a unique category structure being created just for him, but I do not. If articles are written about the books/autobiographies or whatever, they should be categorized per the usual schemes. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Johnbod. The category system works best when we maintain consistency in structure, and I see no pressing reason in this case the break that consistency. Even if a Category:books by Richard Wagner contains only 1 article, that's fine by WP:OC#SMALL which specifically allows for such small categories where they are "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed; this is a part of the "Essays by Author" system; a "Books by Richard Wagner" can be created if needed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A non-standard category created to pre-empt the outcome of a discussion process in which Smerus's own proposal to create such a category had been opposed by several contributors?? That's outrageous conduct, and Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner should be deleted immediately. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merges proposed by BrownHairedGirl re: these new articles. This is a bit high-handed, I must say. I would delete the new categories myself if I hadn't already expressed an opinion. For sure the closing admin should delete the categories if there is no consensus in this discussion to create them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Works by author"is for all types of written works, sorted by author and genre." (quoting from category page). It is not for music. Wagner was a composer. He primarily wrote music, not novels or detective stories. Accordingly composers are not listed in that category. I've looked and I haven't found one. The suggestion by Good Ol’factory of "a parent category Category:Works by Richard Wagner to hold everything, including musical stuff" (which prompted BrownHairedGirl's pre-emptive action) is clearly wrong. That category is not for musical works. --Kleinzach 07:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct. "Works by" categories can be for musical works, written works, or artistic works. You are overlooking the parallel category structure of Category:Works by artist, which covers music and other art. The one created by BHG would be correctly placed in both structures, because it contains written works and musical works. (For a similar situation, see Category:Works by Leonardo da Vinci, which contains both written and artistic works. Or, more lowbrow: Category:Works by Madonna (entertainer), which contains music and books.) Regardless, it's clear that there is no pre-existing structure for Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner, which is why it has been opposed. It's not right for a category to be created in the face on ongoing CFD opposition. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is a side-issue to the nom, I have some sympathy with Kleinzach's position here. Really people shouldn't have to go through an intermediate category to get to Wagner's compositions, which is what (rightly, heaven knows) the vast majority will be looking for. Category:Works by artist is a mess - firstly it should adhere to the convention of reserving "artist" for visual artists in categories, and secondly it is a mix of individual visual artist categories and "by type" parent categories for other media - these should be moved off to Category:Works by creator. Most artists' categories, typically for WP categories, are in the over-specific and restrictive Category:Paintings by artist. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 5 January 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete We generally don't create categories that use subjective criteria to attack people. Thus there are no categories for Misogynists or Antisemites. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 20:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Earlier today, there were five people in the category (Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn French, Michael Moore, Robin Morgan, and Valerie Solanas) whose biographies didn't mention misandry. (Solanas was an exception; in her case, User:Wwmargera had added a few unsourced quotes he attributed to her and cited as examples of her misandry, which was mentioned previously but not sourced.) I removed the five people from the category before nominating it for speedy deletion as an attack page. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 23:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valerie Solanas was quite upfront about her misandrism. Same can be said about Andrea Dworkin and Robin Morgan. (Robin Morgan's quote: I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. ). Because of this I don't see how this is a personal attack on them to class them as misandrists. However, it may make sense to rename it to 'open misandrists' to avoid adding people who do not intend to be classified as misandrists (with whom it would be an attack). Wwmargera (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then how would you determine if someone belonged to Category:Feminists for instance? eg. among the categories where Valerie Solanas has been placed, Categories: American feminist writers, Anarcha-feminists can only be attributed to her on the basis of her public statements. Wwmargera (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are supposed to be based on reliable sources, not editors' own interpretations. If a person describes himself as a feminist, or if another reliable source describes him as one, that's sufficient. We don't look at a person's writings and say, "You know, she expressed pro-feminist views so she belongs in the Feminists category." — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per the general precedent of deprecating people-by-opinion categories. Firstly, this title is far too simplistic to cover the range of opinions which might prompt someone to add it to an article. Secondly, using a pejorative term like this as a category title makes it usable as an attack category, which carries serious WP:BLP risks. Similar categories have been deleted in the past, most notably Category:Anti-Semites (see the deletion debate here). Note that we have also deleted apparently more benign opinion categories, such as Conservatives and Liberals). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another BLP minefield under the garb of a category. I also note this category is, as of this moment, empty? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today I removed all the people from the category as unsourced and nominated it for CSD as an attack page. When the speedy was declined, I brought it here. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 22:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't criticse your action in depopulating an unsourced attack category (whilst generally very bad practive, I think it's it's actually a good thing to do with attack categories) but you really should have stated that fact clearly in your nomination rather than waiting until asked. Not doing so makes your actions appear sneaky. I assume good faith, but declaring something like this upfront avoids any appearance of underhandedness, and helps everybody. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I added a note up top with more information. I know that categories aren't supposed to be emptied when they're being discussed here, but I didn't think it was necessary to go into the history. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 23:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Difficult to apply without BLP issues, and too easy to apply with BLP issues. People rarely self-identify using pejorative terms, and using third-party assessments leaves the matter open to conflicting POV interpretations. Then there is the difficulty of tracking a person's changing opinions across their lifetime using a singular category. All of which goes to why "people-by-opinion" categories are commonly deleted, and why such categories using pejorative terms are even more deserving of deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the general precedent of deprecating people-by-opinion categories like Liberals and Conservatives. Wwmargera (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT by shared opinion slash presumption of shared opinion. (Michael Moore, my ass.) The idea that we'd even need this, when we don't have a corresponding Category:Misogynists, is fascinating in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 26 December 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.
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:Merge. I found this nomination incomplete. Have no opinion. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not merge Settlments is the more general category and should be the parent of the neighbourhood category. So I made it so and moved some neighborhood articles from settlement to neighborhood where they belong . Hmains (talk) 02:42, 25 December 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.
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.
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 01:06, 29 December 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.
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:Rename. Use an ndash in a year range. Rjwilmsi 18:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Endashes in category names look better, but are a pain-in-the-arse to type, for both readers and editors. They work in article names, where we use hard redirects, but since hard redirects are not yet used in categories it's silly to include a character which isn't marked on any keyboard I have ever used. (The multi-key special techniques for entering such characters vary between operating systems, even if anyone can be bothered to remember them). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The key article is Confederate States of America. Whether the en-dash, a hypen, or some squiggly line is used, the "...of America" and capitalisation of "States" should still be part of the category name. Grutness...wha? 22:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Prompted by Grutness's comment, I have been looking more closely at this, and it seems a bit odd. Category:Confederate states (1861-1865) is a sub-category of Category:Confederate States of America. Since the confederacy only exist from 1861-1865, the disambiguator appears superfluous. I think I can infer why it was added: the purpose of the category seems to be to separate off the articles and categories on the 11 states from the other articles and sub-categories of [:Category:Confederate States of America]]. However, this seems to me to be an unsatisfactory way of doing things. If it really is necessary to use a sub-category such as this, why not follow the example of Category:States of the United States and rename this category to Category:States of the Confederate States? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could support that - though I'd suggest that this too needs an "...of America" at the end. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Categories need to be in a format that can easily be added to articles, but most keyboards do not provide an em-dash. If changed articles are liable to be miscategorised with the en-dash. I know we prefer an em-dash in article titles, but the en-dash version will usually also exist as a redirect. Category redirects do not function the same way, and are a problem to some one who has to patrol them to keep them empty. Wider issue -- The articles and subcategories are about the entire state throughout its history, not about Alabama in the Civil War (for example). This is accordingly a misconceived category and should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree with Peterkingiron on the en-dash, although I think I have a better solution (as above, Category:States of the Confederate States ... but I disagree on the appropriateness of the category. I understand Peter's concern, and used to argue similar positions, but I have come round to the view that the wikipedia category system is not a precise taxonomy, but rather a navigational tool which necessarily makes some compromises with taxonomical perfection to allow easy navigation. In this case, I don't actually think the problem is all that great: it's a category which is accurate for time period it describes, but doesn't claim to cover all aspects of the articles within it. I don't see this as being different from other categories with a limited time-frame applied to articles with a longer time-span. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use the states of the CSA category suggested instead above. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we're still debating special characters in category names? Time to revisit speedy criterion #7, no doubt. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should Kentucky and Missouri be included in that category, or perhaps in a separate one? Both had Confederate governments, both elected members to both houses of the Confederate Congress, each had a star on the Confederate flag, etc. They both maintained pro-Union governments as well, obviously. Perhaps articles on the Confederate governments of both states should be added to this category? Example: Confederate government of Kentucky. Perhaps that second category should be structured so as to include articles such as Arizona Territory (Confederate States of America)?LanternLight (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support either of the suggestions mentioned immediately above. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:24, 18 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: The category scope is unclear and subjective. WuhWuzDat 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that this seems iffy at best.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and prompt delete. I have just removed from the category all three of the articles which were categorised in it, because in each case was there no mention of "blood money" in the article, let alone a reference to it. The category text says that it is a list of people popularly believed to have taken "blood money, and vague "popular belief" is a completely unacceptable basis for a category in wikipedia, whose fundamental principles include WP:V. This category is also a WP:BLP nightmare, since its attachment to any biography of a living person would raise serious legal problems. I suggest that any further additions to this category should also be promptly removed while the category is under discussion. (I know that this runs counter to our normal deprecation of any depopulation of categories under discussion, but this one is so problematic that per WP:IAR I think it's a valid exception). I nearly speedily deleted this category for the reasons raised above, but thought it better to see what others thought. However, I still think that an-out-process speedy deletion is justified, and I suggest that to prevent any further misuse, it should be deleted immediately without prejudice to restoring it if the discussion finds a consensus to keep it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur It would be best to err on the safe side of WP:BLP in this case, and delete the cat out of process. WuhWuzDat 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ok, thanks for the prompt response. As a precautionary measure, I have deleted it per WP:CSD#G10 as an attack page. It can be undeleted if that is the consensus of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it be Call it original research, call it an attack, call it unsourced negative BLP information, I don't particularly mind which as long as it stays in the realm of the deleted. Other people's opinions about a subject has no place in categorizing people- especally living ones. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete was the proper action. I mean even if we did want to have something like this which for reasons described above is a bad idea, this isn't even the right naming, it should be Category:Blood money surely? Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Speedy delete . You should have to get permission to create cats. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 25 December 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.
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:Delete per WP:OCAT#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. This is a category of "articles where the subject has appeared in News of the Weird", and however amusing that may be, an appearance in one obscure publication is not a defining characteristic of the people concerned; the event which caused them to be in News of the Weird may in some cases be defining, but the report is not. This category also raises WP:BLP concerns. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- in/exclusion from the category seesm to depend on the subjective choices of one newspaper columnist. This is hardly defining. If (contrary to my wish) it is kept, it should be renamed Category:News of the Weird to match main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wonder why no one ever creates categories like "People mentioned in Gillian Tett's columns"? That would need to be deleted, as well, though- as mentioned in a column is not a distinguishing feature of anyone who is so mentioned. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category is based on an entirely trivial characteristic. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 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.
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:Rename to conform with head article at Wake Technical Community College, or alternatively Delete. If kept, it needs parents categories (I found it in the orphanage). This is a large technical college near Raleigh, North Carolina, so although there appear to be only two possible article to include in the category, the size of the institution suggests that the category may have potential for expansion. However, since it's a local technical college and not a university, there may be not much else about it is sufficiently notable to justify more standalone articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely subscribe to the point of view of RL0919, that we need to change the name, but keep the "faculty" (sub-)category per existing category structure. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 29 December 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.
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:Delete as overcategorisation. I am sure that his category of films released on a particular DVD label was created with good intentions, and somebody has worked hard to populate it, but it seems to me to be a flawed idea to start categorising creative works of any form (books, films, songs) by every detail of their commercial publication. Many (most?) creative works are made commercially available more than once, many of them by more than one publisher, and this approach would rapidly lead to each article sprouting multiple categories which relate to relatively minor and non-defining commercial aspects of the work. The category's intro says "The following is a partial list of Warner Archive official DVD-R releases available from Warner Home Video's website", and the inclusion of purchase info rather contradicts WP:NOTADVERTISING. More importantly, I can find few other examples of categorising films in this way. Category:Videos and DVDs and its subcats include very few films. I suggest that it's sufficient to categorise films by the studio which created them (e.g. Category:Warner Bros. films), and not try to maintain categories for their distribution. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with BHG here- every movie goes through multiple home video releases in the decades after release, VHS, laserdisc, DVD, Blue-Ray, HD-DVD, and soon, whatever comes next. The fact that half a century after their release a film was available for purchase on a certain website matters very, very little. We don't categorize things by how they can be purchased- a category of "Songs downloadable on iTunes would be deleted. If this distribution format is especially notable- and there's no indication it is, it could be as an article, not a category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:36, 30 December 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.
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.
I would agree with the idea of "fixing" the slash issue in the main article title as suggested. i.e. move to "The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra" instead of "The Thad Jones/ Mel Lewis Orchestra." Then the new category name proposal makes even more sense Pugetbill (talk) 21:50, 24 December 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.
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. — ξxplicit 08:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to standardize another gaggle of categories to Foo Party politicians, the emerging convention of Category:Politicians by party; some party names changed to match their main articles as well. The enterprise of categorizing by political party membership for non-political figures is questionable in itself, but not directly relevant here as after exhaustive checks of all listed articles, I am confident that all listed "members" are also in fact politicians. - choster (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nominator. Doing a good work with these, I think. (I'd support changing all "members of" categories to "politicians" categories in all cases, and just weed out the non-politicians.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator, with congrats for diligently checking that these people were all active politicians and not just party members. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 24 December 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.
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. — ξxplicit 08:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Illegal (group) and to avoid obvious ambiguity in meaning. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename When I read this header, I instantly started to wonder how a song could be illegal. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to clarify that this category refers to the output of one band, not to musical censorship or political repression. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as disambiguation. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 29 December 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.
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: Small category; overcategorization. Reywas92Talk 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge to parents. Another probably not great idea at partial subcategorization by user:Levineps. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge This is too much sub-dividing. Cancer deaths in Arizona; Leukemia deaths.. fine. However, we don't need categories for every possible intersection of specific disease and first level sub-national division. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:14, 24 December 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.
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: Small category (one article) that will not grow. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we have a bit of a mess here, as two former names of this team are in sub-categories. All told we have six stadia... I would be happier with upmerging everything so all this franchise's stadia are in a single category, and then doing the same to all the other NFL teams that have moved cities/names and are similarly organized. The only one we'd have to be careful on would be the Cleveland Browns (As the old Browns are now the Baltimore Ravens.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. We actually have the Browns categorized like I proposed doing the entire NFL. Thanks for the link, my memory had gotten rusty on that. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Titans played in more than one stadium. LP Field is in Nashville. The Titans played their first season in Memphis, I believe at the Liberty Bowl. They may have played some games in Vanderbilt's stadium; I don't remember clearly. I know that is listed as "Tennessee Oilers"; is that fully and wholly accurate for the entire time any game was played in those two places? As mentioned above, in their prior incarnation as the Houston Oilers they played elsewhere, most notably in the Astrodome.LanternLight (talk) 05:01, 4 January 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.
Category:Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation[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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the broader categories Roman Catholic secondary schools in England and Roman Catholic primary schools in England are perfectly sufficient with the application of the new template. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the Benedictine global category? Johnbod (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents. One of the schools also covers primary education, and may need to be given a further category as a Catholoc Primary School. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The three other schools can be added to the navigation template, but even with their addition this will still be a small and well-defined set of 9 articles which will not be subject to frequent changes. We don't need a category for that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 6 (or 9) is enough for a category that forms part of two trees. Johnbod (talk) 05:38, 29 December 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 Davis, California[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge There are only four pages in this category and it seems somewhat unlikely that there will be enough to justify its existence. Several larger cities in California (and elsewhere) do not have categories of their own as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a larger entity doesn't have a corresponding category of its own is never, in and of itself, a valid reason to delete the one at hand — anybody, at any time, can create the appropriate category for the larger entity. The only relevant question is whether this category has the numbers to justify it on its own terms. And the fact that I got it from four entries to seven with just a two-minute visit to Davis, California music scene suggests that it may, in fact, be justified — that article, in fact, doesn't even mention some of the bands that were already in the category, suggesting that there may yet be more valid entries. And there's no minimum size requirement for a category, either — a category might be deletable for size if it's both small and permanently unexpandable (e.g. a category for members of a broken-up rock group which can never expand beyond four articles), but a potentially open-ended category such as this one has no minimum size. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 29 December 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.
Relisted at CfD 2010-01-19. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)