Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 19

January 19Edit

Songs with music by Lou SingerEdit

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No matching articles.
These categogories have been nominated because presently, and for some time, there has been no matching article. If a suitable article appears I would have no problem removing the nomination. Interested parties have been/will be notified.
For ease I note below where the article space might be found in due course: Lou Singer, Larry Coleman and Ted Mossman. Any help saving the categories would be appreciated.--Richhoncho (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no rule that we only categorize songs by writer when the writer is notable. The rule seems to suggest that since every song has a writer, every song should be in a song by writer category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part of an established category tree; the existiance of a 'main article' is desirable but not necessary - The Bushranger One ping only 09:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination. Having argued from both sides of this particular argument and been wrong both times... --Richhoncho (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Categories:American actors by ethnicityEdit

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: double upmerge as nominated. I made this closure jointly with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 18#Category:American actors of Vietnamese descent where there was a more decisive consensus for merger. It seems to me that enough of the objections raised here were answered in full; in particular, I do not put any weight on the supercategories (from time to time) "Fooian people", which IMHO should only have "see also" links to the "people of Fooian descent" rather than parent-child hierarchical category links. – Fayenatic London 19:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Triple intersection. Mayumashu (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Regarding Category:American people of Japanese descent, it is already unwieldy in size. It is in need of additional refinement—not less. The existing category assists in this refinement, and the proposed merge takes things in the wrong direction. — Myasuda (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that a population of 530 links is too large for a category. Moreover, arguments for or against categorizing should apply to all alike categories or none at all. Mayumashu (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
They were not "manipulated", nor created as part of this nomination. Category:Actors of Vietnamese descent and Category:Actors of Indian descent were started prior by another contributor. But who says we categorize as such (it's not a "triple intersection" at any rate). Er, according to what you just said - "we categorize...not by former country they or their ancestors migrated from" - you want to delete this category?? Mayumashu (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Hmains removed the nomination tag for one of the pages nominated here, perhaps inadvertently Mayumashu (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC). I guess it wasn t inadvertent - he/she has removed them all. I've restored them. Mayumashu (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Category:Actors of Indian descent is ultimately owned by Category:Indian people which refers to the article Indian people that states Indian people are citizens of India. Therefore, Category:American people of Indian descent cannot be correct as a subcategory of this Actors category nor can its contents be correctly placed itno this category. Americans are not (generally or all) also citizens of India. That is the problem I see with this part of the proposal Hmains (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You are totally misunderstanding the category. Category:Actors of Indian descent in general refers to people who have ancestors from India, but who have never lived in India. It will mainly consist of people born in the UK, Canada and the US, with others born in Uganda and other countries, in the case of those born in Uganda all living elsewhere since they were forcibly removed by Idi Amin. They are general not citizens of India, and by their very nature are people who we do not think fit the criteria of Category:Indian actors. In fact I recently created Category:Actors of Samoan descent specifically because most of the people in Category:Samoan actors did not fit the category definition. People of x descent are generally considered to be sort-of ethnic categories, but one needs to realize ethnic means different things in different context. In the case of India the people of India are generally not seen as one ethnic group. I think the problem here is the assumption that all child cats hold the same criteria as the parents. Descent categories are meant to not be limited by citizenship, so that is not the issue. Maybe we should move Category:People of Indian descent to not be a child of Category:Indian people if people are interpreting the current set up to mean its contents must be citizens. Anyway, since Category:American people of Indian descent is a sub-cat of Category:People of Indian descent this would mean it is about people of dual citizenship if categories were read that way. However that if very much not what the category is about, and I personally think we need to avoid too rigid an aherance to citizenship. If the article says a person emigrated the person should be in x emigrants to y place. In the real world people do not assume you have to actually recive citizenship in the new place to be an emigrant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Child categories inherit the attributes of the parent category. If a parent category says the category is for 'citizens' of foo country, then and all of its subcategories and articles must have the same attribute: to be citizens of foo country. If this is not adhered to, then the entire category system logically means nothing whatsover and is just an any-which-way structure meaning nothing but whatever the creator thinks at the momement and whatever they can get away with here at CfD. This is not encylopedic organization, it is just chaos. Articles and subcats can be placed anywhere whatsover and thus are unfindable Hmains (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Which is why Category:People of Indian descent should never have bee made a child of Category:Indian people. The whole point of the category is to have a place for people who had ancestors who were Indian who do not themselves fit in that category. I have removed this parent/child cat relatuionship because it was clearly wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
          • I agree; when I removed this relationship and others, the nominator above promptly put them back. Also look at the Korean one which has not been fixed yet. A mess. Hmains (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I see you fixed the Korean category. This just steps then into problem of the now-owning disapora categories. These are typically placed in fooian people categories, fooian society categories and now by you in fooian culture categories. All of these are owned by the foo country which always implies these descent categories ought to only include citizens of foo--which negates the purpose of the fooian descent subcats, which are just supposed to be no-foo citizens. Hmains (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I have began moving the diaspora categories out of the people categories where they do not belong and into the better parent of Category:Korean culture etc. This makes a lot of sense on several levels, including the fact that many of the articles directly in the diaspora categories are non-bio articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The culture categories never limit their contents to citizens of the country. I also think that saying that a category is "owned" by another category is a not helpful way to describe the relationship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Upmerge all per nominator. In most cases, ancestry is a trivial issue for an actor; in very few cases is it a defining characteristic. The merge targets are correct, and recently-created categories are part of a large and well-established series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, within US culture, certain ethnicities are still not recognized as identical to the mainstream images on tv/movies. in this field, appearance is 90% of the reason for getting a job. historically, most people from these ethnic groups would get very limited roles. its better now, but we dont base our categories on our best intentions, but on current and historic truth. PS, why did the nominator not include hispanic americans, african american, jewish, finnish, and others from Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin? I know that WP:OTHER STUFF could apply herre, but if these three are trivial intersections, what makes the others any less trivial?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you are still ignoring the fact that Dean Cain is in the Japanese category, and I challenge you to point to any role he has ever had that was effected by his having Japanese ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, in the case of the Finnish category it did not exist when the nomination was made. The African American, Hispanic and Latino American and Jewish categories all have their own seperate and unique histories, so I would reccomend against including them in a group nomination. The ethnicity category rules make it clear that having one actors by ethnicity category does not mandate we have any others. Each survives or falls on its own merit, not on the merits of the group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Often American actors of Japnese descent are cast as being CHinese/of Chinese descent. This suggests that their being of Japanese descent is not a controlling factor in their casting. Then of couse those are those like Dean Cain who are most famous for being cast in theoretically non-human roles (in his case as Superman, which means he is not cast in any disguise, but his character lacks any human ethnicity).John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is an important point. If there is an ethnicity involved here it is that of "Asian-American", which actually means 'East Asian American'. It is or would be defined in the same way that 'African-American' is, can be considered, or is claimed to be an ethnicity. The other thing here is to have published sources, scholarly ones in sociology or anthropology, cited to support or refute that "Japanese American", "Chinese American" etc. is an ethnicity - I suspect they would exist. Mayumashu (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • upmerge per nom. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I assume the nominator would want Category:American actors of Mexican descent included as well - but that is more complicated, since it is a subcategory of Category:Hispanic and Latino American actors, while Category:American actresses of Mexican descent is a subcategory of Category:Hispanic and Latino American actresses. StAnselm (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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.

Video game micro-categoriesEdit

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: :
Bushranger's "keep" on the Teen Titans category was based on the lack of a suitable merge target, but since Category:Teen Titans in other media is being created as a result of the discussion below this, I think that merger best reflects his intention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. All categories listed are holding 2 games. In no way is a category needed for these. In most cases, content can be upmerged into one or more of the parent categories. J Greb (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Television series groupings by title character(s)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: a mixed set of changes:
  1. rename Category:Lone Ranger television series to Category:Television series based on Lone Ranger
  2. rename Category:Mortal Kombat television series to Category:Television series based on Mortal Kombat
  3. merge Category:Captain Marvel (DC Comics) television series to Category:Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Category:Television programs based on DC Comics
  4. merge Category:Aquaman television series to Category:Aquaman in other media and Category:Television programs based on DC Comics
  5. rename Category:Teen Titans television series to Category:Teen Titans in other media
The proposal to merge Category:Teen Titans video games into the new appears to have support, but cannot be implemented here since the category was tagged. It would require a separate nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unlike the categories under #Television series micro-categories, these categories have more than 2 articles. However, these are still exceedingly small categories where the articles should be interlinked or easily navigable from one of the parent categories. J Greb (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Since all of these characters have articles in multiple forms of media, they should retain these categories to differentiate those articles from other forms of media, such as films and video games. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
After closer examination, I'd like to revise my opinion. I still oppose the deletion of the Lone Ranger and Mortal Kombat categories, but the Captain Marvel and Aquaman categories could easily be upmerged. And the Teen Titans category should be ideally merged with Category:Teen Titans video games to form Category:Teen Titans in other media. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Either rename as "Television series based on…" or upmerge to "Works based on…" and all other parents. I am happy to accept Fortdj33's recommendation on which ones are worth keeping separate from other media. (Note to closer: feel free to drop me a line if this is a fiddly one to implement.) – Fayenatic London 20:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Television series micro-categoriesEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to all parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. All categories listed are holding 2 television shows. In no way is a category needed for these. In most cases, content can be upmerged into one or more of the parent categories. J Greb (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Support per nominator. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Film groupings by title character(s)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 all. There is a consensus that this nomination is inconsistent; some of the categories are clearly large enough not to fall foul of WP:SMALLCAT's warnings on size, while others are small. Additionally, arguments were made that since these categories are part of one or more well-established series, they all should be kept per WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unlike the categories under #Film series micro-categories, these categories have more than 2 articles. However, these are still exceedingly small categories where the articles should be interlinked or easily navigable from one of the parent categories. J Greb (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose some but not all. While I don't think that there is any minimum number of articles required for these categories to exists, I concede that some of them are probably not necessary. But, I think that any characters that have articles in multiple forms of media (e.g. Captain America, Fantastic Four, Green Lantern, etc.), or are part of multi-media franchises (Alvin and the Chipmunks, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) should retain their film categories, to differentiate those articles from other forms of media, such as TV shows and video games. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Generally, WP:SMALLCAT is applied when the category contains around 6 articles and it is unlikely that more will be added. the exception being when the parent category becomes so unwieldy that it needs to be broken up (and WP:OC#ARBITRARY is avoided). Some of these may fit into that, most don't. As for the IOM categories being broken down... I don't see the necessity, especially if we end up with such a fractured navigation tool. - J Greb (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
J Greb, with all due respect, it's worth pointing out that you removed articles from some of these categories AFTER you nominated them. While I believe that they were nominated in good faith, others might see that as you gaming the system. And I understand that there is such a thing as overcategorization, but IMO most of these do NOT fall into that criteria. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
If you feel that removal of articles where the character is part of an ensemble taints the nom for the Captain America category, it can be pulled. However, I stand by those trims as routine category maintenance aside from the nom. - J Greb (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose both Zorro and Lone Ranger and Bourne, are media properties; the fourth Bourne film doesn't even have "Jason Bourne", so it isn't a "by title character" category. Further "Robert E. Howard" doesn't even appear in the films, since he's a writer, and these are films based on his novels. The same applies to Mark Millar. The nominator's "by title character" doesn't even apply to Bourne/Howard/Millar; Further neither Zorro nor Lone Ranger are "small" Of these five categories, only "Bourne" is small as to be deletable. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Would you prefer "title character(s)/source author/franchise"? That would be a minor quibble since the findamental issue is the same: small, cractured categories with little realistic chane to grow. - J Greb (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That would be more accurate, and show that you weren't blindly nominating categories. Though you still have to explain how "Lone Ranger" or "Zorro" or "Robert E. Howard" categories are in any way small as to be deleted. It still looks like you're blinding nominating categories, especially with those containing 10 ore more entries. (5-or-more and you still shouldn't be calling for their deletion under the small criterion) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose All These categories are all large enough to group the articles by their strongest defining characteristic and so serve as an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • 3 or 4 articles is large enough to justify a category? When those are likely to be the only content in the category? - J Greb (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • 3 or 4 is large enough as part of a larger scheme of categorisation. – Fayenatic London
  • Rename all as "Films based on" following the pattern currently being progressively implemented within Category:Films based on works. – Fayenatic London 20:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Zorro, since it has 15 articles. I think I would oppose all of these at least for now. Some maybe could be merged, but none should be deleted. However the Zorro category should not have even been nominated. I think we should keep all of these. It just makes categorizing sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose All, collective noms are often a mess, and this nom appears as a mess. As pointed above, some of these categories could not be considered "small" under any point of view. So, close this one as keep and then eventually nominate one by one the few ones that are undoubtly and really small. Cavarrone (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Film series micro-categoriesEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to all parents. delldot ∇. 16:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. All categories listed are for film series of 2 films. In no way is a category needed for these. In most cases, content can be upmerged into one or more of the parent categories. J Greb (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Support per nominator. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to all parents. (Closer, feel free to drop me a line to do so if needed.) – Fayenatic London 20:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Upmerge we want to leave these in the parent categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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:S.H.I.E.L.D. filmsEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 February 10. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm temped to put this under "Speedy" Category is being used to link films where the fictional agency SHIELD appears in any way shape or form. In some cases it is editorial jusdgement that SHIELD is a notable intersection. J Greb (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Selective upmerge to multiple parents excluding the "by series" categories. I am not familiar with these films, but the two apart from Capt America prominently feature SHIELD; just de-categorise that one. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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:S.H.I.E.L.D. in other mediaEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 February 10. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm temped to put this under "Speedy" Category is being used to link non-comics uses of the fictional agency SHIELD appears in any way shape or form. In some cases it is editorial jusdgement that SHIELD is a notable intersection. Very much redundant with S.H.I.E.L.D.#In other media. J Greb (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename and prune. Change to Category:Works based on S.H.I.E.L.D. and remove members where the connection is weak. – Fayenatic London 20:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Would these two categories be better converted to some sort of Category:Fictional universes subcat? I would think that signs a tv series or movie is set in the same universe and have some characters in common is a good reason for categorisation, and isn't that what the presence of SHIELD indicates? --Qetuth (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Songs with lyrics by Albert GamseEdit

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

These categogories have been nominated because presently, and for some time, there has been no matching article. If a suitable article appears I would have no problem removing the nomination. Interested parties have been/will be notified.

For ease I note below where the article space might be found in due course: Albert Gamse, Earl Shuman, Aloysio de Oliveria, Howard Barnes, Kermit Goell, Lee Gaines, Ralph Freed, Milton Drake. Any help saving the categories would be appreciated.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the "No matching articles" comment regarding Category:Songs with lyrics by Albert Gamse. I see at least five articles in the category. Similarly, Category:Songs with lyrics by Howard Barnes has two. I haven't checked the others, but the comment puzzles me regarding those, and I would not be surprised if the others had articles as well.-- BRG (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
If there are no members in a category then the category is automatically deleted. I am referring, as I have stated, to articles on the writers themselves. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Good news, because of the admirable work of User:Gareth E Kegg creating articles about songwriters I have struck all but 3 of the nominated categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no rule that we only categorize songs by writer when the writer is notable. The rule seems to suggest that since every song has a writer, every song should be in a song by writer category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as explained by JPL. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination. Having argued from both sides of this particular argument and been wrong both times...--Richhoncho (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Automatically assessedEdit

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 the empty categories. I found 225 of them, which I have listed below:
Empty categories of automatically-assessed articles
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Up for deletion as empty over 200 automatically assessed categories
Nominator's rationale: ?. There are over 200 empty project categories like Category:Automatically assessed FBI articles that are up for deletion as empty. I'm placing this here to see if there is a reason to keep these since most regulars here probably don't scroll to the bottom of the CfD page where these are listed. If the projects do automatic assessments, then those categories probably should be retained. If not, deletion would be reasonable. I don't have the time or an easy way to see if these fall into either one of those conditions. These are listed as admin categories that should not be deleted simply because they are empty. If consensus early is to keep, then the speedy tags could be pulled with an edit comment like Per discussion at Jan 19 CfD, this is not a speedy but requires a full discussion. If they get deleted before there is a discussion here, then this discussion can simply be closed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note that the pages include useful navigational content. Would the bot re-create the category page when adding pages to it? If so, support; if no, oppose. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 16#Empty A-class categories, which was just closed as "keep" - several of its rationales apply here. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC) See below. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. If someone can give a hand in removing the speedy deletion tags, that would be very helpful. Looks like over 400 articles may have been tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. As you dig, the more you find. Looks like the inherited importance, Category:Inherited importance FBI articles, series of categories has also been nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (as original tagger). Those "inherited importance" cats haven't been populated for over a year, and the same seems to apply to the "automatically assessed". The bots that did this are no longer active. If any new bots start doing this, the suggestion by Philosopher that that bot would then also create the categories needed is a good one. (Oh, and tha A-class discusion isn't closed yet, although the outcome seems admittedly fairly certain.) Fram (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You mean it isn't closed any more. ;-) It is still relevant, though. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Correct, it was closed when you posted, isn't now, will be again in the near future :-) Oh, and not that you suggested this, but for clarity: I first nominated the "auto-assessed" and "inherited" ones individually, and then decided to do a group nomination for the A-class (which I believe, while relevant, to be substantially different as well since A-class is manual, the two here are automated-only). Fram (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with caveat - Some background: These categories were created because some members of the community required that articles assessed by bots such as Betacommandbot, Xenobot and Dodobot, be categorized as such. Since none of these bots are no longer doing assessments and no bots in general are doing assessments. There is no reason to have this anymore. I also agree with deleting the Inherited importance series of cartegories for the same reason. The caveat to this is that the templates like {{WikiProject United States}} need to be updated to remove the logic for these categories. Kumioko (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, that changes things. I had been under the impression that bots were still tagging them automatically. In that case, delete the empty ones. I wouldn't delete the non-empty ones now, though - that would require a broader rationale and would be better covered in a separate CfD. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I see that Fram said this too. Sorry, Fram, but I missed your reference to the bots stopping. Guess I got distracted in the "was that really closed" and ignored the rest. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No problem, thanks for checking in again. My deletion tags (and apparently this discussion) is only for the empty ones, the other ones should stay. Fram (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

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:16 Cities of SpišEdit

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, without prejudice to re-creating the category if references are found in reliable sources to support the list. There is no consensus about whether that would be sufficient to justify such a category, but there is a consensus that the category should not exist without sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No explanation anywhere on Wikipedia of what these 16 cities are, or what the title '16 cities of Spiš' signifies. No mention of these cities in the article Spiš. No mention of '16 cities of Spis' on Google. There are not 16 cities in the category. Category is apparently invented. Smerus (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Provincia XXIV oppidorum terrae Scepusiensis(in 1412, thirteen of the towns were pawned to Poland and kept a special status)". It's also mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szepes, and those are the clues you need to find out what's going on here. These are towns that are still in Poland today, (and not Slovakia), because of this. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep Szepes County provides the justification for this category. My only concern is the number since originally 13 out of 24 towns were pawned by the Hungarian Crown to Poland. Perhaps we need to rename but can some one with appropriate knowledge suggest what the category should be called? Since it is now part of Poland, it should presumably have its Polish, rather than its Hungarian (or Slovakian) name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unfortunately, whilst Szepes County does indeed list 13 of these towns (and it would have been helpful to mention this in the category text), it does not give the names of the 'other 3 previously pawned towns' which make up the 16. I see also from the same article that some (unspecified) of the same towns can be permutated to the 'Union of 11 Szepesi towns', or the 'Province/Union of 13 Szepesi towns', for which (fortunately) no categories exist. But as it is clear that nowhere in Wikipedia are these 16 towns named (still less with any cited reference), the category '16 Cities of Spiš' is unencyclopaedic. Unless WP specifies somewhere - anywher e- exctly what these 16 towns are, the category seems to be WP:OR. --Smerus (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete This would seem to be something that an aritcle could be written on, but it makes no sense to categorize modern places by events that happened to them 100s of years ago. We generally do not categorize places by political subdivisons they were in, although we do categorize them by the place they were in when established, but that is because those are clear x date in y place categories. As it is we do not even categorize these places as having ever been in Hungary or Czechoslovakia, we just categorize them as currently being in Slovakia. The one exception is places that no longer exist, but since these places do, it makes no sense as a category. An article that lists all of them and explains what being pawned meant to them would be a much better corse of action. Also of the three articles I have checked only one even mentions that it fits this definition. We should not put articles in categories not supported by the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is nowhere in the category or articles that explains why this is WP:DEFINING, sourced or unsourced. While this information could be turned into an article or list, if a source can be found, this is not a useful category. Andrewaskew (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because 13 are listed and known doesn't mean that the category is invalid. Two, we aren't categorizing the towns by this category, we're applying the category to the towns. It's like arguing we can't add '8 thousander' to certain mountain peaks. Three, the fact that they are listed in a treaty, and they were sold to Poland, makes them notable as a collective group. Four, the grouping isn't arbitrary either. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Places with dual namesEdit

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. The Bushranger One ping only 09:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Category:Places with dual names
  • Nominator's rationale we categorize things by what they are, not what they are names. Having multiple names is not a characteristic of a thing, it is a characteristic of the name. It tells us nothing about the thing itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. 72 places in New Zealand. 4 in Australia and "Mount McKinley". Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest that the characteristic of a such a place is that it is sufficiently culturally and/or historically important to two different groups of people (eg indigenous and not) that both peoples agree to officially keep both names, recognising that significance. (But that's all a bit long for the name of a category!) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It will not always be indigenous and not. ne example would be the Rio Grande which is known as the Rio Bravo in Mexico, it has two names because it is an international boundary. There are probably lots of other similar examples.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there is any culturally/historically importance in any of the "dual names" a category cannot explain, reference or discuss that point. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete trivial - we categorize articles not titles or trivial things about the name of the place. Nearly every place that has changed sovereignty over the past few hundred years has two or more names (nearly every place in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), plus the numerous renamings in Greece, Russia, Iran, the colonial world after "regime change". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete or listify as per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. This is categorisation "by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." Andrewaskew (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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:Prehistoric orangutansEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 09:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: None of these are actually "orangutans", though some may be more closely related to living orangs than to other living apes. Ucucha (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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:Lands reserved for indigenous peoplesEdit

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 but clarify. There is clearly no consensus here to change the categories. Uyvsdi has added to the population of the first one during this discussion. However, they remain unsatisfactory because they are confusing; it is not intuitive that reservations are not "lands reserved…". I encourage editors to add a {{category explanation}} to each page stating what its scope is, and distinguishing the other one. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure why this category exists separately from the more recently created but well-populated target. It has only Category:Inuit territories as its contents, and so perhaps it is because a considerable part of Inuit arctic territories are not regularly "inhabited." But there are settlements of course and Inuit hunting and fishing takes them far beyond established settlements. All indigenous territories called "reserves" are in the target category, adding to the confusion. I can see no purpose for this split and suggest a merge, perhaps as Category:Territories of indigenous peoples? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are places with large indigenous populations in the US and elsewhere that have no official recogniztion as such. The two ideas are similar but not the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • In that case the categories have been grossly misapplied. Nunavut is a Canadian Territory where anyone can live, and ditto I'm sure for many other territories in Category:Inuit territories, and yet they are in the "reserved" cat. Whereas all reserves/reservations and such which by treaty may indeed be reserved for Native peoples are in the "inhabited" categories. (And if the "inhabited" cat is meant include areas that simply have a significant # of Indigenous inhabitants, many Canadian provinces and some of our largest cities would apply, too) . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • For what it is worth the majority of people who live on Native American reservations in the United States are not Native Americans. This is partly because of places like Salamanca, New York which is an over-whelmingly Euro-American city located on a Senaca Reservation. The majority of Native Americans in the US also live off reservations (I think the 2000 census figure was 19% lived on reservations) but that is a different story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
        • But John, while I am not certain of your statistics (and they're probably irrelevant here anyway) the point is that the tribal nations have "dependent sovereign" status in the USA, regardless of who lives where...the law is horribly complex, but the short version is that the tribes have the right to determine who a member of their tribe is, whether that individual lives on or off the rez (after all, for all its flaws, this isn't aparthied), and the boundaries of the reservation are set by law, with internal land allocation or ownership being a VERY mixed bag from reservation to reservation, depending on historical circumstances. As for "landless" groups, like the Little Shell Chippewa, that would be a different category, if one doesn't exist already for landless peoples... Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Unsure if a rename will help. While places like Niihau and most Indian reservations, may restrict residency to specific populations, does that mean the land is reserved? Likewise, don't indigenous peoples populate the entire world? Unless a name to reflect the defining characteristic of these lands can be discovered, deletion could be the only option. I should note that Niihau is actually a privately owned island and as such there is no official government declaration of its residency restriction. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Good points. But this category could be reserved for territories that have some form of indigenous self-government, could it not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Is an Indian reservation a territory? We still have a somewhat ambiguous title. Identify the defining the purpose and then a name that is clear. Then maybe we have something. I'm not opposed to a category in this area. I just what something clear that can be cleanly and objectively populated. Based on the suggestion below, I'm not sure that there agreement on what should be included. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not married to "territories." But take a look at different categories using "lands" and you'll see there are differing uses. We're looking at something under Category:Territorial entities, I think. A Territorial entity that has borders, I'm using territory in that general sense, in which indigenous peoples have some form of self-government or autonomy? If that's a bad term, then by all means let's use something better. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
          • It looks like Indian reservations might be covered by territorial entities, which is a nebulous mess, but not Niihau. I'm also unclear in how any of these names would function for the Canadian areas. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
          • No, an USA "reservation" has a unique status, basically being land set aside for native people, but with a LOT of complex treaty and law that has altered both internal ownership and external boundaries. And NO, USA reservations can't restrict residency, only benefits and membership. Tribes are considered "dependent sovereign nations" under the law, and Reservations are best described as places where both state and federal laws are applied, depending on who, what and where a given activity takes place. Non-Indian people can and do live on a reservation, sometimes due to past history where tribal lands were allotted under the Dawes Act, sometimes where an existing mostly-white community formed within the borders of a reservation, and other times just because the tribe is cool with non-Indians living there. "Reserves" works better than "territory" for people in the USA. Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, but prune of all territories which are not by government designation, 'reserves'. The official government designition is a non-subjective definition of the term, and we should keep to that for the category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've linked to this from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Related_Cfd. Hopefully we can build a consensus on what to do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose either deletion or merger. They are not the same. A reservation in the U.S., or a reserve in Canada does not necessarily mean there are not non-Indians on some of the land. If you look at the Navajo rez in the N.M. section, it is a checkerboard of fee-simple and trust lands. Jurisdiction is also not what you should base it on - SCOTUS can't even keep it straight from session to session. If one is empty, we can fill it. GregJackP Boomer! 01:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - to expand, you can't base it one whether it was called a reservation but is no longer, there are repeated court cases on this very issue. SCOTUS even went to the point of using a ambiguous definition of "Indian Country" to cover jurisdictional arguments where it was clear if there was or was not a reservation. GregJackP Boomer! 02:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither category uses "reservation" per se in the name and so I'm not sure how any of this is pertinent. Could you offer examples of how articles and categories might be divided between "lands reserved" and the "lands inhabited," and why? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Category:Lands reserved for indigenous peoples means the land has been designated for indigenous peoples by the nation-states, as opposed to the suggested target, which could mean anywhere any indigenous peoples live (Los Angeles, Brooklyn, Chicago?). -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
    • Okay, then would you be in favour of deleting the suggested target, by your logic? In which case it would be a reverse merge. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know about Uyvsdi, but I don't feel that they are the same thing. One talks about lands that are set aside by a nation-state for the use of the native peoples, while the other can include anywhere they live. This isn't a situation where one or the other has to go away or be merged. Both can stay. GregJackP Boomer! 18:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • But as has been pointed out above, anywhere they might live is nearly everywhere. It's not defining or practical to categorize on that basis and we don't do that for any other ethnic group. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, the "lands inhabited by" category, at least in theory, sounds like it could encompass Australia, Africa, South America, or wherever. Can someone link to the parent cat everyone is fretting about here? Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I could support a deletion of "lands inhabited by" because I know Native American people living in Bristol and Ipswich, England. "Lands reserved for" carries actual political weight. I believe this might be an unfortunate example of United States-bias—that editors are unaware of the political policies enacted by MANY Central and South American countries to reserve lands specifically for the indigenous peoples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
  • Comment Another example of a Native American Reservation with a majority non-Native American population is the Tonawanda Reservation where over 50% of the population reported being "white" on the U.S. census.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    Irrelevant. "Indian" in the USA is a political status defined by law. Ditto reservations, which were created by treaty or statute. Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    They may also be created by executive order. GregJackP Boomer! 18:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    And in general the number of people who meet the legal definitions of "Indian" are far excedded by those who so identify themselves on the census. My point is that residence on Indian Reservations is not restricted to Native Americans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Legally-defined reservations in the USA and similarly-reserved lands in other nations have a distinct status. The other category is also relevant, however, as there are situations in nations where no such system exists but indigenous people have lived for centuries. I'm not sure of examples, but lands in, say, the Amazon rainforest being taken over by mining and ranching interests would be such a case, or perhaps some of the national parks in Africa which were the traditional homelands for indigenous people, who are still (grudgingly) permitted to remain, but with dubious legal status. The overall categorization scheme may need work, but they are both relevant. Montanabw(talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the "Lands inhabited by indigenous people" category is a very problematic name. I think we should rename it to limit it to areas with indigenous majority populations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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:Songs written by Nathaniel CalhounEdit

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 the categories with more than one article, but delete the 4 single-article categories: Category:Songs written by Nathaniel Calhoun, Category:Songs written by Ed Nelson, Category:Songs written by Hendrik Werber, Category:Songs written by Jorge Luis Piloto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No matching articles.

These categogories have been nominated because presently, and for some time, there has been no matching article. If a suitable article appears I would have no problem removing the nomination. Interested parties have been/will be notified.

For ease I note below where the article space might be found in due course.Nathaniel Calhoun, Giorgos Sabanis, Pam Reswick, Roy Rodde, Omar Alfanno, Ed Nelson (songwriter), Vangelis Konstantinidis, Viky Gerothodorou, Hendrik Werber, Giannis Doxas, Jorge Luis Piloto, Marcus Englof, Ferdinand Washington, Nikos Terzis, Tiffany Amber, Robert Mellin, Rafael Pérez-Botija, Eleana Vrahali, Valeriy Polienko, Romano Musumarra. Any help saving the categories would be appreciated. Richhoncho (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It was a little confusing sorting through that long list for the one category I had created. Might be simpler to inform the category creator which item is theirs--after five years I had no recollection of Category:Songs_written_by_Ed_Nelson. You'll find, however, that the category does have a corresponding article. Durova412 15:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
With nearly 20 users to get through, I thought I'd take the quick route... apologies. However, the sole entry in the Ed Nelson category has a redlink Ed Nelson (songwriter) and Ed Nelson is an actor who didn't appear to write this song. Where exactly is the article so this one can be resolved? Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation; this makes more sense now. I Apologize (song) is the article. Occasionally I would do sweeps of popular song articles doing wikignome work: removing copyright violations, ensuring that the sources were reliable, correcting obvious typos and grammatical errors, improving the layout and categorization. It wasn't feasible to vet all the information that other editors had written and if another editor had misidentified a performer as a songwriter I wouldn't have caught that error. If you think the deletion of the category is appropriate on that basis then I have no objection at all. Thank you for your careful attention to the subject. :) Durova412 04:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete all, including the Ed Nelson category, as these are clearly two different people. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Eric444 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the "No matching articles" comment regarding Category:Songs written by Nathaniel Calhoun. I see at least one article in the category. -- BRG (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The argument is that there should be an article Nathaniel Calhoun before we create an article on songs written by him. I am unconvinced that this really is so, if the songs are notable I see no reason to not group them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep As long as the songs themselves are notable, it makes sense to group them by writer. Anyway the test, if it did exist, could not be "does wikipedia have an article on person x" because wikipedia is not a reliable source. It would have to be "is person x notable", which can be ansswered yes even if they lack a wikipedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep those with more than one song. Part of an established scheme, so standing consensus is that this is something a reader may potential be interested in, and if there is no article or template, then the category is the only thing that links these songs together. --Qetuth (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep all. There is no requirement that a category have a matching article; and "Songs by..." is a well-established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination for all except three categories where there is only one member and no article. Having argued from both sides of this particular argument and been wrong both times...--Richhoncho (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

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:Genus PantheraEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 09:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Apparently set up as an experiment six years ago, but not clear now what the purpose of that experiment was, and certainly it has not gained traction. Ucucha (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I set it up, and I can explain the reason why. The idea was to create a set of categories in parallel to the existing categorization scheme that would organize all articles about specific species by their biological taxonomy. Panthera was chosen to illustrate how different this would be from categorization by common name. The category structure is very difficult to navigate if you are interested in doing so by biological taxonomy. Infoboxes now do close the same thing, so perhaps this is an experiment that has no further purpose. Though I still think it would be a good categorization scheme. As I am no longer very active in categorization, I will defer judgement to those who are. -- SamuelWantman 08:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge no reason to duplicate a category. Anyway we generally use common names in wikipedia, not official or scientific ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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:RhinolophusEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 January 30. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Rhinolophus is basically the only genus in the family Rhinolophidae (there's one poorly known and questionable fossil too). This just adds an unnecessary layer to the categorization scheme. Ucucha (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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:Eurasian nomadsEdit

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 per nominator, and also rename subcat per Fayenatic london. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Pardon me, I don't have extensive experience with CfD, and this case is a little tricky, so I'm open to alternatives, but this category is misnamed. Its {{main}} is Eurasian nomads, but Horse archer civilizations redirects to that article, whereas Category:Horse archer civilizations and empires has a de facto {{main}} that just utilizes that redirect. So if "Eurasian nomads" refers to a specific group, we need a different name for the much larger overarching group, right? BDD (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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:Ghanaian MPs 2009–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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Unlike the other subcategories for Category:Members of the Parliament of Ghana, by Parliament, this one only has the starting year and not the ending year. This change would make all the categories here uniform and also clearly show the time interval of the parliament.--Natsubee (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The appropriate time to change this is when the present Parliament is dissolved and a new election called. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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.