< July 20	July 22 >

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a variety of performer-by-performance overcategorization. There is much consensus precedent for the idea that we don't categorize people by guest or cameo appearances in various forums and media. This is similar, though not identical, to Category:WWE celebrities, which was deleted last year. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear-cut performer by performance overcat. Otto4711 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:OC#PERF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guest appearances on a show are rarely defining and fall into WP:OC. By contrast, regular appearances in a featured role on a television series would establish a defining connection. Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been against categorizing people by featured role on a television series for several years. Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Otto4711 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ricky Martin Music Video to Category:Ricky Martin music videos and DVDs

Nominator's rationale: Rename - current name is malformed. There is no particular naming standard amongst categories for music video and DVD releases. Category:Music videos and DVDs has a multitude of formats and there's an entirely separate Category:Video albums by artist structure. The whole thing's a mess and needs to be sorted out but rather than try to undertake that herculean task I'll start by proposing a fix to one small piece of it. Otto4711 (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - in favor of adding this to the mass nomination. The results should be consistent. Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but these are albums (not individual song-videos) and it should be part of Category:Video albums by artist. I agree that the whole thing is a mess. I would personally be happy to name it Category:Ricky Martin video albums with a note that DVDs are included. Occuli (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these all video albums, though? Two of them are recordings of concert performances. We have no video album article and Album doesn't discuss the concept. Otto4711 (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we recently destroy the last best hope to bring some sense to this all by deleting Category:Ricky Martin stuff 1980–2000 or some such-named category? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 21 July 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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - duplicates Category:Ricky Martin Music Video (which needs to be renamed) as categorizing the singer's video and DVD releases. Otto4711 (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicate. Occuli (talk) 23:53, 21 July 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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: One article doesn't require an entire category. TTN (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too few articles to justify a separate cat. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No more justified use of category. --KrebMarkt 08:21, 27 July 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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This contains a single article, so it is not necessary. TTN (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too few articles to justify a separate cat. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No more justified use of category. --KrebMarkt 08:20, 27 July 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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This contains a single article, so it not necessary. TTN (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too few articles to justify a separate cat. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No more justified use of category. --KrebMarkt 08:21, 27 July 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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category only links to three articles (including the subcategory). TTN (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too few articles to justify a separate cat. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No more justified use of category. --KrebMarkt 08:21, 27 July 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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't have enough articles to actually require it. TTN (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too few articles to justify a cat. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No more justified use of category. --KrebMarkt 08:22, 27 July 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/Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Motorcycling subcultures to Category:Motorcycling subculture

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is not only a category of subcultures, but is also about motorcycling subculture, and elements or aspects of the subcultures. Dbratland (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per comments at speedy above. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 23 July 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: Delete. SilkTork *^YES! 10:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Types of clothing to Category:Clothing by type

Nominator's rationale: The category description explains that this is only a category for main articles, while Clothing by type states that it is only a category for other clothing type categories. Why can't one category contain both? I don't see the value of this duplication and arbitrary split between the two clothing type categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't merge. Category:Clothing by type is a subcat scheme for Category:Clothing, should have no articles, and should be a child of Category:Clothing (and not Category:Types of clothing). Eg Category:Clothing by nationality is more or less OK, and doesn't need or have 'Nationalities of clothing'. Category:Clothing by material is a strange creature. Category:Types of clothing should just be upmerged to Category:Clothing (like the 'types of running' cfd). Occuli (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After having a good look, I think Category:Types of clothing should just be deleted, because it is a miniature duplicate of Category:Clothing by type, so to speak. I mean, it list the articles, where Category:Clothing by type lists the categories. That is just unnecessary. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Types of clothing as it has been replaced by Category:Clothing by type. No need to have two such similar cats, and Category:Clothing by type works better. It's worth looking at other "Types of Foo" / "Foo by type" categories to see if similar duplicates have been created. SilkTork *^YES! 18:47, 23 July 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: Delete. Requested by creator. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bessarabian counties proposed for speedy deletion. I am the creator and sole contributor. All items have been put in Category:Counties of Bessarabia to follow the existing practice. Dc76\^talk 17:42, 21 July 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 to Category:k.d. lang songs. Note there is apparently a technical limitation in how this displays on the category page, so while the title is displayed correctly, it's use in the page is not. If anyone knows of a way around this that requires admin action, please let me know. As a technical note, the name of the category is not really changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:K.d. lang songs to Category:K.D. Lang songs

Nominator's rationale: Her article uses the regular capitalization. Note that Category:K.D. Lang albums is capitalized to match the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. she went by 'k.d. lang' without any letters capitalised during the 1980s and early 90s - I don t know about since. if she still goes by this then, of course, the article page should be at k.d. lang and not K.d. lang nor K.D. Lang, but I don t know if this is possible to do Mayumashu (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She is still 'k.d. lang' acc to her website. It is possible to make the article appear as 'k.d. lang' (I forget how) but I'm not sure that it is possible for the category to do better than Category:K.d. lang (eg Category:k.d. lang appears with a K). Occuli (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: WP's capitalization scheme doesn't seem to follow the eccentricities of the article's subject: see E. E. Cummings (all appropriate caps) for an example. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:k. d. lang songs per the correct spelling and capitalization of the singer's name. I had also thought that the software limitation that required initial capital letters had been fixed. If the category can't be located at the correct capitalization, then leave as is as the closest possible match. The other categories and the lead article should be renamed to the correct capitalization. Otto4711 (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. If any editor has an argument with WP:MOS and capitalization of non-standard names, the issue should be taken up there. Once policy is changed, I will fully support use of all lowercase letters. Until then, advocating for deliberate conflicts with core Wikipedia guidelines only adds disruption and confusion, when none is needed. 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)

MOS is a guideline, not a policy. As is noted at the top of the MOS page, as a guideline it is subject to common-sense occasional exceptions. Accusing fellow editors of acting disruptively is both a failure to assume good faith and a failure to demonstrate the civility that you demand from everyone else. Otto4711 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling the conflicting standards you propose to be disruptive. While I am sure that you believe that you are right with all possible good faith on your part, conflicting with guidelines (or policies) is a disruptive approach. Having discrepant titles between an article and its corresponding categories is hardly an example of "common sense". Why would we want to confuse editors and those navigating through articles with two conflicting standards? I will support your efforts to implement the change at WP:MOS, but until then common sense dictates that we respect it. Alansohn (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure that loads of people will be tormented with confusion upon contemplating whether "K.D. Lang" and "k.d. lang" are the same person or not. Of course we can alleviate any possible confusion by naming everything "k.d. lang" since that is her name as she spells it, as a common sense exception to the guideline expressed at MOS. Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is having a parent article K.D. Lang that conflicts with the all lowercase category you are advocating. Anyone with any common sense will be tormented by an inability to explain why we have two conflicting standards for referring to the same person, one with initial caps used in the real world of article space and another arbitrarily different one in all lowercase in what should be a corresponding category. We should be using common sense exceptions where navigation is improved; this proposal only makes it more confusing. Again, take your arguments to WP:MOS and convince the Wikipedia masses that they are wrong and that the article title should be in all lowercase. Once you have consensus there on changing the guideline and the article has been renamed I will support you 100% here in having the category title renamed to match the title of the parent article. Until then, having conflicting titles only creates disruption. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have a little more confidence in my fellow editors to have an intellect greater enough than that of the average house plant and thus be able to grasp that "K. D. Lang" and "k. d. lang" are the same person. The article is wrongly titled. The existing error should not be compounded by blindly following a guideline that is subject to exception. Otto4711 (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have even more faith than you do in the intelligence my fellow editors, so I see no reason to foolishly subject them to needless disruption with an arbitrary conflict with a rather clear guideline at WP:MOS. Any editor who is looking to add a category to an article with a connection to K.D. Lang, with any degree of common sense, would naturally assume that a corresponding category would share the name of the parent article. Rather than wasting more time here at CfD and creating more confusion among editors for no rational benefit, take your argument to WP:MOS. I will back you up 100% once your efforts there to change this guideline is complete and the article title has been changed to all lower case as you feel appropriate. Here at CfD, blind observance to past decisions, especially of the arbitrary kind established here, is a rule that is taken rather seriously, regardless of the consequences or the harm to navigation. I agree that there is ample room for exceptions at CfD, but the one you are pushing for here only makes Wikipedia more confusing for all involved. Respecting consensus set broadly in the real world of article space is only common sense. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to lowercase spelling. WP:MOSCAPS states that "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." We do have this for k.d.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My, how commonsensical. Otto4711 (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes WP:MOSCAPS couldn't be more clear. Did people even check the guideline? And we have reliable third party references in the main article, as well as k.d's own Web site, proving that lowercase is in fact correct. I've posted this on the article talk page and will try to do a page move soon. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to lowercase. Seems relatively clear-cut from MOS that this is OK for people. Article should also be changed. (Not sure why so much of the discussion above was based on an assumption that the MOS said this was not to be done.) Can we (technology-wise) make the first letter of a category name lower-case? I don't think we can, but I'm no expert on those issues. It's possible there is a complex work-around. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 27 July 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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete After reading the Category:Types of running CfD, I agree to nominate this top-level category for deletion as an unnecessary categorization plan. It's not that I believe that "type" categories are unnecessary. (On the contrary, I've done quote a bit of work with Category:Films by type.) But the top-level category for Types of FOO or FOO by type should be FOO. (I'd also support renaming all sub-cats as FOO by type as it's the FOO and not that it's a type which is defining). I just can't see the value in organizing unrelated types of things as "types." I would argue it's just an example, albeit atypical, of Wikipedia:OC#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, I see that it did survive a previous CfD as no consensus. I'm not sure that my arguments are necessarily going to tip the scales this time, but as the last one was in October 2008 perhaps its not a bad idea to address again Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there's nothing wrong with 'Foo by type', a subcat scheme for Foo. Category:Types of clothing is a good one with Category:Clothing by type as a subcat, which is just silly. I don't see that 'Foo by type' is a sensible (sub)subcat of Category:Types; they happen to have 'type' somewhere in the name and that is all. (I see that Category:Contents is a parent of Category:Categories, although Category:Contents is a category and thus one would expect to find it in Category:Categories.) I am still hoping someone will elucidate re types. Occuli (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and a great deal of the categorization scheme is given to categorizing types of things. However, this seems to be a subset where only categories that use the word "types" are collected, the usefulness of which escapes me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: It this metacategory a duplicate of Category:Categories by type? if not - what the difference?·Carn !? 20:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by type has members of the form Category:Foo by type (subcat schemes, few if any top level articles). The other one has members of the form Category:Types of foo, mostly top level articles, give or take additions by confused editors. Occuli (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant - is there any difference between Category:Foo by type and Category:Types of foo? Not in practice, but in the meaning of phrase?·Carn !? 14:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Foo by type" implies further category subdivision by type of foo, while "Types of foo" implies a collection of articles describing the types of foo that may exist. --Eliyak T·C 03:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. And I hope somebody will tackle (part of) the subcategories as well. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 22 July 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: Delete. --Xdamr^talk 21:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no selection criterion for an articles and subcategories. Carn (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most complete «alternative economy» definition I can give: any theory or practice contradict dominating economy theory or practice. It can be even Marxism. But In publications I saw it was used situationaly, not as main subject. And I have no authoritative source for the definition above. If there is no definition — there is no selection criterion. If there is no selection criterion — сategory content is formless dump with random trash. Carn (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I take Karn's points about the lack of positive definition, but I do think there is a rationale for categorical bracketing together of, for example, Local Exchange Trading Systems, Detroit Community Scrip, Squatting, etc as voluntary associations of those of an alternativist mindset. I feel the category space would be poorer for the loss of the category. AllyD (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying about lack of any definition. Negative definition from any Reliable sources would be OK. I am seeking it, but not finding. From the point of navigation linking of this articles can be done through Portal:Alternative economy for example.·Carn !? 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly rename to Category:Alternative ecomonies? I agree with the issues raised by the situational nature of the term "alternate economy". Renaming would help clarify the scope of the category to include only those articles which are about an economy that exists as an alternative to the mainstream economy where the alternative is located (that sentence got away from me a bit but I hope it's comprehensible). So Detroit Community Scrip would go in the category but Capitalism wouldn't. Otto4711 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 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/Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Current Egyptian footballers in Europe to Category:Egyptian expatriate footballers

Nominator's rationale: conventionally we don t keep 'current' categories, nor do we categorise by continent and occupation. (The contents could be 'listified' having, as is the general convention, retired and current players listed together, with current ones in bold print.) Mayumashu (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong agree per numerous precedents. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 22 July 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: renamed to Category:Marriage, unions and partnerships in Pakistan by Carn (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Marriage, unions and partnerships In Pakistan to Category:Marriage, unions and partnerships in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: typo -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:27, 21 July 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/Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Environmental issues with aviation to Category:Aviation and the environment

Nominator's rationale: NPOV, and will better reflect the eventual contents -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having second thoughts. It is possible that both categories can exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to more neutrally reflect contents of category. Alansohn (talk) 19:02, 22 July 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/Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate newly-created category to hold what the editor has termed "sound catchphrases" which is a neologism. Drawn Some (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Catchphrases. It took me a while to figure out what a "sound catchphrase" was. Renaming to Category:Onomatopoeic catchphrases could be acceptable, but I don't think there would be much benefit of a separate subcategory considering the size of Category:Catchphrases. Jafeluv (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to capture defining difference with word-based catchphrases. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Term is not used anywhere but here. Category:Onomatopoeic catchphrases doesn't seem exactly correct, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - everything in the category except mouth pop strikes me as qualifying as words (and mouth pop is probably going to be deleted in the next few days). Some of them are even in the OED. Not a meaningful distinction. Otto4711 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 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: Merge Category:Films about journalism to Category:Films about journalists. --Xdamr^talk 21:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Films about journalists to Category:Films about journalism

Nominator's rationale: Merge These two categories were created within months of each other in 2007 by the same editor. I do not see the point in having both. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nom - both are fairly small. Lugnuts (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree A film about a journalist, might not be about journalism, and visa versa. Sorry, but won't work. Debresser (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vise versa merge all in Films about journalists: film about journalist — is film with (main) character-journalist. We can easily check this out. Can there be film about journalism without character-journalist? Carn (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Category:Films about journalists was created to be a subcat of the also nominated Category:Films by occupation of the protagonist, another indication of how pointless I believe that category is, as well. And yes I challenge you Debresser to find a film about journalism that doesn't feature journalists. And conversely, if a film about a journalist is not about journalism, then the character's occupation is a trivial non-defining characteristic not worthy of categorizing, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete suffers the same problems as most "films about...." categories; how much about the subject must the film be and what RS tells us that it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be applied to Category:Films about journalism, but not for the Category:Films about journalists — if main character of the film is journalist - film matches. ·Carn !? 14:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just more of the baseless demand that a category must be percentage-based, which sounds no less illogical for movies than it does for people. Alansohn (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as these films can be about either individual journalists or about the field of journalism. A reverse merge would be the better merge option. Alansohn (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vise versa merge. Agree with User:Carn. Category:Films about journalists is the better category and is more consistent with similar categories of films about occupations. Cjc13 (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either would be fine with me. There's just no need for two, that's all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge -- filsm are usually about people, rather than occupations. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 23 July 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/Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Motorcycling media depictions to Category:Motorcycling media

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Motorcycling media" says just as much as "Motorcycling media depictions" so "depictions" is unnecessary. Category:American football media and Category:Political media are precedents. Sorry I didn't think of it sooner.Dbratland (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and other categories in Category:Sports media by sport. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 21 July 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rafting films to Category:Nautical films or Category:Rafting media

:Nominator's rationale: Rename I'm generally loathe to nominate films by topic categories for WP:OC#SMALL but I do believe this one may fit the bill. Created almost a year ago, it had been miscategorized under films by genre. Clearly there's no genre of rafting films here: the category includes everything from a Charlie Brown special to suspense films. But unless the category is broadened to include all films about boating, I suggest there may be little room for growth. We do have quite a lot of Category:Aviation films and boats have been a staple in movies at least as much as planes. As for those choice of name, well, the more straightforward Films about boats or boating is one option. But I took Aviation films as a model -- a better name than Plane films -- also noting that we do have Category:Nautical lore. Category:Maritime culture would be a mastercat, so I suppose Category:Maritime films is another option? Sorry I can't be more precise about what the target should be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate option: Of course, Maritime films might not include inland water activities such as rafting. Maybe we should just repurpose as Rafting media, which would at least allow us to include things like Rafting magazines and books, in the hopes of creating a worthwhile category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third option: Renaming the category to "White water films" to broaden it. --Bensin (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, as well. And I see that there is a somewhat neglected Category:Whitewater sports. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose keeping the category strictly to white-water/rafting films. --Bensin (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see there being a critical mass of strictly whitewater rafting films to merit a category. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN I've added it to Category:Sports films by sport. I couldn't come up with a clear nomination. Let's move on. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 23 July 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.

July 21

Category:WWE Guest Hosts

Category:Ricky Martin Music Video

Category:Ricky Martin DVD Videography

Category:Nausicaa characters

Category:Dr. Slump characters

Category:Slam Dunk characters

Category:Flame of Recca

Category:Flame of Recca characters

Category:Motorcycling subcultures

Category:Types of clothing

Category:Bessarabian counties --> Category:Counties of Bessarabia

Category:K.d. lang songs

Category:Types

Category:Alternative economy

Category:Current Egyptian footballers in Europe

Category:Marriage, unions and partnerships In Pakistan

Category:Environmental issues with aviation

Category:Sound catchphrases

Category:Films about journalists

Category:Motorcycling media depictions

Category:Rafting films