< November 28	November 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish historians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete following the deletion of Category:Jewish academics (as non-notable intersection of religion and profession) in this recent debate; perhaps upmerge to Category:Historians to be on the safe side. Bencherlite^Talk 23:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Historians do not work differently based on their nationality/ethnicity, but are categorized this way anyways because of their contribution toward their nation or ethnic group. This category does not even have the location-specific implication of "academics" (i.e. of being at a certain university), and is also in Category:Jewish scholars, which was not deleted. --Eliyak T·C 16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it being used as a "historians of Judaism" category, or a "historians who are Jewish" category? If the former, perhaps a rename instead is merited to make that clear (possibly also renaming the other sub-cats of Category:Jewish scholars. If the latter, then in principle it's no different from the deleted "Jewish academics" category. Bencherlite^Talk 17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please forgive me, Bencherlite, but I simply must say that I really don't understand why people persist in treating Jewish categories as though they were nothing more than "religious categories". As as been pointed out so many times, being Jewish is also an ethnicity -- so only those Jewish categories that deal with explicitly religious issues should be treated as such. Regards, Cgingold 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• No offence taken (as even though I don't think I've ever had a nomination reason of mine called "absurd" before, I know that's not the same as calling me "absurd"! Incidentally, I don't think I have ever participated in, let alone nominated, a Jewish-related category, but I'm sure you weren't targeting me directly with your comments about "people persistently" etc.) An explanation of how/why this was nominated may help. I was tidying up at WP:CFDW, where bots and others implement the decisions at CfD, and saw that Category:Jewish academics had been emptied, save for this sub-cat, and so couldn't be deleted until that had been resolved. I then removed the to-be-deleted category from Category:Jewish historians, deleted Category:Jewish academics (which is why my name appears on the deletion log) and then had the "bright idea" that the argument about deleting the parent category of "academics" would also apply to the sub-category of "historians". As I don't keep particular note of the various Jewish-related CfDs, the fact that an earlier CfD on a related topic had closed as "no consensus" didn't register with me. (A "no consensus", of course, means that there is no consensus to keep such a category or to delete it, but simply has the practical result of keeping the status quo). I was going by the immediately related previous discussion, which had closed as "delete". It's not my fault that a validly nominated and discussed prior debate (open for nearly 6 calendar days) was closed as "delete" without such points being made in the course of it. Bencherlite^Talk 00:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Cgingold 10:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally, whilst looking at something else, I noticed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_30#Category:Jewish_football_players was a "delete" - so it's not as though all Jewish occupational categories are being closed as "keep" or "no consensus, defaulting to keep". Bencherlite^Talk 07:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - To begin with, Category:Jewish academics never should have been lumped in with Category:Latter Day Saint academics under the heading of "Academics by religion". That CFD sailed "under the radar". If I had been able to participate, I would have forcefully reminded people of the point I just made (above) about ethnicity. At the same time, the deletion of that particular category was of little consequence, since according to the closing admin it had only a single article (which was already in one of its sub-cats). So all in all, it's absurd to regard that CFD as a precedent to be cited and used as a basis for other CFDs.

This category is hardly some "random intersection". The attraction of large numbers of Jewish scholars to the field of history is a noteworthy socio-cultural phenomenon. And that is hardly an accident, considering that the keeping of written historical records began several millenia ago by the earlist Jewish scribes, and has been fundamental to preserving Jewish identity and continuity ever since.

While certain editors may feel that ethnic categories such as this should not be permitted, that is in no way the concensus view, as reflected in the recent CFD for Category:Jewish scientists. The arguments I made there apply here, as well. Cgingold 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep -- why do people keep trying to irrationally chip away at the Jewish categories on Wikipedia, especially when many/most of them contain hundreds of valid entries? --Wassermann 02:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no need for race/ethnic/religion categories at WP. That said, those who vote to axe this and not others should seriously reflect on their own internal biases. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that I'm the only person (before you) to have gone for "delete" so far in this debate, was that comment aimed at me? Bencherlite^Talk 18:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, future tense dude and you are watch-like consistent on these things, fighting the good fight against the majority who'll no doubt prevail here and now, but hopefully not long term. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is a big need to categorize notable aspects of identification on wiki including race/ethnicity/religion.Bakaman 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wii Zapper games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The Wii Zapper is only a shell used to hold the Wii remote. It's not a required accessory for any game. Any game for the Wii can be used for the Zapper. This appears to be overcategorization as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The design of the object is not in question. Nintendo uses the Wii Zapper "compatibility" for marketing, clearly making some games appropriate for it, and others not. Not all games involve point and click (i.e. shoot). Wii Zapper games are identified as such on the box. The infobox of the games in this category even had the mention in the list of accessories prior to category creation.Arasaka (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify if they are identified as such... 132.205.99.122 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no more useful than Category:Video games requiring a joystick, Category:Video games requiring a keyboard and other trivial things. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. Those categories are about generic peripherals, whereas :Category:Wii Zapper games is on a specific patented design and brand name. Arasaka (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify: I agree that the idea is novel, but a list format would be much more appropriate. For example, look at the Guncom. For that, there exists a list. I think it would be much easier to browse through and more practical for the matter at hand. Zemalia 19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While there aren't many titles listed there now, there may be many more in the future. If the category was deleted, it'd require remaking later on; ergo it is a waste of time deleting it. WorMzy (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, empty (the only article it contained was deleted whilst the category was under discussion. Bencherlite^Talk 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outlook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created for a how to guide (Vacation Messages) for Microsoft Outlook. I don't see much use for this category on Wikipedia. +mt 22:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete!!! This is a "how to," appropriate for a Help system, not for an encyclopedia. I at least fixed it so the category didn't list itself as a parent! The article is sure to be deleted, and then the category will be empty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portia1780 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one article category on one feature in a software program. Carlossuarez46 18:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Retrograde categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: categorization by an non-relevant property —Ruud 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this category's title means anything to me. Portia1780 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Recursive would be a better term than retrograde but it's basically more about naming than anything really having to do with one another: do books about books have much in common with films about films - different media about different topics? ah but they both are X "about" X, which is just a name commonality. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a form of overcategorization by name, per Carlossuarez. Bencherlite^Talk 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedily deleted as empty by Orange Mike. Bencherlite^Talk 07:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Organizations for female writers

Nominator's rationale:Rename. Delete Category:Organizations for female writers and Keep Category:Organizations for women writers This is part of the discussion "women writers" v. "female writers". I believe that "women writer" is the preferred compound noun for this occupation. A google search will show 1,700,000 hits for "women writer" and only 362,000 for "female writer" Portia1780 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already merged the article back. The old category can be deleted now, if the discussion so chooses.Portia1780 02:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Don't know the official procedure for closing this. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. This newly created category is duplicative and should not have been created in the first place, as it was only created in furtherance of one editor's POV in an ongoing debate. Category:Organizations for women writers should have been brought to this page to discuss and resolve the issue. I hope the editor will refrain from such maneuvers in the future. Cgingold 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towers in Business Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete we already have Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai in which both articles are also categorized. I am unaware of any other categorization of buildings by office park or development, which is probably OCAT, esp. given that there are only 2 articles here, one of which is already nominated for deletion. Probably too small to support such a category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overcategorization. Bencherlite^Talk 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comics by author to Category:Comics by creator

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Al Columbia to Category:Comics created by Al Columbia

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Alan Moore to Category:Comics created by Alan Moore

Propose renaming Category:Comics by André Franquin to Category:Comics created by André Franquin

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Chris Ware to Category:Comics created by Chris Ware

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Daniel Clowes to Category:Comics created by Daniel Clowes

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Garth Ennis to Category:Comics created by Garth Ennis

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Grant Morrison to Category:Comics created by Grant Morrison

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Jim Woodring to Category:Comics created by Jim Woodring

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Joe Sacco to Category:Comics created by Joe Sacco

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Morris to Category:Comics created by Morris

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Neil Gaiman to Category:Comics created by Neil Gaiman

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Robert Crumb to Category:Comics created by Robert Crumb

Propose renaming Category:Comics by Warren Ellis to Category:Comics created by Warren Ellis

The "by author" format is misleading and limiting here. According to the current scheme we can't credit artists like Bob Kane and Jack Kirby for the comics that they started, and we can’t credit authors like Stan Lee for the comics that they originated but didn't draw. I maintain that the only thing that's important for our purposes is who created the comic, and sometimes that's one person (like Category:Comics by Chris Ware) and sometimes it's two (like Lee and Kirby for the Fantastic Four). It likely won't ever include an inker, a letterer, or an editor. Changing to a "by creator" scheme will make these problems go away. This discussion is also relevant.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - is the intended scope of these categories to be for individual comics titles that are written and drawn by the same person? For instance as noted in the last discussion Garth Ennis is just a writer. Or are you envisioning categorizing separately by writer and artist? Otto4711 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This enables categorizing separately. So Watchmen goes into Category:Comics created by Alan Moore and Category:Comics created by Dave Gibbons. But Fritz the Cat only goes into one category, Category:Comics created by Robert Crumb, as he did both art and text.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And is this categorization to be restricted to articles that are about specific titles (such as Watchmen for instance) or extended to individual characters (such as for instance Spider-Man who's headlined a dozen or more separate titles), and maybe this is something that would lend itself better to templates or lists rather than categories? Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a creative work, and we categorize (not just templatize or list) most creative works by their creators. I think very major characters should be included, but they should have to headline and have a comic title named after them (even if it's The Spectacular Spider-Man rather than just Spider-Man). I could also see major relaunches like The Dark Knight Returns under Frank Miller, but not his run on Daredevil, which is a classic read but still just part of the Daredevil series.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; who created the comic is the more defining feature for these article than the various people who may take over for longer or shorter times when that person retires, dies, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Comics titles created by Foo and limit to articles about specific titles. The character boxes for comics characters, for example ((superherobox)), already contain spaces for the creators of the actual characters and for significant creators, for example Alan Moore, a navtemplate (such as already exists for Moore) and/or in-article list or list article along with being linked through the character boxes will pull together the material in a much less problematic way than trying to categorize who is or isn't significant enough to a particular character to warrant having a Comics created by category tagged onto the article. A character like Superman or Batman who's been re-invented countless times over their fictional histories could easily end up with any number of created by categories which would be category clutter and inaccurate to the point of misleading, not to mention ending up the target of edit wars as people duke out who should or shouldn't be included. Otto4711 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're overestimating the danger here. Every comics reader knows that Superman was created by Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel, and John Byrne doesn't get credit for doing so despite rebooting him in the 1980s.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Every comics reader may indeed know that. If we were an encyclopedia for comics readers that would be fine but we are an encyclopedia for people who have never heard of either Seigel or Schuster, let alone having heard of Superman. Otto4711 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Everybody who edits the Superman page has heard of Superman. Let's lay out some ground rules in the category header, and put some trust in the editors. Your system puts Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Hulk, Spider-Man, and the Fantastic Four outside of its boundaries. That's just not doing the subject matter justice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the content of Wikipedia was for anyone who might be interested in it, not just for the people who might edit a particular article. All of the examples that you list have their creators listed in their infoboxes, so anyone who's interested in finding out what (if any) other characters the creator of those characters created can click on the link to the creator's article in the infobox. Otto4711 (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I really hate when you try to bait me, Otto. I'm trying to make these categories, which no one had complained about before, a bit more inclusive. You apparently want this debate to be about something else. If so, bring it to my talk page. Meantime, I've given my suggestions, and am tired of this back and forth.--Mike Selinker 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And I really hate it when you fail to assume good faith on my part. I'm not the one who brought up the category structure last week by nominating the Joe Sacco category, but now that it's under discussion I'm going to give my suggestions too. Sorry if you don't like my suggestions but I don't think these categories are a good idea in the way you're envisioning them. Otto4711 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments first... Based on past preformance and the article strctures, limiting the cats isn't going to work. The inclinations have always been to tag anything a writer or artist has had an impact on. Series, issues, and characters. On a lot of articles that will lead to a lot of clutter. Limiting it may aliviate that, but it would mean someone would have to sit on the cats to pull unwanted articles as they are added.
  And how it's limited is going to be a problem. Right now the tendancy is for the relavent articles to mix characters and series as often as there being separate articles. And such blended articles are more likely to be under the character, not the series. Limiting to one or the other is going to cause friction. So is which artists and writers get cats.
  Looking at it over all, the cats will need constant looking after, lend themselves to clutter, and in a couple of cases have nav boxes in place that bypass the problems. I'm tempted to say Delete the cats in favor of the nav boxes. - J Greb 16:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge all "female" categories into corresponding "women" categories. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female writers (10th century) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty. Should be "Women writers (10th century), an existing category with the same scope. Portia1780 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:Female writers (16th century) > Category:Women writers (16th century) Portia1780 (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female writers (11th century) > Category:Women writers (11th century)

Category:Female writers (12th century)> Category:Women writers (12th century)

Category:Female writers (13th century)> Category:Women writers (13th century)

Category:Female writers (14th century)> Category:Women writers (14th century)

Category:Female writers (15th century) > Category:Women writers (15th century)

Category:Female writers (17th century) > Category:Women writers (17th century)

Category:Female writers (18th century) > Category:Women writers (18th century)

Category:Female writers (19th century) > Category:Women writers (19th century)

Category:Female writers (20th century) > Category:Women writers (20th century)

Category:Female writers by historical period> Category:Women writers by historical period

Category:Female writers by century> Category:Women writers by century —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portia1780 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and also Category:Female writers > Category:Women writers (already tagged but not on this list) Bencherlite^Talk 00:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Err, just to fill in the context for discussion: An existing tree of Category:Women writers is well-established (and previously defended and well-supported at CFD & DRV). The term "women writers" was advisedly chosen based on prevalence of that phrase as opposed to "female writers"; Portia1780 pointed out at Category talk:Women writers that it is better thought of as a compound noun than as an adjective+noun. Portia1780 also cited Ghits which overwhelmingly demonstrate popularity of "women writers" phrase over "female writers". Editor User:Matthew Proctor posted months ago suggesting that FW was the better term on grammar considerations; receiving no answer for a long time he recently began a large-scale move/redirect project, which caused multiple editors to ping him on his talk page. --Lquilter (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Women writers" tree and delete/merge "Female writers" tree. Although I ordinarily like proper grammar, I am swayed by Portia1780's compound noun point and common usage point. --Lquilter (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to women writers per both above. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women writers, you mean? --Lquilter (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course

• Keep (as nom) "Women writers" tree and delete/merge "Female writers" tree. Just a few of the scholarly instances of "women writers":
  • Women Writer Project at Brown University
  • Victorian Women Writers Project at Indiana University
  • National Association of Women Writers
  • Society for the Study of Women Writers
  • Women Writers Resources at Emory University Portia1780 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (as empty, if not empty on closing merge) per nom to the better structure. I fixed a couple of redlinked categories (typos) in the nom, incidentally, and added a missing one that was tagged but not there. Bencherlite^Talk 23:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Incidentally, Category:Women by occupation could use some sorting out in terms of whether "Women" or "Female" is the preferred form. But that's for another day... Bencherlite^Talk 00:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as that's part of the rationale behind my original (however misguided, as I now see) rename, I've made a proposal here on just that. --Matthew Proctor 06:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all. Bencherlite^Talk 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aberdeen IronBirds alumni to Category:Aberdeen IronBirds players

Propose renaming Category:Auburn Astros alumni to Category:Auburn Astros players

Propose renaming Category:Auburn Doubledays alumni to Category:Auburn Doubledays players

Propose renaming Category:Batavia Clippers alumni to Category:Batavia Clippers players

Propose renaming Category:Batavia Muckdogs alumni to Category:Batavia Muckdogs players

Propose renaming Category:Brooklyn Cyclones alumni to Category:Brooklyn Cyclones players

Propose renaming Category:Hudson Valley Renegades alumni to Category:Hudson Valley Renegades players

Propose renaming Category:Jamestown Expos alumni to Category:Jamestown Expos players

Propose renaming Category:Jamestown Jammers alumni to Category:Jamestown Jammers players

Propose renaming Category:Lowell Spinners alumni to Category:Lowell Spinners players

Propose renaming Category:Mahoning Valley Scrappers alumni to Category:Mahoning Valley Scrappers players

Propose renaming Category:New Jersey Cardinals alumni to Category:New Jersey Cardinals players

Propose renaming Category:Oneonta Tigers alumni to Category:Oneonta Tigers players

Propose renaming Category:Staten Island Yankees alumni to Category:Staten Island Yankees players

Propose renaming Category:Tri-City ValleyCats alumni to Category:Tri-City ValleyCats players

Propose renaming Category:Utica Blue Sox alumni to Category:Utica Blue Sox players

Propose renaming Category:Vermont Expos alumni to Category:Vermont Expos players

Propose renaming Category:Williamsport Crosscutters alumni to Category:Williamsport Crosscutters players

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. Per convention of Category:Minor league baseball players by team. Not 100% sure if this is speediable because I'm not a baseball fan and am not clear if there's some terminology difference where "alumni" is actually correct. Otto4711 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. The only other place where "alumni" is used for sports players is a few Canadian minor league hockey categories (e.g., Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League alumni) where interested parties resolutely oppose following the rest of the sports category conventions. There's no reason to have another outlier here. These are players for these teams, plain and simple.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom and consistency. I've seen professional wrestling promotions use that term as well. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all it's used in business as well... so and so was an alum of IBM, GM... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per all. Johnbod 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Comic book navigation templates. Consensus is to rename the category, but not to what. Looking at the category, these are indeed templates.. Kbdank71 (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comic book navbox templates to Category:Comic book navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: every navbox is a template by definition; navbox categories have naming standard either thus, or as "navigational templates" but without the slangy abbrev. Malyctenar (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to remove the slang. This cat tree could use a consistency clean up because I would guess that there is not too much emotion on either side. Might just propose that shortly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Comic book navigation templates based on the parent Category:Arts and culture-related navigation templates. As a follow on either add the remaining odd names there to this nomination or do a second nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The nominator really ought to have announced this CfD at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_Board#Categories. Doczilla (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair to the nominator, the WikiProject really ought to have tagged the category talk page to signal their interest! Bencherlite^Talk 17:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Comic book navigation templates per parent category convention, as Vegaswikian suggests. Bencherlite^Talk 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all. Bencherlite^Talk 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various sub-subcats of Category:Political parties by ideology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Various subcats proposed for renaming in order to get a more constistent naming scheme. Soman (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Communist parties of Turkey to Category:Communist parties in Turkey
• Category:Communist parties of India to Category:Communist parties in India
• Category:Communist parties of Nepal to Category:Communist parties in Nepal
• Category:Canadian communist organizations to Category:Communist parties in Canada
• Category:Communist parties of the United Kingdom to Category:Communist parties in the United Kingdom
• Category:Communist parties of the Netherlands to Category:Communist parties in the Netherlands
• Category:Communist parties of Portugal to Category:Communist parties in Portugal
• Category:Greek communist parties to Category:Communist parties in Greece
• Category:Conservative and Christian Democratic parties of Germany to Category:Conservative and Christian Democratic parties in Germany
• Category:Greek conservative parties to Category:Conservative parties in Greece
• Category:Far-right and fascist parties of Germany to Category:Far-right and fascist parties in Germany
• Category:Italian Neofascist organizations to Category:Neofascist organizations in Italy
• Category:Austrian nationalist parties to Category:Nationalist parties in Austria
• Category:Greek nationalist parties to Category:Nationalist parties in Greece
• Category:Dutch green parties to Category:Green parties in the Netherlands
• Category:Greek green parties to Category:Green parties in Greece
• Category:Greek monarchist parties to Category:Monarchist parties in Greece
• Category:French monarchist parties to Category:Monarchist parties in France
• Category:Dutch social democratic parties to Category:Social democratic parties in the Netherlands
• Category:Socialist and Social Democratic parties of Germany to Category:Socialist and Social Democratic parties in Germany
• Category:Greek social democratic parties to Category:Social democratic parties in Greece
• Category:Canadian socialist organizations to Category:Socialist parties in Canada
• Category:Dutch socialist parties to Category:Socialist parties in the Netherlands
• Category:Greek socialist parties to Category:Socialist parties in Greece
• Category:UK Socialist parties to Category:Socialist parties in the United Kingdom
• Category:Austrian liberal parties to Category:Liberal parties in Austria
• Category:Dutch liberal parties to Category:Liberal parties in the Netherlands
• Category:German liberal parties to Category:Liberal parties in Germany
• Category:Greek liberal parties to Category:Liberal parties in Greece
• Category:Italian liberal parties to Category:Liberal parties in Italy
• Category:Romanian liberal parties to Category:Liberal parties in Romania
• Category:Dutch confessional parties to Category:Confessional parties in the Netherlands

A renaming might be in order, but I certainly think deleting them all would be a mistake. they serve their respective purposes well, and they would just be recreated. Maybe socialist and far right/fascist should be them uniform designation of some of them--Dudeman5685 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment, none will be deleted, only renamed. --Soman (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. I like it when a more limited adjective takes the place of a broader adjective as the category content narrows. Here, the Category:Political parties in France gets the eminently logical subcategory Category:Monarchist parties in France. That's elegant. (I don't know about changing Category:Canadian socialist organizations to Category:Socialist parties in Canada, though. Those don't all look like parties to me.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think we should employ a rather broad definition of the term 'party' here. Even if some of the groups included are not labelled as parties in their names, they are party-like organisations. --Soman (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if it doesn't field candidates, it's probably not a political party.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a slighly off-topic discussion, but I would disagree. The essential definition of a political party lies in its role to aggregate political interest, not in candidacies. --Soman (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have never heard of that use of "political party." Wouldn't that simply be a Political organization? --Eliyak T·C 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • 'Political organization' is a far more broader concept, involving advocacy and lobbying groups, etc.. The delimiations are not always clear, but the defining characteristic cannot be candidacies. Many parties never run in elections at all (they might, for example, be banned or clandestine for some other reason), but work through other methods to achieve their goals. I'm not really happy with the state of the political party article (older versions like [1] had more clear defintions). I'll try to address the issue at some point in that article. --Soman 19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Proposed rename looks good, consistent. --Martin Wisse (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only when the rename does not change "organizations" to "parties." --Eliyak T·C 16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, actually there's no real difference in content between Category:Canadian communist organizations and Category:Communist parties of Nepal. I think its better if the naming could be consequent. --Soman 19:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian nationalist political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category would be extremly difficult to delimitate in a useful and correct way. The term Nationalism doesn't function in the same way in Indian politics as in Western Europe, and thus it becomes a quite odd subcat to 'Nationalist parties'. At present, the cat only includes Hindu nationalist parties, whose concept of nationhood is contrary to the secular-oriented Indian nationalism (i.e. which favours Indian nationality over ethnic, linguistic, religious affiliations) historically promoted by the Indian National Congress. Soman (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A perfectly valid category. If at present the cat has only some nationalist parties please feel free to add to it other Indian nationalist parties however that can be ground for deletion. Shyamsunder 20:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)))}[reply]

Comment, the problem is that 'nationalism' is not a defining criteria for political parties in India. In a broad sense, virtually all major political parties are nationalist. Also there is the issue of competing national projects, is say the Mizo National Front an 'Indian nationalist party'? --Soman 10:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Labour parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is categorization by name, not ideological orientation. There are already communist, socialist and social democratic party categories. Soman (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment before this is deleted, each article needs to checked and the party placed in its correct ideological category. Just deletion leaves these articles as orphans outside their individual country's categories. Hmains (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that most articles on political parties are only indexed by country. Those articles in this category that fit into another existing category should of course be categorized there. --Soman 15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but prune of Russia, Angola etc. Many of these have strong historical connections, & it is a coherent grouping. Johnbod 03:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in what sense is it coherent? If that sense is identical to the delimination of the Category:Social democratic parties, then this cat is superfluos. --Soman 10:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said Category:Social democratic parties was the more dubious category. The Labour parties all, I think, have trade union origins, whereas the social democrats are much vaguer. Johnbod 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I wasn't sure about - whether they all had trade union origins or not. If so, then it's categorizing by historical origin which seems reasonable to me. --Lquilter (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as categorization of unrelated things based on commonality of name, which is overcategorization. Otto4711 20:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - based on Johnbod's comment; this is not categorizing by name but categorizing by historical origin/roots etc. Individual party articles should also have appropriate categorizing by ideology, too, of course. --Lquilter (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The assertion of a historical connection between the various parties in various nations is unsupported. If this connection exists then it needs to be set forth in an article with reliable sources, not a category. Otto4711 (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on dec 12. Kbdank71 (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Authoritarian political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Criteria for inclusion will always be highly subjective and pov-ish. Soman (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was actually considering adding this to Sanacja. Some category for the for the single party or The Party (politics) would be useful. We have Category:Parties of single-party systems, but what about wannabies? Parties who support authoritarianism, may have excessive parties, but are no monopolies? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the problem lies in delimitation. No state is 100% free (by its nature as an organ holding repressive power), nor is any state 100% unfree (by the sheer fact that any regime, even dictatorship, needs some degree of popular legitimacy). Single-party system parties is a valid cat, cause its delimitation is based on more or less formalized one-party systems. 'Authoritarian' is highly dubious criteria. --Soman (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete as empty at the end of the discussion, without prejudice to recreation if necessary. Bencherlite^Talk 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipalities in Tindouf Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Obseleted by Category:Tindouf Province. escondites 10:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, actually..."Municipalities in X Province" is a perfectly valid subcategory to have, as a province category very often should contain more than just articles about municipalities. Admittedly I'm not overly familiar with how thorough our coverage of Algerian topics is at present, but for Canadian provinces, American states, Australian states, and on and so forth, the dedicated province or state category has a subcat for its municipalities. Keep both, with municipalities as a subcat of the other, unless our coverage of Algeria really is so poor that there's nothing else to file in the province categories anyway. And if that's the case, then we really need to improve our coverage rather than pruning our categories. Bearcat 09:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iranian women fashion designers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: On the one hand we have Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Categorisation_schemes, a guideline which suggests that "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation", on the other hand we have WP:Cat gender#Gender which suggests that "Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic." and Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference which suggests "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.". Through all that advice I get the impression that this is an intersection to far - though I can see that it is open to debate. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we don't have a 'male fashion designers' category, right? The super-cat Category:Female fashion designers should be deleted as well. --Soman (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - overcategorization by sex. Otto4711 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but make sure Behnaz Sarafpour is in Category:Iranian fashion designers first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as empty and overcategorization; then delete Category:Female fashion designers as empty (this is the only sub-category). Bencherlite^Talk 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT by triple intersection of nationality/sex/occupation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Triple intersection.Bakaman 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Bencherlite^Talk 00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caucasian American rappers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Currently only has one entry (Eminem) and is not likely to grow anytime soon. Poeloq (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Poeloq (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per discussion of April 12th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ProveIt. (What, Vanilla Ice wasn't so categorized? He's a veritable caucasian pioneer in the genre ... ) Snocrates 02:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think there has actually been a few white rappers. (Looking it up at WP I find Everlast (musician), who I've heard of, plus Vinnie Paz (rapper) and Necro (rapper)) Still it's unwise to divide this way. It might make more sense to be specific like "Irish American rappers" or something. Although whites seem to be more in the overall Hip hop world than rap specifically.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcategorization by race/ethnicity. --Soman (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. We've seen versions of this one before. Doczilla (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT by race/ethnicity and occupation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• We deleted this when it was called "White rappers", didn't we? Delete again, non-encyclopedic WP:CATGRS violation. Bearcat 09:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge to Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Bencherlite^Talk 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Category:American Academy of Arts and Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to better reflect the actual usage of the category. (Similar to, for example, Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences.) (Notified creator with ((cfd-notify))) Cgingold (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete - overcategorization by award or honor. As a side note, I see that yet again we have a main article for an award that asserts without citation that this award is second only to the Nobel prize in terms of prestige. This must be the fifth award so claimed that's come up here in the last few months. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I tend to agree that national Academy memberships, while a signal honor that is usually a strong sign of notability, are rarely defining, per se. However, listifying gives me pause because membership is usually numerous, and since many people will be so involved, the list/articles are quite lengthy. --Lquilter (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Change proposal to Merge to Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. I just discovered that we have a parent Category:Members of learned societies which has 30 sub-cats, among them Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Since that already exists, I think it makes more sense to make use of it rather than create a new and duplicative Category:Members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In addition, it should be noted that the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is fully on a par with the other groups in Category:Members of learned societies, so Category:American Academy of Arts and Sciences should not be singled out for deletion. And lastly, the parent cats of Category:American Academy of Arts and Sciences should be added to Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, since it currently is only in the aforementioned Category:Members of learned societies. Cgingold (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Relisted given nominator's change of view during the discussion, and lack of comments thereupon.[reply]

• Merge per revised nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Cgingold to get the name right, but I'm not happy with the state of affairs. National Academies membership is significant (I said earlier that I thought it was not defining; but that's a bare judgment call; it is certainly arguably defining: people will often be introduced as Academy members or that will be an early line in a short bio) and Academy memberships are so large that lists are not friendly. But particularly notable people will often be in multiple Academies and it leads to clutter. --Lquilter (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that at 4,000 ordinary, plus 600 honourary (foreign+celebs) members, it might potentially get very large, but so far 11 months = 51 members here. I wouldn't mind excluding the honourary members completely, which might help - if they can be distinguished - see recent Freemen of City of London debate. Johnbod (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They probably all, or most, are notable and should have articles. It's not just this academy, either; if it were only one academy it probably wouldn't even be as big a deal. But as WP gets better populated with Academies and academics/scholars, there will be lots of these at tghe bottom of many notable people. Much like the institutional affiliations categories now. (And I *wish* we could get rid of those. How many people, after death, are going to be known as a "University of X faculty member"? precious few. ... maybe that future-history perspective is what we should take on these.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Bencherlite^Talk 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Power Standards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I found this category in the orphanage, and placed it in Category:Standards. It doesn't seem to fit with the general pattern of categories in Category:Standards, and the category description seems rather vague (although that may just be because I don't understand the subject). I will leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these things don't really seem to go togehter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and rename to Category:Integrated circuit power standards. The articles do go together and more articles can be added. I added various appropriate categories. Hmains (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 00:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.