< June 30	July 2 >

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. Kbdank71 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - there is no Category:Albums by recording venue structure, for good reason, since the recording location is rarely, if ever, defining of the album itself (see Chronological list of recordings made at Abbey Road Studios for the approach taken for a much more notable recording studio). Such a structure would add further category clutter to album articles, particularly as some albums are recorded in multiple locations depending on artiste availability. Indigo Ranch is, at the time of writing, a redlink, so the information can't be added to that article. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization by non-defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to me that this sort of info is better suited to a list. If there was an article about the studio I would suggest adding it.... oh, well. Cgingold (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Otto and Bencherlite. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:22, 2 July 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Script singles to Category:The Script songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename per standard of Category:Songs by artist. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 22:35:50
Rename. Such categories are specifically mentioned at Category:Singles. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2008 (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:People from Barcelona, Spain to Category:People from Barcelona. The article is at Barcelona. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Barcelona, Spain to Category:People from Barcelona

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - Duplicate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Mayumashu (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom as obvious duplicate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reverse merge to Category:People from Barcelona, Spain for clarity and reader understanding. See Barcelona (disambiguation) for why Hmains (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Main article is at Barcelona, not Barcelona, Spain, and category names tend to follow the main article. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge per Hmains. Assuming that they are all from the city and not somewhere else. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Barcelona is one of the great Iberian cities. The fact that other places may have borred its name is no reason to add "Spain" as if Spain were the 57th US State. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per lots and lots of precedence. --Kbdank71 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom to match article name, and per all sibling cats in parent Category:Barcelona . -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as eponymous overcategorization - just the main article and album/singles sub-cats; the material is sufficiently linked through the main article The Script (band). Note: category had two songs and an album in it that were already in the singles/album sub-categories, which I removed from the head category for being duplicative categorization prior to this nomination. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and precedent, WP:OC. Otto4711 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2008 (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: keep. Kbdank71 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian ambassadors to the United States to Category:Ambassadors of Russia to the United States

Nominator's rationale: Whilst Russian ambassadors is obvious these are 'of Russia', Russian can also denote ethnicity, and to keep this category inline with its parent, Category:Ambassadors of Russia, it should probably be renamed. Россавиа ^Диалог 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do not rename The current name matches a naming pattern and no confusion ensues unless this were renamed. Then the confusion is, 'why is this one different?' with no explanation. Hmains (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Category:Russian diplomats is another parent of Category:Russian ambassadors to the United States so there is no gain in consistency. Moreover in Category:Ambassadors to the United States the majority of subcats use 'Fooian ambassadors to the United States'. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to the United States, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to the United States. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:17, 7 July 2008 (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: keep. Kbdank71 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian ambassadors to the United Kingdom to Category:Ambassadors of Russia to the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Whilst Russian ambassadors is obvious these are 'of Russia', Russian can also denote ethnicity, and to keep this category inline with its parent, Category:Ambassadors of Russia, it should probably be renamed. Россавиа ^Диалог 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do not rename The current name matches a naming pattern and no confusion ensues unless this were renamed. Then the confusion is, 'why is this one different?' with no explanation. Hmains (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it is. There is no ambiguity and category names should where possible be brief. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 'Russian ambassadors to the United States' above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to the United Kingdom, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to the United Kingdom. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:21, 7 July 2008 (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: keep. Kbdank71 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian ambassadors to Ukraine to Category:Ambassadors of Russia to Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: Whilst Russian ambassadors is obvious these are 'of Russia', Russian can also denote ethnicity, and to keep this category inline with its parent, Category:Ambassadors of Russia, it should probably be renamed. Россавиа ^Диалог 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do not rename The current name matches a naming pattern and no confusion ensues unless this were renamed. Then the confusion is, 'why is this one different?' with no explanation. Hmains (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it is. There is no ambiguity and category names should where possible be brief. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 'Russian ambassadors to the United States' above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to Ukraine, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to Ukraine. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:25, 7 July 2008 (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: keep. Kbdank71 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian ambassadors to Israel to Category:Ambassadors of Russia to Israel

Nominator's rationale: Whilst Russian ambassadors is obvious these are 'of Russia', Russian can also denote ethnicity, and to keep this category inline with its parent, Category:Ambassadors of Russia, it should probably be renamed. Россавиа ^Диалог 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do not rename The current name matches a naming pattern and no confusion ensues unless this were renamed. Then the confusion is, 'why is this one different?' with no explanation. Hmains (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it is. There is no ambiguity and category names should where possible be brief. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 'Russian ambassadors to the United States' above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to Israel, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to Israel. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:28, 7 July 2008 (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:Soviet ambassadors to the United Nations to match the form of most entries in Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian and Soviet ambassadors to the United Nations to Category:Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to the United Nations

Nominator's rationale: I have created Category:Ambassadors of Russia to the United Nations for those ambassadors who are/were reps of Russia to the UN. The Soviet Union and Russia are not the same entity, and this renaming goes to furthering the separation of "Russian and Soviet" categories. The suggested name is inline with Category:Ambassadors of the Soviet Union and Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations Россавиа ^Диалог 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do not rename The current name matches a naming pattern (with one unneedful exception) and no confusion ensues unless this were renamed. Then, the confusion is, 'why is this one different?' with no explanation. Hmains (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Soviet ambassadors to the United Nations. Nominator is correct in the impulse to separate Soviet and Russian ambassadors but has selected an incorrect naming convention. See the sibling category Category:Soviet ambassadors to Germany. Otto4711 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Soviet ambassadors to the United Nations per Otto. Problem is we have Category:Ambassadors by country of origin (Ambassadors of Foo) but Category:Diplomats by nationality (Fooian diplomats). I suppose there are rare cases when the Ambassador of Foo is not Fooian but such is life. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of the Soviet Union and Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to the United Nations. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Soviet actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Soviet ambassador but Ambassador of the Soviet Union, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:27, 7 July 2008 (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: articlify per nom to get it out of category space; RM for a better name. Kbdank71 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Ancient African Kingdom to article Ancient African kingdoms or any better ideas

Nominator's rationale: Misplaced article in category space. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert per nom. "Ancient" seems wrong, as some go up to the C18 at least, though some are BCE. Pre-modern sub-Saharan African kingdoms is a bit of a mouthful, but seems to cover the ground. There would be a case for merging into History of Africa, which covers these pretty briskly. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move the text to an article (as nom), which should then perhaps be the main article for this category. However, the content seems to relate to certain kingdoms of west Africa; the suggested article name thus needs to be reconsidered. Then rename to Category:Ancient African kingdoms to fit convention. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as eponymous overcategorization - the material is sufficiently linked through the main article Jordin Sparks and ((Jordin Sparks)). Note: category had two songs in it that were already in the songs sub-category, which I removed from the head category for being duplicative categorization prior to this nomination. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, precedent and WP:OC. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dutch poeple of Namibian descent to Category:Dutch people of Namibian descent

Nominator's rationale: Spelling correction TN‑X-Man 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as simple and obvious spelling error. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (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; empty. Kbdank71 18:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#OPINION. Creator of the cat agrees at Category_talk:Criticism of Calvinism. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark It is difficult to discuss an empty category (emptied today by user:Lyonscc). I'm not sure that 'Criticism of XXXX' always falls under WP:OCAT#OPINION. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does not always, but the creator of the cat User:Romans9:11 and the emptier of the cat User:Lyonscc agreed with me that this one does as it was applied (see Category_talk:Criticism of Calvinism). --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no strong opinion, I merely note that an extensive Category:Criticism of religion tree exists. Otto4711 (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. I don't think this one is out of line in principle, just that there are no articles in it at present (by consent of the creator who added a number to it) and none that I know of that would pass WP:OCAT#OPINION. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the creator wants to delete it, he should use the speedy template for that purpose - see the instructions page. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose I could have suggested that to him/her rather than doing it myself. In any case, this now qualifies for speedy delete for having been empty for 4+ days. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Newly created, 4 entries, redundant to C:People from Yorkshire Deiz talk 14:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The connection of 50% of the articles (the Eccles) is not apparent from their articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The other 2 persons were already in 'People from York', either directly or via subcats. One Eccles is Baronness of Moulton in Yorkshire, the other is her husband so I have put these in 'People from Yorkshire'. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Carolus Linnaeus to Category:Carl Linnaeus

Nominator's rationale: To bring into line with the title of the main article (Carl Linnaeus). Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. (I actually find it kind of weird that the article is named "Carl Linnaeus" instead of "Carolus Linnaeus", but that's neither here nor there for this CfD and has probably been gone over on the article talk page a number of times.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 3 July 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:King-James-Only Movement to Category:King James Only movement

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Caps per WP:NAME and removed hyphens per use in the reliable sources cited in the main article. Both of these match the recently renamed main article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kaiser Chiefs covers to Category:Kaiser Chiefs album covers

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category Category:Album covers and to avoid ambiguity with 'cover versions'. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, while we are here am I right in thinking that the images shouldn't be displayed? (Using __NOGALLERY__ as in Category:Queen (band) album covers.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2008 (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: Keep but only as a Template:Parent category. - jc37 07:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Does a band really need their own category, containing nothing but said band's article, songs, and a link to a related guitar? I thought that was what "See also" sections were for. Vianello (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The category's creator didn't finish the job -- so I gave it a proper parent cat (Category:Categories named after musicians), as well as adding Category:The Everly Brothers albums and another article. That means it now has 2 sub-cats and 3 articles -- just a tad short of what Category:Burden Brothers and Category:Allman Brothers have got. Cgingold (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please explain what happened to Category:Burden Brothers, which has been dispatched into oblivion since I wrote my comment? Cgingold (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedily deleted as the recreation of deleted content. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - eponymous overcategorization, main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the material. Otto4711 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the children of one of the Brothers shouldn't be categorized under the band's category, and the guitar is mentioned in the article about the band and vice versa. Overcategorization by name, per multiple precedents. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added Edan Everly specifically because he has performed with them; I left out his sister because there was nothing in the article to suggest that she has performed with them. Cgingold (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the purpose of a category is to collect related articles together, and this collects together the items contained in the subcategories. By all means rename to 'Items related to The Everly Brothers' (as 'eponymous' categories seem to be allowed only to a few Greats, chosen in what appears to me to be a wholly arbitrary fashion). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subcategories gather the articles in the subcategories. The parent category isn't needed to gather them again. The main article also gathers the material through links to the contents of the subcategories so again the parent category is not needed. This material is not so complex that an eponymous category is warranted for it. Otto4711 (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep there are 441 such categories named after musicians; there is no justificaton stated why this one should be targeted for deletion. Hmains (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse for keeping this category. There used to be over 600 such categories, until a third of them were deleted as unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment so far, no valid reason has been advanced as to why this category should be deleted. One editor said one could find the subcats by looking in the main article. This is factually untrue. The article does not reference these categories. Hmains (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of the subcategories is linked through the main article, which lists the band's albums and songs. Otto4711 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The three articles in this category seem like they need this ubercategory.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the contents are interlinked through the main article and are adequately categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my taste.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Overcategorization and extensive precedence. --Kbdank71 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm all in favor of these categories as containers for "X albums," "X songs," and "X members," etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 10 July 2008 (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:"Airlines of" templates to Category:Airlines by country templates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Superceded by "Airlines of" templates. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Having categories with " in the cat name hasn't been done before, as far as I can tell, and Category:Airlines by country templates seems to not be confusing. I don't see any discussion taking place for this move? I would be keeping Category:Airlines by country templates, and deleting Category:"Airlines of" templates. --Россавиа ^Диалог 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, among others, I've seen "Politics of" templates; but, if not "Airlines of" templates, how about Airlines of country templates? Seems a little more accurate to me. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, "by" is more accurate. To show more clearly: "Templates of airlines by country".

The problem is that from what I can tell, "templates" is usually the "last word" in such names. So, if so, then Category:Airlines by country templates would seem to be the correct name.

And, if I had to choose, I'm also am not a fan of the quotes in the name, for various reasons. - jc37 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, request a bot moves the contents of "Airlines of" templates back to Airlines by country templates then deletes the former. Input above appreciated. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever closes this can place a "reverse merge" request on the working page, if they determine that that's consensus. (Which it now looks to be.) - jc37 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename all to match The Allman Brothers band. - jc37 08:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Allman Brothers to Category:The Allman Brothers Band

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Also: Category:Allman Brothers Band albums to Category:The Allman Brothers Band albums and Category:Allman Brothers Band songs to Category:The Allman Brothers Band songs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename All per nom. Cgingold (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and per The Allman Brothers Band. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Allman Brothers as eponymous overcategorization. The main article and the exhaustive template serve for navigation. Rename remaining categories per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete head category as overcategorization per name per multiple precedents and since the main article/template serve for navigational purposes. Rename the other two to match the main article. Bencherlite^Talk 06:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re:delete There are six pages in the main category in addition to three subcategories; that doesn't seem superfluous to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALl of the material is extensively interlinked through the text of the various articles as well as the extensive template. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename all per nom. There are 441 similar categories named after musicians and no reason whatsoever to target this one for deletion. Hmains (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse for keeping this category. There used to be over 600 such categories, until a third of them were deleted as unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment so far, no valid reason has been advanced as to why this category should be deleted. One editor said one could find the subcats by looking in the main article or template. This is factually untrue. The article does not reference these categories. Hmains (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of the subcategories is linked through the main article, which lists the band's albums and songs. Otto4711 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this and subcategories. Though no consensus exists on deletion, I think we can agree that the name should be "The Allman Brothers Band" in all cases.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2008 (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. Kbdank71 18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Root Beer Stands to Category:Root beer stands

Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename, doesn't need the excess capitals. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename is that-a-way! Bencherlite ^Talk 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2008 (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 1

Category:Albums recorded at Indigo Ranch

Category:The Script singles

Category:People from Barcelona, Spain

Category:The Script

Category:Russian ambassadors to the United States

Category:Russian ambassadors to the United Kingdom

Category:Russian ambassadors to Ukraine

Category:Russian ambassadors to Israel

Category:Russian and Soviet ambassadors to the United Nations

Category:Ancient African Kingdom

Category:Jordin Sparks

Category:Dutch poeple of Namibian descent

Category:Criticism of Calvinism

Category:People associated with York and Yorkshire

Category:Carolus Linnaeus

Category:King-James-Only Movement

Category:Kaiser Chiefs covers

Category:The Everly Brothers

Category:Airlines by country templates

Category:Allman Brothers

Category:Root Beer Stands