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 14:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies dependent on offshore manufacturing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Companies dependent on offshore services

Nominator's rationale: Two single entry categories. The category is ambiguous in that dependent is ambiguous in this use. Yes, more companies could be added, but we would still have to deal with the ambiguous title. We could create a category for companies that use offshore plants, but I'm not sure that would be defining in today's global economy where just about every company sources material and products from another country. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - Neither of these is really very useful -- if anything, it would probably make more sense to have a category for companies that do not use offshore services or manufacturing! Cgingold (talk) 08:02, 18 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 16:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Companies dependent on Indian offshoring to Category:Companies of India

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Delete or maybe even rename. This category appears to be for Indian companies who rely on India based call centers. That is not clear from the category name. The category is also ambiguous since dependent is not easy to quantify in this context. While I have proposed a merge, I could have just as easily justified a delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I just don't see what purpose this category serves. Cgingold (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, don't delete. These are the companies doing the offshoring/call centres, a highly notable topic. Category:Indian business services offshoring companies maybe? Or set up as Indian sub of Category:Outsourcing companies? Many of the category names in this area are not very clear. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a name that makes clear what the category is for, then a rename could work. If every company is a provider then they should remain together and being a subcat of Category:Outsourcing companies would be reasonable. Using Category:Outsourcing companies of India would seem to make the most sense in this case. I rather go with something that make it clear that this is for service providers and not service users. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cat and merge with Category:Companies of India. The category name is unclear and argumentative at the same time! -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. This doesn't seem category worthy. Not sure it could survive as a list, but that would be more justification to delete it as a category. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:34, 25 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 14:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underage drinking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Do we really need a category for this petty crime? Eliyak T·C 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is actually a serious social issue, so in that regard it probably merits a category. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be articles available to populate the category. There isn't even a main article about Underage drinking (just a redirect). Cgingold (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only one article in this category. Could recreate if sufficient qualifying articles are developed. Dl2000 (talk) 23:15, 20 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:R.E.M. shows to Category:R.E.M. concert tours

Nominator's rationale: R.E.M. shows is vague, and single shows are not notable. Concert tours are more notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the articles in the category are, in fact, about individual shows (with the exception of R.E.M. tours). If those articles are a problem (I have no opinion), then it should be fixed by merging them appropriately or listing them on AFD. Changing the category name won't in any way compel changes in those articles; it will only cause a mismatch between the category and its contents. Postdlf (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I would prefer this to be deleted instead. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:13, 18 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 at creator's request below (G7). Bencherlite^Talk 09:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tastes like chicken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inclusion criterion is too subjective. Not a useful category. — jwillbur 17:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's rationale: This is an educational category because it shows which foods verifiably taste like chicken. The references are not yet complete, and there are many more articles whose subjects may be included, but the requirements are citation by reputable source of general cultural acceptance or expert opinion. An example of an "expert" would be a prominent chef, such as the one cited in the rabbit article. This will make inclusion less subjective. I admit this sounds like a lark and will be a target for vandalism, but I will continue finding hard references and would appreciate a little more time to do so. I am also embarrassed to note that chicken nuggets was immature, and I will remove the link posthaste. Please do not delete the category yet. Owlgorithm (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Do an article if you like, but this is not category material. The only one of these I have eaten is rabbit, which does not taste like chicken at all. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally subjective, POV. I already have removed the category from Alligator which I have tasted and is not chicken. Don't know about the others but sounds like POV nonsense. -- Alexf⁴² 20:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. If any examples can be properly sourced, tastes like chicken can easily incorporate it. Categories don't show references. Postdlf (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response: It is not my intention to write nonsense. I apologize if it has come across this way. These are, in many cases, exotic foods that many of us will never eat but are curious about. I am terribly embarrassed that this is perceived as vandalism, because I have added many references to these articles and I believed these to be reputable. Please please please forgive me. What is the best way to organize this information? I do believe it to be accurate and useful and worthy of being on Wikipedia, but it sounds like using a category is not the best way to accomplish this goal. Thank you for your input so far - it is helping me to learn! Owlgorithm (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rotisserie for about 45 minutes, then delete. --Eliyak T·C 21:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oops: So, I have learned many valuable things just now, and I thank you all for your input. I apologize again for this mistake, and I applaud Wikipedia and its community for its vigilance and gentle teaching. I will work to remove the POV that I have introduced into the articles, and I agree now that the category does not belong on Wikipedia. Thank you again! Owlgorithm (talk) 22:22, 17 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayors named 'Buddy' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is an amusing creation with no conceivable encyclopedic purpose. Orlady (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - overcategorization of unrelated subject by common name. Otto4711 (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, "Buddy" is a nickname, not even an actual given name. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsense and overcategorization. -- Alexf⁴² 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete such a category does not help our readers and will most likely remain sparsely populated. Extreme overcategorization. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 02:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorization by shared name. (It reminds me of the Far Side cartoon about why people named "Buddy" hate driving — everyone's yelling, "Hey, Buddy, get off the road!!", "Watch it, Buddy!!", and the like.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 21 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: upmerge. Kbdank71 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Resident Evil locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: After merges, this category now contains only one article and is not likely to expand. Too narrow to be a useful category. Upmerge the one article into both parent categories. Pagrashtak 07:05, 17 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 14:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vietnamese Europeans to Category:Europeans of Vietnamese descent

Nominator's rationale: as per recent precedent Mayumashu (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per precedent. Keep up the good work! Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Rename per nom. The current title could equaluy well apply to Vietnamese of European descent. Dimadick (talk) 11:00, 22 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. Kbdank71 13:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deaths by infectious disease to Category:Deaths from infectious disease

Nominator's rationale: Rename this category and some of its subcats.

• Category:Deaths by influenza to Category:Deaths from influenza
• Category:Deaths by leprosy to Category:Deaths from leprosy
• Category:Deaths by sepsis to Category:Deaths from sepsis
• Category:Deaths by smallpox to Category:Deaths from smallpox
• Category:Deaths by staph infection to Category:Deaths from staph infection
• Category:Deaths by tuberculosis to Category:Deaths from tuberculosis
• Category:Deaths by typhoid fever to Category:Deaths from typhoid fever
• Category:Deaths by typhus to Category:Deaths from typhus

Nominator's rationale: Most categories under Category:Deaths by type of illness are of the form "Deaths from <disease>" rather than "Deaths by <disease>", therefore it is proposed to rename the "by" categories here to "from" to be more consistent. There are other naming inconsistencies, but Category:Deaths by infectious disease would be a reasonable start. Dl2000 (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. I've come across some of these before, and always thought the wording was a little off. Cgingold (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as "Deaths from" sounds better, and for consistency. Bencherlite^Talk 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Better and consistent. Dahn (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename – 'he died by smallpox' is an unorthodoxy. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all except for the parent category. --Eliyak T·C 17:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. "Death by" is idiomatically incorrect in this context. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for consistency. Jaraalbe (talk) 21:58, 20 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.