July 18
Category:North East Wales Institute of Higher Education
- 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 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:North East Wales Institute of Higher Education to Category:Glyndŵr University
- Propose renaming Category:People associated with the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education to Category:People associated with Glyndŵr University
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change of name of university. Bduke (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Other NEWI category added. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:38, 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.
Archaeology
- 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. Kbdank71 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging
- Nominator's rationale: Merge, standardise per majority of Category:Archaeology by country and avoid duplication. Tim! (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support move/merge all per nom. "X (of|in|from) Y" is almost always clearer than "Y(-ish|-ian|-ese|-lese|-i|-an|-ine|-ch|-der|-ic|-ite|-etc) X". — CharlotteWebb 10:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and rename (for the redlinks) to match parent cat.--Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 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.
Category:Badwater
- 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 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Badwater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete: Badwater = Badcategory. (Sorry, couldn't resist!) This is a tiny category with no potential for growth. The sole article is already included in Category:Death Valley. There's one photograph, which belongs with the other Death Valley media.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a redundant cat with no potential growth.--Lenticel (talk) 23:54, 19 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.
Category:Metrosexual people
- 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 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Metrosexual people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: POV category. Seriously subjective inclusion criteria since there is no uniform definition of metrosexuality. Further, the category is titled "Metrosexual people" when all articles in the category are men; indeed, "metrosexual" is only applied to men. GlassCobra 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Inappropriate category which is borderline a WP:BLP problem. JBsupreme (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and the term is described as a neologism, which has no WP:RS for inclusion. I'd also say it's more than borderline WP:BLP, it's a minefield we can live without. --Rodhullandemu 18:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - an unverifiable categry due to the vague nature of "metrosexuality" - who decides if someone is or not? How to verify? - Toon05 18:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hard for me to imagine applying this category without running afoul of BLP policies.
Kww (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons stated by nominator and Toon. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Lifestyles display attributes stereotypically seen among gay men." Categorization by conformity to stereotype sets a pretty disturbing precedent. Dimadick (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With only a few rare exceptions this isn't an identity label that people choose for themselves, but is applied to them by others for reasons that violate WP:NPOV. As such there's no place for a category devoted to it on Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 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.
Category:Professional boxers from Minnesota
- 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:Boxers from Minnesota; feel free to create the other 49 states categories. Kbdank71 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Professional boxers from Minnesota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category should be limited to nationality and occupation rather than limited to a state and also a sub-category of boxing - in this case "Professional". Categories for boxing should also include notable amateurs and unlicensed fighters. --Jimbo[online] 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as the original creator of this category, I'll refrain from casting a vote here. But I will say that I find it very useful as a tool for organizing the articles I have written on this subject. There are already 40 articles in this category and it's got a great potential for growth, since many notable professional boxers from Minnesota have no article yet. And it's not discriminatory or in any way harmful to the individuals so categorized. I can't think of really any practical reason to delete this category. Brain Rodeo (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per OCAT, occupational categories on Wikipedia should normally only be subgrouped by state if there's something unique about that grouping — namely, if there's something that makes being a boxer from Minnesota different than being a boxer from Ohio or California or Rhode Island, in a way that would actually have a direct bearing on their career. For example, if the sport had different rules in each state. This doesn't meet that standard; being an American boxer is pretty much the same no matter what state you grew up in. However, exceptions are sometimes made to this policy in cases where the national parent category is very large and needs to be subdivided, and with 951 articles at present, Category:American boxers may well qualify for that — but if that rationale is used, then this needs to exist as part of a comprehensive set of subcategories for all 50 states, not just on its own. Rename to Category:Boxers from Minnesota if somebody's willing to create and sort equivalent categories for the other 49 states, but delete as OCAT by location otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per above and create categories for other states to diffuse the "American boxers" category. — CharlotteWebb 16:05, 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.
Various video albums by artist
- 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 14:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming
- Nominator's rationale: Clarity, and also per a developing standard here: Category:Video albums by artist. Also, I suspect video is used wrongly as a replacement for VHS. VHS and DVD are all formats that video can be found on. This is like a category for <Artist> CDs and tapes. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in the holy name of consistency, but when changing the wording it is important to remove items that don't fit the new description, and in some cases to add items that may have been removed for not fitting the old description. Keep up the good work. In the future, if you find yourself using the exact same "nominator's rationale" several times on the same page, you should consider combining the related CFD's into one section, as I have done. The curious <span> tags are used in lieu of section headers, so that incoming section links continue to work. Also for multi-category nominations you can adjust the link target of the big
yellow pink(!) template on each category page so that they all point to the same section. — CharlotteWebb 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for merging that lot! Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:37, 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.
Category:Navagraha
- 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: already deleted. Kbdank71 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Navagraha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The redirect Category:Graha has been since 11 May 07. No pages remain in this cat. Thus even the redirect is redundant. Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:14, 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.
Category:National histories
- 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 for now, but I suggest removing the redundancies with "History by country" and make the definition clear. Then nominate it later for a rename. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National histories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete - I don't believe this category serves a useful purpose as it seems to be redundant to Category:History by country, the principal difference being that this category consists primarily of articles while the latter comprises sub-cats, which include those very same articles.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify Cgingold (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Trouble is, it is not fully redundant. Only the histories of existing countries are redundant; that leaves the rest of the articles for which this would seem to be a correct category. How about just going to the history of existing country articles and removing this category and then keep this category for the articles that remain? Hmains (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you identify some examples of this? (I didn't happen to spot them, but I may have missed something.) Cgingold (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of items not countries in Category:History by country: Category:History of Catalonia, Category:National unifications, Eight Articles of London, Colony of Santo Domingo, History of Jersey, Jewish history, Kingdom of Jerusalem, History of Nagorno-Karabakh, Ottoman Empire. Luzon Empire, Ancient Tondo, and so on. Hmains (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks -- I see what you're concerned about now. I'm wondering if the solution might be to rename this category, restricting it to articles which pertain to entities that don't currently qualify as countries. I'm not sure what the right name would be, but many of these items certainly would not be accurately described as "National histories" in any event. Any ideas? Cgingold (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can think of is that some/many of these odd articles just don't need to be in this category or its replacement. Hmains (talk) 21:07, 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.
Category:Manifestations of Godhead
- 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 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Manifestations of Godhead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A strongly POV and non-notable term, only contains 4 articles. There is also no main article for this OR term - Manifestations of Godhead. GizzaDiscuss © 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: OR term.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: OR term with no supporting article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless creator supply a reliably and verifiably sourced supporting article.--Lenticel (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) --Lenticel (talk) 00:01, 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.
Category:History of America
- 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 14:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:History of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:R.E.M. shows
- 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) 19:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:R.E.M. shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A category devoted to individual R.E.M. shows should be deleted as articles discussing single shows are non-notable. I have nominated 7 articles in this category for deletion. The remaining two discuss tours and a live album. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I closed your previous CFD for this category, since you withdrew it and opened another. (There should never be two CFDs open at the same time on the same category.) FYI: Since you had already started a CFD all you had to do was strike thru your original proposal for renaming and change it to deletion.
- That said, this new CFD is putting the cart before the horse: categories that are otherwise acceptable don't get deleted until & unless the articles they contain have already been merged or deleted at AFD. So really, the proper procedure is to wait for the outcome of the AFD discussions, and then take the relevant category to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw. If I am successful with the AfD's I will renominate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenacious D Fan (talk • contribs) 06:35, July 18, 2008
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Baseball Rookies of the Year
- 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 15:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Baseball Rookies of the Year to Category:Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award winners
- Nominator's rationale: for clarity - MLB is not the only notable baseball league, nor at they the only one to present such an award Mayumashu (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support changing this, but would "Major League Baseball Rookies of the Year" be clear enough? I'm not too worried either way. If we have similar categories for other sports leagues (I couldn't find one for the NBA, didn't check others), they should all follow the same naming convention. — CharlotteWebb 11:21, 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.