< October 14 October 16 >

October 15

Category:Management of dyslexia

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. --Xdamrtalk 12:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Management of dyslexia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough articles for a category. Hardly any of the articles in this category are specific to dyslexia, let alone management of it. Many don't even mention dyslexia. Alynna (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

1208 and 1349 categories

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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 12:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Numbers are ambiguous. Should be renamed for clarity, to disambiguate from year categories Category:1208 and Category:1349, and to match parent articles, 1208 (band) and 1349 (band), respectively. — ξxplicit 21:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

ABC categories

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. Mondalor (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "ABC" is far too ambiguous. Should be renamed for clarity and to match parent article, ABC (band). — ξxplicit 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines

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:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines to Category:State universities and colleges in the Philippines. --Xdamrtalk 12:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines to Category:State universities and colleges in the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Straightforward case of duplicate categories. The target category is larger and matches the naming of the parent Category:Universities and colleges in the Philippines. RL0919 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United Uniting churches

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. Mondalor (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United Uniting churches to Category:United and uniting churches
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article United and uniting churches. The current title is misnamed and miscapitalized. Mairi (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Algologists

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 per nom. --Xdamrtalk 12:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[NOTE - I have left Category:Algologists as a category redirect. Postdlf (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No one in the field uses the term "algologist". The term used by such scientists is "phycologist", and they study "phycology" (not "algology"). The major journals in English are the Journal of Phycology (published by the Phycological Society of America) and Phycologia (published by the International Phycological Society). This rename should apply to the various subcategories as well, such as Category:Algologists by nationality -> Category:Phycologists by nationality, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Megacoaster roller coasters

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: RELISTED at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24 for further comment.
Suggest merging Category:Megacoaster roller coasters to Category:Megacoasters
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a classification by height and is not really a type of coaster as I read the material. Category:Foo roller coasters appears to be used for the various types. I'll place a notice on the appropriate project page so that that we can get some expert advice about this proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hypercoasters

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 in favor of the preceding discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hypercoasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is a duplicate of Category:Hypercoaster roller coasters. The roller coasters by type categories are populated by a template and this category was manually added. Since Category:Hypercoaster roller coasters was a red link until a short while ago, that could explain why we had two categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Law firms of the Philippines

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, nomination withdrawn. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Law firms of the Philippines to Category:Filipino lawyers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry in this category, it would be much better and efficient to merge it into the larger category. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada

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. Postdlf (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:Sports in the Las Vegas metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article name that covers all of the contents. Since a few of these are in the city, this rename should not prevent recreation of a category for the city if anyone feels so inclined after the move. This change is inline with the various parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historical figures of Omaha, Nebraska

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Historical figures of Omaha, Nebraska to Category:People from Omaha, Nebraska
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, unclear and unnecessary distinction, given that only notable people merit articles, and the category is being used for people at least as recent in history as the 20th century. Seems to be a sui generis category (except for Category:Icelandic historical figures, which is being used differently and should be turned into a -by century scheme; I've already notified the Iceland WikiProject about this). Postdlf (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Presidents from Michigan

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States Presidents from Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, OCAT, as trivial intersection of specific office held and unrelated place. This is apparently the only such category, and has a whopping one member. Given that there have been only 43 individual presidents (though 44 presidencies; damn you, Grover Cleveland!) but 50 states, most will be sparsely populated. All presidents are already going to be linked to their home state by other categories (Gerald Ford has six other Michigan-specific categories), so this is only going to add clutter, particularly given that in our current system people may be "from" multiple places if they've moved around; Ford was actually born in Nebraska. Easily distinguishable from politician categories for federal offices representative of states, such as Category:United States Senators from Michigan, as those offices are expressly linked to those states. Postdlf (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transportation in Volusia County

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. Postdlf (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Volusia County to Category:Transportation in Volusia County, Florida
Nominator's rationale: State name should be included with county. ----DanTD (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Afro-Asian descent

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. Postdlf (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People of Afro-Asian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Long-standing consensus has shown to delete mixed ethnicity categories as overcategorization, as shown here and here. — ξxplicit 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Heroes' Days

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: RELISTED at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24. No one seems to support the present name, but there is not yet consensus on how to fix that. Good luck in the next round. Postdlf (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heroes' Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. This category was discussed once previously and there was no consensus on any proposed solution. Various people in that discussion correctly identified various problems with the category, not least of which is the difficulty that trying to identify an individual as a "national or international hero" presents. There are many people who may be considered national heroes in their home country while many others throughout the world (and even within their nations) find them despicable. There is also the question of whether any given person qualifies as a hero on the "national" or "international" level. Harvey Milk Day was included in this category and while he is undoubtedly IMHO a hero (although the Christian Right would disagree), whether he can be considered a "national hero" is highly debatable. I suggest moving the three articles that are actually about Heroes' Days to the parent Category:Observances and renaming this category to something like Category:Observances commemorating individual people. Such a name much more clearly matches most of the existing contents of the category and resolves any definitional issues. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to "honor" but I do think "observances" is more accurate than "holidays" but don't care that strongly. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, in my view "observances" and "holidays" would be interchangeable, with "observances" being a little bit broader, to include also non-"day" observances (e.g., the John Smith Remembrance Hour). I'm not aware of any observances that honour people of this narrower type, so either is probably OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian Female golfers

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: NO CONSENSUS, particularly given the existence of Category:Australian female golfers. If divisions by nationality of Category:Female golfers are not desired, then I suggest nominating both for merging to be discussed together. Postdlf (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian Female golfers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
[NOTE - now at Category:Indian female golfers - Postdlf (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization (only one member). Incidentally miscapitalized. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rhône

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. I simply kept everything in the category that was there; if anything doesn't belong, as Johnbod notes below may be the case, feel free to change it. Postdlf (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rhône to Category:Rhône (department)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match to main article Rhône (department). Rhône redirect to Rhone, the article about the river. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

River categories: matching to article names

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:
No consensus on remainder of renames - little support for wholesale elimination of the word 'River', regardless of main article name.
--Xdamrtalk 21:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euphrates, if not others, IMHO, seems like it ought to have a such a disambiguation page. Carlaude:Talk 13:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Swan River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Swan River to Category:Swan River (Western Australia)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Swan River (Western Australia). Swan River is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tamar River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Tamar River to Category:Tamar River (Tasmania)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Tamar River (Tasmania). Tamar River redirects there but apparently the name is too liable to be confused with River Tamar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:River Tiber[edit]
Propose renaming Category:River Tiber to Category:Tiber
Propose renaming Category:Islands of the Tiber River to Category:Islands of the Tiber
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Tiber. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:River Seine[edit]
Propose renaming Category:River Seine to Category:Seine
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the River Seine to Category:Bridges over the Seine
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the River Seine in Paris to Category:Bridges over the Seine in Paris
Propose renaming Category:Islands in the River Seine to Category:Islands in the Seine
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Seine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Zambezi River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Zambezi River to Category:Zambezi
Propose renaming Category:Tributaries of the Zambezi River to Category:Tributaries of the Zambezi
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Zambezi. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mekong River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Mekong River to Category:Mekong
Propose renaming Category:Communities on the Mekong River to Category:Communities on the Mekong
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Mekong. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean other than Mekong Airlines, Mekong Wagtail, Mekong Auto, Mekong giant catfish?
Then why don't we just rename Category:Mount Everest to Category:Everest, rename Category:Atlantic Ocean to Category:Atlantic, and so forth?
Context for "Mekong" to indicate the "Mekong river" can be given much more readly in the text of articles than "Category:Mekong" could, siting alone and context-less at the bottom of the page. It seems that the correct name is Mekong river and we lack a pressing need to change it here. Carlaude:Talk 04:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your questions is easy. Because the main article is at Mekong. "Mekong" standing alone does not mean the airline, the wagtail, the company, or the catfish. Context can be provided in a category just as easily as an article. (Yes, a definition can even appear at the top!) I would agree with you if the article were at Mekong River—but it's not, of course.
To draw an analogy which is exactly on point—we have Category:Ganges, which reflects the article Ganges. Yes, we have Ganges and Indus River Dolphin; Ganges, British Columbia; SS Ganges; HMS Ganges (1821); USS Ganges (1794); Ganges Township, Michigan; Ganges, Hérault; Ganges Chasma; Ganges (BBC TV series); and Ganges (whaler), among others—but I think anyone would be laughed out of town if they suggested Category:Ganges needed to be moved to Category:Ganges River for clarity. It's the same reason we don't disambiguate Category:Paris or Category:London, even though there are dozens of other places and things in the world of the same names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in geography, I have never seen the word Mekong before this CfR (to my meomory). Having only heard a word that could be spelled multiple ways means context is all the more needed.
While we are at this, I have added this page to Category:Ganges for you to show us what you mean. Please show us how you think that for category tags "context can be provided... just as easily."
In the text of an article I can wikilink it while also adding context that says "I have never been to the Ganges or any of its tributraies."
Please add this same level of context at the bottom of this project page to show us how you think it can be done to category tags there. Carlaude:Talk 01:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"While I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in geography, I have never seen the word Mekong before this CfR." Hm, are you American by any chance?
As for the context, I think I misunderstood you and that we were therefore referring to two different things. I was referring to the fact that the context can be added to a category page as easily as it can be to an article page. I was not referring to a category "tag". If you need the extra word to provide the context on the tag itself, it may just be that you haven't heard of the word used in the usual context in which it is used. Finally, I'd say--don't add CfD pages to non-administrative categories, and add a "please" to that one. Such an action could be considered disrupting to prove a point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you add a label or explanation to a category page that is not context. It is just a label and/or an explanation.
The category system itself is so utilitarian (devoid of context) that even when we give categories the best names we can think of, and people are looking at the category page itself, with the names of current articles in category, it will still sometimes not clear the purpose or bounds of the category is, and so we rightly add labels or explanations. But this is not a good reason to give a category a poor name-- and Category:Mekong is not the best name we can think of.
Do you have something against Americans being able to use the category system? Carlaude:Talk 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you have something against Americans being able to use the category system?" No, it's nothing like that at all. I thought it was unusual that an American would never have heard of the Mekong, what with the U.S. history in the Vietnam War and in bombing Cambodia, etc. Don't they teach that history in U.S. schools? If not, I suppose it makes sense why they don't. (But I don't even know if you are American, which is why I asked.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read my above comments again. Having heard of the Mekong is different, than seen the word Mekong. Carlaude:Talk 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty subtle difference—hearing about it ("heard") vs. reading about it ("seen") ?—I'm not sure what its significance could be in this context, but if it's an important one for you—OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tigris River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Tigris River to Category:Tigris
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Tigris. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Euphrates River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Euphrates River to Category:Euphrates
Propose renaming Category:Cities and towns on the Euphrates River to Category:Cities and towns on the Euphrates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article Euphrates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Saint John River[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Saint John River to Category:Saint John River (New Brunswick)
Propose renaming Category:Bridges over the Saint John River to Category:Bridges over the Saint John River (New Brunswick)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate to match main article Saint John River (New Brunswick). Saint John River is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fishes of Michigan

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:Fishes of Michigan to Category:Fish of the United States. --Xdamrtalk 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Fishes of Michigan to Category:Fish of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. None of the included "Michigan fish" (such "Michigan fish" as Atlantic salmon, Rainbow trout...) are endemic to Michigan, but instead are widely distributed, often worldwide. Most of those included are also already in the Category:Fish of the Great Lakes (US) category. Postdlf (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historical or defunct Philippine newspapers

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. Postdlf (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Historical or defunct Philippine newspapers to Category:Defunct newspapers of the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming format of Category:Defunct newspapers by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World Music Awards winners

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.

Relisted for further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 25#Category:World Music Awards winners. --Xdamrtalk 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Music Awards winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The winners of these awards are already listified by year in Category:Lists of World Music Award winners. (However, the lists only start with year 13 of the award; I don't see anyone in this category who did not win an award in the 2001–2008 lists.) With all but a few awards, the regular practice set out by the guidelines is to create lists. If anyone can identify any further listification that needs to occur from the category, that should be done. Otherwise, just a straight delete will lead to no data loss. See older related discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Check again", brother. 2006 is not missing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More