< February 5 February 7 >

February 6

Category:Awards and records

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Awards and records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge to Category:Cultural conventions. Cat is an odd intersection of topics and will not be populated beyond the current two entries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:00, 6 February 2010 (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:Early hominine species

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Early hominine species to Category:Hominina
Propose renaming Category:Early hominids to Category:Hominin fossils
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Five days ago I started a topic about a significant reorganization of the Category:Primates at WT:CFD. With a "consensus" reached on WT:PRIMATE and no comments from WT:CFD, I'm starting this reorganization. Per the discussion on WT:PRIMATES, Category:Early hominine species should follow the subtribe name that all listed species fall into since no common name for that group technically exists. Category:Early hominids contains only named fossils, so it should be renamed to reflect this. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This brings this group of categories into a more rigorous categorization. We have no categories for "early" species anywhere, and the concept is vague and arbitrary. This category currently also includes species like Paranthropus boisei, which survived until a little over a million years ago and can hardly be considered early members of a group (Hominina) that first appeared around 5.5 million years ago. The proposed new categorization uses normal taxonomic categories, as in the rest of the tree of life category tree, and segregates the individual fossils into a subcategory. Ucucha 20:06, 6 February 2010 (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.

Prosimians

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 the first, Delete the others. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lorids to Category:Lorises and galagos
Propose deletion Category:Prosimians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deletion Category:Fictional lemurs and tarsiers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete x2 & Rename x1. Five days ago I started a topic about a significant reorganization of the Category:Primates at WT:CFD. With a "consensus" reached on WT:PRIMATE and no comments from WT:CFD, I'm starting this reorganization. Category:Lorids was incorrectly titled when created, Category:Fictional lemurs and tarsiers suffers from WP:OC, and Category:Prosimians is being eliminated per the discussion on WT:PRIMATE. The contents of Category:Prosimians will be moved into Category:Primates. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:40, 6 February 2010 (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:Post-9/11 legal issues

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:9/11-related legal issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Post-9/11 legal issues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. While I can see why someone might want a category like this, this one has many issues. Most of the topics are well covered in the main article. While 9/11 represents a specific incident and point in time, many of the topics included cover periods of time that proceeded the incident (Category:Torture in the United States as one example). Maybe this could be recovered by a rename, but then it would likely need to be restricted to articles only that meet some very specific inclusion criteria that shows some relationship with 9/11. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2010 (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.

New World Monkeys

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/delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Aotidae to Category:Night monkeys
Propose deletion Category:Atelidae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Callitrichidae to Category:Tamarins and marmosets (Sorry, Category:Tamarins and marmosets was previously created)
Propose deletion Category:Cebidae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deletion Category:Monkeys of Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deletion Category:Pitheciidae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete x4 & Rename x2. Five days ago I started a topic about a significant reorganization of the Category:Primates at WT:CFD. With a "consensus" reached on WT:PRIMATE and no comments from WT:CFD, I'm starting this reorganization. Category:Aotidae and Category:Callitrichidae need to be renamed as shown above, and Category:Atelidae, Category:Cebidae, and Category:Pitheciidae are being split per the discussion linked previously, and therefore will need to be deleted. (Should I go ahead and create the new categories they are being split into? The instructions weren't clear on this.) Category:Monkeys of Costa Rica is not needed since a WP:OC suggests list pages for these sorts of things: "In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." (Many of these monkeys will also be found in other South or Central American countries.) – VisionHolder « talk » 19:24, 6 February 2010 (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:Jat people organisations

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. — ξxplicit 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jat people organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one article, nothing else for more than 18 months except a non-notable org that was deleted. The article is categorized correctly under the parent cat of Category:Jat and also under Category:Organisations based in India. —SpacemanSpiff 18:22, 6 February 2010 (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.

Courts by country

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. — ξxplicit 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Judiciaries to Category:Court systems by country
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Strongly mixed content for a long time, no clear criiteria for distinction. Category:Courts by country should be merged, too (someone tried to make it for court buildings, but it didn't succeedd). The title for the remaining category could by any of the three existing ones.Fuseau (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (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:Sirogojno

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. — ξxplicit 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sirogojno to Category:Images of Sirogojno
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for the small village Sirogojno in Serbia. There seems to be little prospect of it being expanded beyond the single article, but the category already contains one image, and the article has another 4 which could be added to the category ... so it seems best to rename and repurpose it as an images category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree ! Best solution! --Tadija (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2010 (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:Anal sex performance awardees

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anal sex performance awardees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a notable or natural grouping; see WP:OC#PERF Tabercil (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Malik says, other such items have been set as lists, not as categories. If you created a list I wouldn't have any problems with it... a category is a different thing altogether. Tabercil (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A list is for something you can't do with a category. So if you wanted to show the progress of powerlifting records, you'd do it with a list. It would show what the record was, when it happened, and who achieved it. A category alone couldn't show all that.
This is just the categorisation of those rare invidividuals who've received awards as consequence of their performance of anal sex. You can do it in a category, so do it in a category. Listing isn't needed. If you want to do a list, then YOU do it (additionally), but please then put in more information than just the membership of a category that has already been delimited and filled.Newstig 01:25, 8 February 2010 (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:Members of the Midnight Notes Collective

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. — ξxplicit 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of the Midnight Notes Collective (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for members of the Midnight Notes Collective, a group of academic marxist theorists with its own website]. I have sent the head article to AFD, but regardless of whether it is deleted, the collective does not need a category -- it is apparently too insignificant even to its own members to get a mention in several of three of the 4 biographical articles on members of the collective: Peter Linebaugh, Silvia Federici, and Harry Cleaver. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 6 February 2010 (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:Cipher-Related Symbols

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 as premature if nothing else; there is currently no articles to go in category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cipher-Related Symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I found this in the list of uncategorised categories, and it doesn't seem to do what it says on the tin. Maybe it could have a useful purpose (if its capitalisation was fixed to Category:Cipher-related symbols), but I know too little about the subject to judge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think I know what the problem is - it looks as though I omitted the prefix Category: to make it part of the Dorabella Category. I can fix that if it's the reason for proposing it for deletion.
If that's not the problem, I'm OK with fixing the capitalisation if that makes it more acceptable. The category is specific to the Category:Dorabella Cipher (covering the Dorabella Cipher which I'm currently rewriting extensively to add more material and hopefully address the lack of encyclopedic tone). It covers symbols that are not part of the ciphered message itself but are known to be associated with it. These symbols may be attempts at creating visual mnemonics, made by the author of the cipher, Sir Edward Elgar. HTH, AncientBrit (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need that category when there is only one article in it, with little potential for expansion? Ucucha 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because to categorize the mnemonics as the Dorabella Cipher is incorrect. They are not part of the ciphered note but they do appear on the same page of an exercise book belonging to Sir Edward Elgar, in which he wrote out several maps of symbols to letters along with test encryptions, and the four unusual symbols not seen elsewhere to date (but the wealth of materials in the various collections has yet to be fully explored, so that is unsurprising).
The cipher-related symbols are worthy of a separate category because they are related to the Dorabella Cipher but are not part of the ciphered note. (The current Dorabella Cipher article is in the process of being rewritten to considerably extend and expand it and notes on the visual mnemonics form part of that expansion).
The same cipher symbols used in the Dorabella Cipher appear in the margin of a programme of music for a Liszt concert that took place 11 years prior to the creation of the ciphered note, but the message (or more likely a comment) does not appear to follow the same encryption system. The visual mnemonics most likely describe a mapping convention of cipher symbols to a regular (but 24 character) alphabet, and different maps were almost certainly used for the two known examples of the cipher's use.
For now we have too little information on the Liszt fragment so it is probably not deserving of a separate article just yet. I've managed to track down the first person to attempt a decryption of that example in the 1970s and he apparently has a book's worth of material on the cipher system that he plans to publish.
Those visual mnemonics (aka "hairy footballs") will have a subsection devoted to them in the Dorabella Cipher article (for now) and will utilize stylized graphics to clarify their component parts. The graphics have already been created and uploaded and need to be categorized. No existing category describes them.
The cipher is apparently something that Elgar used throughout a period extending from at least 1886 to the 1920s. It is likely that more examples await discovery and so there is plenty of potential for expansion.
What would you suggest as an alternative approach? AncientBrit (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So this is to be an image category? Ucucha 03:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - the set of images has little use (that I know of) outside Elgar's experiments in cryptography. If there was any other interpretation that could be placed upon them (if they represented something else, such as a political movement or an artistic style, or if others had used them for some purpose), then the answer would be Yes. But as they stand, unless something comes to light in the future, I'd have to say No. The guidance I received from the Wikimedia Help desk was - where necessary - to create categories in the hierarchy History of cryptography | Uncracked codes and ciphers | Dorabella Cipher | Cipher-Related Symbols. The first three categories match those applied in Wikipedia. Essentially I'm trying to be consistent with existing categorization.
If it helps, the mnemonic indicates the mapping of a set of eight triplets of symbols to a regular mapping of a reduced alphabet. There are four sets of three of what might be called bristles on the circular part of the image (facing either inward or outward), and four sets on the arms of a cross inside the circle, facing either clockwise or anticlockwise.
The orientation of the bristling triplets indicates whether a sequence of symbols to letters is to be mapped in the order A,B,C... or C,B,A...
If you look at the images for M2 and M3 in DoraBella_Cipher_related_graphics.gif, they are the inverse of each other. Thus one maps to a regular progression of an alphabet as A,B,C;D,E,F...X,Y,Z while the other maps to a progression that is reversed in threes: C,B,A;F,E,D...Z,Y,X. So they are keys rather than simply images. Elgar was fond of doodling on just about every document and one of these mnemonics could be placed in some proximity to a ciphered note (perhaps even on the back of an envelope) and used to inform a decryptor of the method of mapping to be used, without necessarily arousing suspicion.
I don't know whether that helps clarify things. AncientBrit (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To move things forward I propose editing the entry to correct the omission of "Category:" from the entry. If that turns out to be a miss-step it can of course be reverted, but I expect that it will remove the entry from the list of Uncategorized categories. AncientBrit (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was already categorised; I added categories before nominating it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But until I corrected my typing error it did not belong to the one category that it should definitely belong to: Category:Dorabella Cipher. AncientBrit (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier I uploaded a separate graphic that satisfies that requirement (it shows the 24 cipher symbols mapped to an alphabet but it obviously isn't correctly categorized yet). Again, it's not the ciphered note, nor is it part of the visual mnemonics. AncientBrit (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article yet that covers the mnemonic symbols because I have yet to finish creating it. The first step was to create the stylized graphics for the mnemonics and upload them, the next step was to create the categories into which they would be placed. The final step is to create the article which will require them. That is under way in my sandbox as part of the current edit of the Dorabella Cipher; it will be separated out eventually but for now I have it embedded in the modified original article. The work is a collaboration between at least two people in different time zones with other priorities to address, so things are understandably not proceeding swiftly.
As I noted earlier, the only reason the entry appeared to be uncategorized was because I omitted the text "Category:" in the category "Dorabella Cipher". I have since corrected that error, and now the Cipher-Related Symbols category comes under Dorabella Cipher category as it was originally intended to, so it is now correctly categorized.
As I also explained, the mnemonic symbols do not belong under the category Dorabella Cipher Symbols - they are not included in the cipher and they are NOT cipher symbols. They are however cipher-related, specifically and exclusively to the Dorabella Cipher, by virtue of appearing on the same page as the cipher symbols in an exercise book. They are visual aids to mapping, not cipher symbols. If you examine the in-progress entry in my sandbox you will see the context. However, to see the original cipher symbols in use in the note you will need to look at the Wikipedia article Dorabella Cipher, since DASHBot recently deleted the graphic showing the ciphered note per policy (non-free graphics may only be included in articles and not in sandboxes).
The cipher symbols and the visual mnemonics are not the same.
I could provide an analogy. There are traffic signs showing destinations, and there are direction arrows that may accompany the signs. The arrows are not the destinations but they are related to them - they tell drivers in which direction to head in order to reach the destination. The two require different categories - one for the destinations, one for the direction arrows. In this instance, unlike the arrows, the mnemonic symbols do not have any other function or application; they have only been found so far on the same page of the exercise book that contains Elgar's experiments with the cipher. Does that help clarify the situation? I know the subject is a little esoteric (well, all right, a lot) but there is a logic to it. AncientBrit (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2010 (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:Gliding animals

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gliding animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I encountered this uncategorised category, and crudely added it to Category:Animals. There are some other oddball categories in there such as Category:Rolling animals, so maybe this one is an appropriate addition, but it seems a little odd to me so I thought I'd bring it here to see whether other editors think it's appropriate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 6 February 2010 (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:Academics by university in Nigeria

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: Reverse merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Academics by university in Nigeria to Category:Faculty by university in Nigeria
Nominator's rationale: Merge as obvious duplicate.
I would actually prefer a reverse merge, but the convention of Category:Academics by university is that the national sub-categories be named "Faculty by university in country". This convention is imperfectly observed, and one way or another some standardisation is needed ... but I suggest that any change to the convention is better addressed by a wider group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed the Nigerian position is an understandable reaction to the clumsy and imperialistic British. (I think all Choster's comments re faculty etc apply also in academia in the UK.) Occuli (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2010 (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.

Organizations to organisations

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming these to match primary English spelling as used in the countries in question and to match Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom, Category:Organisations based in New Zealand, and Category:Organisations based in Australia. I nominated these for speedy renaming based on criteria #4, but they were opposed there, so I now bring the nomination here for full discussion. The full speedy discussion is copied in the drop-down box below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
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:Filipino amputees

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. — ξxplicit 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Filipino amputees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is far too specific. Proof of this is the fact that it contains a single article. In any case, there's the more general (and already specific enough) category Category:Filipino people with disabilities. --uKER (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2010 (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:Advanced Technology Attachment

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 to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Advanced Technology Attachment to Category:AT Attachment
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although it is widely believed otherwise "ATA", the disk interface standard, really stands for "AT Attachment"; the "AT" there is not an abbreviation for anything. This is well described in the main article for the category. "AT Attachment" complies with the last bullet under "General naming conventions" at WP:NCCAT, the current name does not. I am aware of the standard article naming conventions that sometimes lead us to pick commonly (ab)used names insteads of correct ones, but under the "Common names" section of WP:UCN, deference is made to "the usage of reliable sources", and the most reliable sources here are the relevant standards documents. Those use "AT Attachment" and never "Advanced Technology Attachment". Jeh (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2010 (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:Religious scientists

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 12:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Religious scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Way too broad. Ben (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not subjective. If a person declares their adherence to a religion and they are a scientist they can be included in this cat. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some would argue that mere token adherence to a particular religion doesn't make one "religious". Are you saying scientist who is not an atheist would therefore be in the category? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all but a few exceptional cases even the narrower categories you suggested will be of no use, in the same sense that Category:Vegetarian scientists or Category:Scientists with red hair would be of no use. That is, religion is not a definitive attribute of a scientist. Recently the 'Religion' attribute was removed from Template:Infobox scientist for the same reason. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So shall we delete Category:Jewish scientists? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of religious adherence comes up in the religion and science debate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like Category:Jewish scientists for the same reasons, but in this case I can see an argument for it: Jew has way more than a religious meaning. A classic example of this is Einstein, who can be identified as Jewish but certainly not in the religious sense. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an ethnic association more significant than a religious one? I mean that seems to be a clear judgment, hence Category:Romani scientists, but I wonder about the justification. Is it that it's less contentious who is/isn't "Jewish" or "Romani", that seems debatable, or that there are clearer associations by ethnicity? (Also seems debatable as there are societies like Christians in Science)--T. Anthony (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say an ethnic association was more significant than a religious one, I said I see the argument (valid or not). There does seem to be general acceptance of ethnic (eg. Category:Jewish scientists) / national (eg. Category:Australian scientists) / etc. categories, and again, I don't like these, but I can see arguments for them that are good enough that I don't worry about them. That's not worth getting into though, since we've wandered well into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2010 (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:Electric vehicles in protected areas

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 11:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electric vehicles in protected areas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to be for US park areas that utilize electric vehicles. I don't see that as being defining for the protected areas and is probably OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2010 (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:Wikipedia mobile access

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 11:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia mobile access (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category collecting three pages from three namespaces with little potential for expansion.  Skomorokh  00:43, 6 February 2010 (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:Sikh Kirtan

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. NW (Talk) 17:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sikh Kirtan to Category:Sikh kirtan
Nominator's rationale: Not a proper noun. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 6 February 2010 (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:Sikh architecture in Pakistan

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Sikh architecture in Pakistan to Category:Sikh architecture
Nominator's rationale: Only one article and a subcategory (itself with four articles.) This can be upmerged to its parent and the article put into any relevant categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:22, 6 February 2010 (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