< January 16	January 18 >

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/2010 January 25#Category:Disney Princess franchise. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disney Princess franchise to Category:Disney Princess merchandise

Nominator's rationale: The category as it is named right now is, as the lead says, for merchandise of the franchise. The actual category for the "Disney Princess franchise" is Category:Disney Princess, which includes the characters in the franchise and the main franchise article itself. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge. The category is not being used for merchandise, but for media. I considered proposing a rename to Category:Disney Princess media, but it seems the generic "media" categories are being split up into books, video games, movies, etc. - choster (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Category:Disney Princess media" would be a good option for renaming too, per the reasons you gave. However, I oppose an upmerging. Any video game, song, film, etc. about the Disney Princess franchise can be categorized as "Disney Princess media" plus "Disney films/Disney video games/Disney songs". --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:55, 25 January 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.

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: Recreate. Jafeluv (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose recovering Category:Boyz II Men

Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't have any reasons for restriction, while it has had three subcategories already a long time ago (Category:Boyz II Men songs, Category:Boyz II Men albums, Category:Boyz II Men members). -- Kookyunii (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Recreate – there has been no consensus for some time [since 2008] to delete such musician cats with 3 subcategories (substantial ones in this case). Occuli (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note category deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 1#Eponymous_musician_categories_-_B. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the category has expanded considerably in 2 1/2 years. Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how a deleted category can expand, but maybe you'll explain the paradox. I have no view way at this stage about recreating the category: I just posted the CFD link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate. I would like to see all of these musician umbrella categories return.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate personally, I never did understand the rationale behind deleting these categories in the first place, since it breaks navigation through the category tree under artists/bands. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:20, 19 January 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.

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: Don't rename either, as the article has been moved back. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outkast songs[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Outkast songs to Category:OutKast songs

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, OutKast. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename(speedy C2?) per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I am pretty sure there is a rule somewhere which states that standard type should be used in article names. (This was applied to ... BlackHawk among others.) Occuli (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. We've had discussions before (e.g. re Category:K.d. lang songs) where we concluded that non-standardized spellings can be used as long as they are the prevalent means of orthography for the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We have also had discussions which reached the opposite conclusion. k. d. lang is the name of a person, not a band; and thus k. d. lang's personal preference is relevant. If OutKast is a trademark the article should be Outkast (with a few globally known exceptions such as iPod and eBay). The question really is where the article should be: it was at Outkast until Oct 2009. Occuli (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Moreover it was moved to Outkast as a result of a requested move in Sept 2009 and moved back unilaterally. Occuli (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed that the title of the parent article should drive the title of the category as a general rule. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And the consensus of the move discussion was that the article should be at Outkast. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not rename per Occuli. The MOS portion being referred to is WP:TRADEMARK; it's also generally applied to unusual spellings, punctuations or capitalizations in band names. According to that guideline: "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable". I think if the formal discussion chose the non-caps for the article that is one that should be used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. As long as the article is with a capital "K", so should the category. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the last moved discussion for the article in September of last year was to use the lower case k. An editor moved it back without any apparent discussion. That last move was just undone. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, see below. (Why are there two sections anyway?) Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outkast albums[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Outkast albums to Category:OutKast albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, OutKast. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename(speedy C2?) per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. We've had discussions before (e.g. re Category:K.d. lang songs) where we concluded that non-standardized spellings can be used as long as they are the prevalent means of orthography for the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename per my comments in discussion immediately above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. As long as the article is with a capital "K", so should the category. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The article is now back at Outkast as agreed in the RM discussion at Talk:Outkast. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has been moved back to Outkast, and the category name should match the article title. Jafeluv (talk) 11:58, 24 January 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.

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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Playwrights awards to Category:Dramatists and playwrights awards

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I thought it would be good to rename this so that it matches the category tree for people, Category:Dramatists and playwrights. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistencies sake. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 18 January 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.

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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Nicknamed the king (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of unrelated subjects by shared nickname. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as classic OCAT by shared name. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. There is a long-standing consensus that we so not categorise articles by shared names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Indeed a classic example. Could be added to that guideline as such. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 18 January 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.

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: Procedural close. Category:Luelinks doesn't exist and has never existed, so there is nothing to discuss at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luelinks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Luelinks was supposed to be a GameFAQ spinoff website. In the pass it has been redirected to various articles like Penis, Vagina, Hoax... Google search finds one Wikifaq article and some sites mentioning it is a hoax. There is no mention of it in the GameFAQs website. Proposing deltion. Luka666 (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Category:Luelinks doesn't exist currently, and the logs show no sign of it having been deleted before. Did you mean the redirect Luelinks? If so, it should be nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, not here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 17 January 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.

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. In executing this merger, I'm just going to assume that 17 and under qualify as children here; editors with more specific knowledge may contradict me (and accuse me of laziness) without fear of offense. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Teenagers who died in Nazi concentration camps to Category:Children who died in Nazi concentration camps

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Individual subjects are not categorized according to age. Gilliam (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge Of course we categorize by age; That's why we have a category for children. Howevere, in this case, navigation is best aided by grouping them together. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but be careful- Margot Frank would not belong in the new category, as she was not a minor at her death. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- The unfortunate child and teenage victims had little opportunity to do much to make themselves notable in WP terms. There is thus little scope for expanding either category. I thereofre consider that we only need one of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge per comments above, but note that not all teenagers are children. (18- and 19-year-olds are teenagers but not children). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Teenager is better defined than "children". The maximum age of a "child" varies from place to place, and historically. The widely accepted UN legal definition looks pretty good until you get to the wide variation of Age of majority. Take biology into account and this gets worse. Historically, within periods of war, the accepted defination of "child" decreased with increasing casualties, and I think this was the case in Europe in WWII. Even currently, it is rare to hear of 15 to 17 year olds described as "children". Stick to strictly defined terms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Legal childhood, not biological or social childhood, is the basis for WP's application of the term "child." - choster (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that be the legal definition at the place & time of the death, or of the edit? I oppose the second, because a good encyclopedia should try to be timeless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 24 January 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.

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Late night programming on NBC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Late night programming on the Fox Broadcasting Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:First-run syndicated late night television programs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Late night programming on CBS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Late night programming on the American Broadcasting Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Looks like an unneeded intersection category by network and time of broadcast, with a loose time definition. I would normally suggest upmerge to both parent categories, but Category:Late night television programming should be reviewed to see it it is a worthwhile category to have and if it can be clearly defined. J Greb

(talk) 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you you mean "loose time definition" - Late night obviously means something that airs at 11:00 p.m. or later, before sunrise. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that. TMC1982 (talk) 10:16 p.m., 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - the presence of Top of the Pops in one of these demonstrates the difficulties. Occuli (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an American version of Top of the Pops that Nia Peeples hosted, airing on CBS back in 1987.

TMC1982 (talk) 10:16 p.m., 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Many TV programs are broadcast at varying points in the schedule, and categorising TV programs in this way will lead to massive category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 18 January 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.

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 CfD 2010-01-25. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Late Night (NBC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Limited content base - articles on 3 iterations of the same show, one which has it own also included, subcategory. J Greb (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep has a subcategory, and another should be created for Letterman's iteration. Since it is the show, and a version of the show has its own subcategory... useful for navigation as a parent container. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:35, 17 January 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.

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 06:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Tonight Show production companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Limited content base - 3 articles currently there. Unlikely to grow. Suggest the contents get up merged. J Greb (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Categorising companies by which companies they do business with is a recipe for category clutter, but this is an even narrower version, a categorisation of companies by which show they made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Scope is too limited. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 19 January 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.