January 27
Category:Wikiversity
- 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 to Category:Wikimedia projects. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Wikiversity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only has one article. Pcap ping 23:37, 27 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.
Category:The Wiggles discography
- 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 and repurpose to a standard "albums" category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:The Wiggles discography to Category:The Wiggles albums
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, per conventions of Category:Albums by artist. I have found no other categories for the discography of one band in Category:Discographies, which makes sense because there will usually be only one article for each band, of the form "foo discography". That article already exists, as The Wiggles discography, so it seems best to repurpose this category as an album category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So I then assume you mean to request a change to Category:The Wiggles albums. If so, then I support the proposed rename. --63.170.82.103 (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops! I did. Thanks for pointing out my mistake, which I have now corrected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 28 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.
Category:Macedonians in Australia
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Macedonians in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure what this category is intended to be for. If it is for people of Macedonian descent, then it is redundant to Category:Australians of Macedonian descent. If it is for expatriates, then it should renamed to Category:Macedonian expatriates in Australia, per convention of Category:Expatriates in Australia ... but it appears to be be none of those things, just a collection of sports clubs which were founded by Macedonian emigrants to Australia and which no longer have such a Macedonian focus. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep / Rename to Category:Macedonian culture in Australia to reflect content of category. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But AFAICS, most of the sports clubs included no longer have any relevance to Macedonian culture in Australia. This might be suitable material for a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BrownHairedGirl - an unnecessary category. Macedonian Australian doesn't need to be in there, as it's in Category:Australians of Macedonian descent. I don't see that the sports clubs need any such categorisation to specify that they were founded by Macedonians.
- 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:Trilulilu
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Trilulilu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. Pcap ping 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and put article in parent categories. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is in nearly all of the parent categories anyway, just needs to be added to Category:Online social networking. Don't see much (any?) scope for more articles in Category:Trilulilu.--BelovedFreak 16:34, 5 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:Robotic Floorvac
- 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 to Category:Domestic robots. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Robotic Floorvac to Category:Domestic cleaning robots
- Nominator's rationale: The shortening of "Floor vacuum" is undesirable, title-case capitalization is also unnecessary. Also there are more than vacuums now in this category. –xenotalk 19:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively - simply delete and upmerge to Category:Domestic robots. –xenotalk 19:42, 27 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.
Category:People who have changed their name
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose DeletionCategory:People who have changed their name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: It's not at all clear what the purpose or scope is of this category. But it potentially includes many thousands of people, and to have no real use. RolandR (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think this is a non-defining characteristic. Also, this category theoretically could include every performer who has adopted a stage name, every woman who has adopted her husband's last name, etc. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And almost every Wikipedia editor... RolandR (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The category is far, far too broad to be defining. A monarch taking a regnal name upon accession, a participant in a witness protection program, an exiled revolutionary writing under a nom de plume, and an immigrant adopting a new identity couldn't be said to be a natural grouping. “Dorfman, I've thought long and hard about this. Your Delta Tau Chi name is… Flounder.”- choster (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's grouping people on a criterion that might be interesting trivia to some people, but isn't a defining characteristic in an encyclopedic sense. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 29 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.
Category:Dominican Republic beauty queens
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Dominican Republic beauty queens to Category:Dominican Republic beauty pageant winners
- Nominator's rationale: To conform to the other categories in Category:Beauty pageant winners by nationality. Mbinebri talk ← 16:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename per C2#4. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rename to match usage of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 04:44, 3 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:Documentaries about prehistoric life
- 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) 00:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Documentaries about prehistoric life to Category:Paleontology documentaries
- Nominator's rationale: Merge, as obvious duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge to adopt a less ambiguous form and to match categories such as Category:Documentaries about science. While the "about" format is not universal and has its own issues, I would think "Paleontology documentaries"— or for that matter "Documentaries about paleontology"— to contain documentaries about the field and its practitioners, rather than the subject of their research. To be sure, many documentaries include paleontologists' interviews and commentary and some footage of excavations and research centers, but for example Walking with Dinosaurs or Jurassic Fight Club do not.- choster (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge -- (Merge somehow anyway) I suspect that some of the content is not precisely about the scientific discipline. My first reaction was that the proposal would bring documentaries about prehistoric archaeology into an inappropriate category, but Walking with dinosaurs (the only article in the first) is not about archeology. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 31 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:College football navigational boxes to Category:American college football navigational boxes
- Nominator's rationale: Merge as obvious duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I didn't create it, as the message I got said I did, but I support the move. ~ Richmond96 t • c 22:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you did create, in this edit at 02:11, 26 January 2010. But glad you support the merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 28 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.
Category:Video games based on films directed by John Carpenter
- 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 to Category:Video games based on films. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Video games based on films directed by John Carpenter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Since there's really only two games that fit here - Big Trouble in Little China (video game) and The Thing (video game) - and with no further games planned - this is a case of WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#NARROW. Marasmusine (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I was surprised to find a well-fledged Category:Video games based on films by director. I would myself consider that the director of the film is getting too remote from the video: ie not defining. Big Trouble in Little China (video game) doesn't mention Carpenter at all. Upmerge to Category:Video games based on films. Occuli (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as part of the well-defined structure in Category:Video games based on films by director as an aid to navigation for readers. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/upmerge as needed (and list the rest of the category structure); this is trivia. The implication might be that certain films were chosen for video game adaptations because of who directed them, or because of the particular style of the directors, but that would just seem to be a proxy for certain directors being popular and/or working in certain genres. Further, the video game-readiness of a film is often going to be a matter of its script, or probably more commonly its characters, particularly if they comprise a franchise. Crediting the director of the film with the fact that it became a video game then seems, as Occuli notes, too remote a relationship given that most film directors are not auteurs (or that video games are not exclusively adapted from films written and directed by auteurs). Incidentally, the entire Category:Video games based on films by director structure was created by just one contributor within the past couple months, so its mere existence shouldn't be taken as indicative of community acceptance and consensus. postdlf (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/upmerge to Category:Video games based on films. I agree that this category and the entire tree is trivia. The director of a film has little to no bearing on the existence or form of a video game based on the game—it's very remote, at best. The rest of the tree should be nominated for upmerging. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to Category:Video games based on films. Trivial over-categorisation, especially given the fact that there are only two (game) articles, and no plans for any more games that would fit. --BelovedFreak 16:42, 5 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.
Dark Horse Comics
- 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/merge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Dark Horse titles to Category:Dark Horse Comics titles
- Suggest merging Category:Dark Horse limited series to Category:Dark Horse Comics limited series
- Suggest renaming Category:Dark Horse graphic novels to Category:Dark Horse Comics graphic novels
- Suggest renaming Category:Dark Horse Imprints to Category:Dark Horse Comics imprints
- Nominator's rationale: Merge/Rename as appropriate: After a seeking a suggestion on how to proceed from WP Comics, these categories should be merged or renamed to match parent category Category:Dark Horse Comics and primary article Dark Horse Comics. As it stands, there are two separate but partially interlinked and overlapping sets of sub-categories as the result of a naming decision made in 2005. (Bonus: the "imprints" rename also corrects a capitalization error in the category name.) - Dravecky (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The second set of categories (the "Dark Horse Comics" ones) should never have been created, it should have all been brought here for renaming. It is pretty uncontroversial and all those four "Dark Horse" categories should be moved/merged to the "Dark Horse Comics" equivalents and we can fix this mess once and for all. (Emperor (talk) 14:50, 27 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.
Category:Radio actor templates
- 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 empty category (CSD C1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Radio actor templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Orphaned category — TAnthonyTalk 04:38, 27 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.
Category:Minister of Housing (New Zealand)
- 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:Ministers of Housing (New Zealand). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Minister of Housing (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. No other countries have categories for Ministers of Housing. Also, there is no article or list of Ministers of Housing, and Department of Building and Housing (New Zealand) is a stub. Adabow (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there is the properly parented Category:Swedish Ministers for Housing. If kept it should be renamed to Category:New Zealand ministers of housing per Category:Members of the Cabinet of New Zealand. Occuli (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename As above, we have the Swedish category, we also have Category:United States Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development which is much the same thing. It needed a parent, which I have now given it, though. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per Bradjamesbrown. --08:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep even if there were no Swedish category. Impartial to rename as proposed by Occuli. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Ministers of Housing (New Zealand) - plural being appropriate for catgories (assuming that the office does exist (or has existed). Minister of Housing is a title that has been used in UK. Other minsterial offices use the country as disambiguator in this way, e.g. Secretary of State (United Kingdom). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Ministers of Housing (New Zealand) to pluralize the existing category. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 1 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:People associated with the hippie movement
- 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 11:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:People associated with the hippie movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Vague criterion for inclusion and not a defining characteristic of many members. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nominators rationale is a reason to tighten up the inclusion criteria, not delete it altogether. –xenotalk 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OC#ASSOCIATED, as a hopelessly vague category. Just what degree of association does someone need to be included in this category? The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; but applying some threshold of association fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BrownHairedGirl. As far as I can tell, nearly all the current category members were associated with the hippie movement, but some were hippies, some influenced the hippies, and some are academics or writers who have documented the hippies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 January 2010
- Unless somebody would quickly sort these into better defined subcategories, this one should be deleted as too vague. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Associated with" is too vague and lacks boundaries. Either it should be merged with Category:Hippies or deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Hippie" is not a label people generally give themselves but is given by others. How much of a hippie must you be to be included? Love beads, free love, beards, sandals etc or maybe just a little bit of each? Also, being a hippie can be transient. The current cat and Category:Hippies are too problematic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:25, 1 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.