< June 4	June 6 >

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. Courcelles (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Created by one suspected sock identity of banned User:Mac, and edited by another. "Charge maintaining hybrid" appears to be just a synonym for hybrid electric, in that all electric hybrid vehicles, including mild hybrids, retain some generated "charge" in a battery. At least that's what my Google search suggests. This is not a widely used term, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – sounds like some sort of flora, and each article is also in the parent Category:Hybrid electric vehicles so no upmerge necessary. Occuli (talk) 00:09, 6 June 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 14#Category:Homeopathic remedies. — ξ ^xplicit 21:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Homeopathic remedies to Category:Homeopathic preparations

Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories, matching List of homeopathic preparations (whose name was discussed extensively a while back) should be preferred. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there have been several discussions of this, most recently this past April. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was April 2009. Do you think that that demonstrates a consensus for merging the other way? Regardless, I think these categories are redundant and should be merged one way or the other. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you on a merge but I don't have any strong views on which way, sorry. I'm sure others will. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the merge as you suggest would be less-POV, in the sense that it should be more palatable to those who hold that homeopathy doesn't "remedy" anything. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 6 June 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Peaks on the Appalachian Trail to Category:Mountains on the Appalachian Trail

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most category content is mountains, not limited to peaks of mountains. Indeed, when the category was created, it was tagged "Mountains traversed by the Appalachian Trail." If the intention was to limit soley to peaks of mountains it would have/should have been tagged "Peaks..." Gjs238 (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 13 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The language code is "rue", but I'm not sure if the proper category already exists, so a move may also be a possibility. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category is empty, so it looks as if it's already been merged. Unsure if it has been empty for the required 4 days so don't know if it is speedyable per C1. VegaDark (talk) 16:50, 5 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The language code for this language is "rue", for which a category already exists. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category is empty, so it looks as if it's already been merged. Unsure if it has been empty for the required 4 days so don't know if it is speedyable per C1. VegaDark (talk) 16:50, 5 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Over-categorisation. Not a useful category. Wikipedia is not a depository of genealogical information. Typo in title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Descendants of Sophia of Hanover (his mother) or possibly to Category:Descendants of James I of England (her grandfather). Or delete per OCAT:ARBITRARY STARTING POINT. There is Descendants of George I of Great Britain which is a better idea but also flawed IMO. Occuli (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary. We simply cannot have a "descendants of" category for every notable person who happened to have children. Similar categories for a number of other persons have been deleted, including Queen Victoria, Louis XIV, Kamehameha's siblings (?), etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:37, 9 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category appears to consist of people appearing in Nebraskana, a 1932 book of people in Nebraska that the editors thought were notable. If every book that listed people also was a category, it would lead to significant overcategorization. ALXVA (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 07:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the long article on James Dahlman does not even mention this society. This is well below the significance of state-level Hall of Fame, categories for which are regularly deleted. Occuli (talk) 09:52, 5 June 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 as per the nom. Renaming to 'rock music' would narrow the scope of this category. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recorded music characters to Category:Fictional characters from recorded music

Nominator's rationale: I originally thought that this referred to typographical characters in music notation. I am open to any alternative names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. As the creator of this category, I have no objection to this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional characters in rock music, or whatever we call it. Many of these featured largely in videos, live shows etc, so "recorded music" isn't right, plus people will start adding characters from opera & musicals. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 07:13, 5 June 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: not renamed. Courcelles (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Apteryx to Category:Kiwi

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest changing from scientific to common name. Apteryx redirects to Kiwi. (Re pluralization: The plural form of "kiwi" is "kiwi". If one says "kiwis", one is referring to people from New Zealand, not the bird. See this discussion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as the fruit is a common usage as well as people from New Zealand leaving no primary usage. If renamed, rename to Category:Kiwi (bird). Move the article if needed to keep the two in sync. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing that moving the article would be a non-starter if it were proposed. I might support it, but it would certainly be controversial and shouldn't be done without using WP:RM. But if we were referring to either people or kiwifruit in a slang-y way, wouldn't it be Category:Kiwis? But really, who knows what "Apteryx" means? Even Category:Kiwi (birds) would be an improvement. Note that the subcategory already is Category:Fictional kiwi; I'm not sure that this is ever confused with Category:Fictional New Zealand people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 07:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "who knows what "Apteryx" means?" has a clear solution: find the article, look for the Latin name in the first line. But there is clearly a need for a clearer policy on using either English or Latin names (cf. Category:Cygnus and Category:Swans - why two of them?). If, for the sake of consistency only one option must be chosen, than it could only be Latin (since absolute majority of genera don't have common names in English or any other living language). East of Borschov (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is suppose to be the most common name that can be reliably sourced. Part of the issue is that the plant and animal projects think that this should always be Latin. That leads to "who knows what "Apteryx" means?" when kiwi is the common name (ignoring disambiguation). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 5 June 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 17:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by fraternity/sorority" category, which have all been deleted as not facilitating collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as parent and siblings were already ~~killed~~ deleted FinalRapture - † ☪ 15:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this category soon after I began to actively edit on Wikipedia. There was another similar category at the time, and I was unaware that such categories should not be created. To date, this has not facilitated collaboration, so there is no real need for it. NYCRuss ☎ 16:35, 6 June 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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't facilitate collaboration. Should be a category all Wikipedians are in by default. Borderline speedyable considering the deletion of the Wikipedians who despise vandalism category. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep membership serves as an aid to collaboration for those with an interest in vandal fighting. Non-membership in a group does not connote support of vandalism. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Vandalism" is improperly categorized so at minimum that change needs to be made. Additionally, there is vast precedent for deleting categories such as this as shown in my example above (see here). Else we would set precedent for keeping categories like "Wikipedians against personal attacks" (deleted once before), "Wikipedians against unsourced information", etc. all of which are unhelpful and don't reasonably support collaboration despite your assertion. I fail to see how the simple fact of one being "against" vandalism facilitates collaboration in vandal fighting, since someone can be against vandalism and yet have no interest whatsoever in vandal fighting. Further, "Wikipedians against..." categories are considered "not" categories, which is another categorization scheme that has vast precedent for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians collaborating against vandalism or something, to satisfy Alansohn's point, or delete as pointless stating-of-the-obvious. We don't need "wikipolitical" categories. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SMcCandlish. This appears to be a statement-of-principles-type category and not a collaborative category (e.g. Category:Wikipedians in the Counter-Vandalism Unit). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:57, 14 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not facilitate collaboration at all. Improper capitalization/grammar at minimum. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not facilitate collaboration at all. Improper capitalization at minimum. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 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 17:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Native speaker of a programming language" category, which have a unanimous precedent for deletion as impossible/joke categories. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 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: speedily deleted by The Earwig (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under G7. — ξ ^xplicit 04:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently refers to User:TheDJ/Qui. Improper naming convention of "users", so needs a rename at minimum. Additionally, I fail to see how a category maintaining a grouping of users who use this particular script benefits Wikipedia, so I would also support deletion.VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Qui as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 5 June 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: no consensus. Broadly, not a bad idea, but no consensus to do this, and should really be discussed somewhere else, and then brought to CFD. Courcelles (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Album covers to Category:Album and single covers

Nominator's rationale: Most of these are the covers to singles, not albums. To use one of tens of thousands of examples--File:REM End of the World US7.jpg. Alternately, split into Category:Single covers, which seems unnecessary as the licensing issues are probably the same, but it might be helpful for navigation as the current scheme has 105,927 files. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I created Category:Single covers and then I noticed this CfD. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as all covers (regardless if they are albums or singles) use the ((Non-free album cover)) template. If there is no template to make a distinction between album and single covers, I see no reason for the categories to do so. — ξ ^xplicit 20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response That would be a simple matter of moving the template and creating ((Non-free cover|Album)) and ((Non-free cover|Single)) to replace it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it simple, as this would effect over 100,000 files. I will say that creating a ((Non-free cover)) may be worth considering and could mirror the ((Icon)) template, but because that would require centralized discussion; it's outside the scope of CFD and should be discussed before this category is renamed. — ξ ^xplicit 23:56, 7 June 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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Santa Clara (Cuba) to Category:Santa Clara, Cuba
Category:People from Santa Clara (Cuba) to Category:People from Santa Clara, Cuba

Nominator's rationale: Per the main article: Santa Clara, Cuba. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 10 June 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.

June 5

Category:Charge-maintaining hybrids

Category:Homeopathic remedies

Category:Peaks on the Appalachian Trail

Category:User ry-1

Category:User ry

Category:Descendants Of George I of Great Britain

Category:Nebraskana Society

Category:Recorded music characters

Category:Apteryx

Category:Wikipedians in Phi Kappa Psi

Category:Wikipedians against Vandalism

Category:Wikipedians Who Laugh Alot

Category:Wikipedians Who Can't Remember What They Were Doing A Moment Ago

Category:User AVR-N

Category:Users using Qui

Category:Album covers

Category:Santa Clara (Cuba)