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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 7#Category:Companies based in Columbus, Ohio. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Columbus, Ohio to Category:Companies based in the Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Based on the introduction the category covers the city and the surrounding area so the proposed name would be more accurate. The question is, is it better to rename as proposed and allow recreation of the city category if needed? Or if we need both, is it better to create the metro area category and cleanup the current category? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question -- If the metropolitan area is larger than the legal extent of the city, how do you intend to provide a definite limit to the scope of the category? Peterkingiron (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Metro areas are usually defined by the counties they encompass, so the OMB/Census Bureau-defined Metropolitan Statistical Area is usually reliable.- choster (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. In the long run I expect most of these companies to get upmerged into city and county categories, and Columbus being a major city should be able to populate its own category. While metro areas are an easy way to comprehend a city and its vicinity, they do not necessarily help fix the subject in space; one "San Francisco Bay Area company" could be a three-hour drive from another, and county borders change less often than metropolitan area definitions.- choster (talk) 04:52, 30 March 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Country record labels to Category:Country music record labels

• Category:American country record labels -> Category:American country music record labels
• Category:Australian country record labels -> Category:Australian country music record labels
• Category:British country record labels -> Category:British country music record labels
• Category:Canadian country record labels -> Category:Canadian country music record labels
• Category:German country record labels -> Category:German country music record labels
• Category:Irish country record labels -> Category:Irish country music record labels

Nominator's rationale:

To disambiguate to Country music, of course, and match parent category Category:Country music. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. On the one hand, I agree with the nominator - "country" => "country music" seems to be a clarification, but on the other hand, the result can be still read as "American country" + "music record labels" (as if there could be any other "record labels", besides "music"). --GreyCat (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renames to better clarify content of categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Record label" is a term only used in the music industry so the addition of music in the titles is unnecessary. As mentioned above, it comes out looking as though it is referring to "music record labels" as opposed to some other type of record label. Cjc13 (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent category and article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 5 April 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: keep, noting that at this time most of the biographies include a sourced claim of membership. The two exceptions are: Fausto Fernós (has "Further reading" sources, but lacks inline citation) and Michael Warner. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radical Faeries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - membership in this minor yet important social group is not a defining characteristic of the vast majority of its members. Most of the individuals included in the category have no mention of the Radical Faeries in their articles, suggesting that inclusion is being based on original research. Otto4711 (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments on the Radical Faerie category. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, but was hoping you could help. Since it would be easy to document with independent sources the participation of each of the individuals in the category who do not currently list Radical Faerie membership in their article, would your concern regarding the category be answered if such additions were made to the articles that don't currently include them? I took a quick look at the articles that lack Radical Faerie mention, and it would be easy to document this. Thoughts? Harveymilk (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that would indeed help. Categories should be supported by content, ideally well-sourced, within the article. -- Banjeboi 11:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Being a part of the Radical Faeries has strongly influenced the careers of many of the members of this category - Justin Bond, Jake Shears, and John Cameron Mitchell come to mind. A couple of the others are founders of the organization - John Burnside (inventor), Harry Hay, and Mitch Walker, for example. Another member of the category has written extensively on Radical Faeries - Will Roscoe. That's 10 out of the current 15 members of the cat where it *is* a major or defining characteristic. If citations are needed, that's fine - they'll be provided. But keep the category. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above. -- Banjeboi 11:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals included here. Alansohn (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a sort-of "club"-type membership--judging by the (lack of) mention of this in the articles in this category that I looked at, I have a hard time believing membership in this is defining. The category creator has admitted that he was unsure of how to proceed, and it's clear that cited information about membership in this group has yet to be to be added to articles. This needs to happen before the articles are placed in the category. So delete until this happens, and then it could be re-assessed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? I've been through all the articles in the category and added referenced material to indicate people's membership in it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ?? You mean like Tom Spanbauer, where the category is applied even though it says nothing about the topic in the article itself? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for catching that. I had worked my way down to "S" and missed his. I'll do that now. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:23, 7 April 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 to Category:Black Francis albums. It may be possible to reduce the possibility of confusion by leaving a category redirect from Category:Frank Black albums to Category:Black Francis albums and adding a category description indicating that they are the same person. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Frank Black albums to Category:Black Francis albums

Nominator's rationale: per main article, Black Francis —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Frank Black (album) is evidently a Frank Black album (see its cover). How about making Category:Frank Black albums a subcat of Category:Black Francis albums? Occuli (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment They're really just arbitrary pseudonyms of the same person. As best as I can tell, "Frank Black" and "Black Francis" aren't separate personas like Chris Gaines to Garth Brooks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  My point is that the article Frank Black (album) doesn't mention Black Francis and it is therefore far from evident (from the article) that it is a 'Black Francis album'. We could put 'Frank Black aka Black Francis' in the respective articles. (What do we do with Prince?) Occuli (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  They're all at Category:Prince (musician) albums. Though I certainly did try to promote 06+> as an alternative to "The Artist formerly known as Prince" during that era. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Capital. Also, as nom points out, the alternate name was not a separate musical persona in the line of Chris Gaines vs. Garth Brooks, so a subcategory is not needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. He primarily used “Black Francis” as a member of the Pixies and primarily used “Frank Black” during his solo career. Moving the article would be more appropriate. ―AoV² 13:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, he's switched back to using "Black Francis" now, even for solo stuff. So the article is at the name that he's currently using, which is what makes this a tricky one. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This might be one of those cases where we have to include both names, in the style Category:Frank Black/Black Francis albums or something of that ilk. They aren't really separate personas, so having separate categories isn't really appropriate, but I understand the concerns of people who think it may get a bit confusing and arbitrary to just choose one name over the other. No opinion, just two cents for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 27 March 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 to Category:Swingin' Utters albums. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swingin Utters albums to Category:Swingin' Utters albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main, Swingin' Utters. Possibly speedy as a misspelling. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:48, 25 March 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: Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7. A category created in error and never used can be deleted just by tagging it with ((db-author)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French people of British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: 'mental typo' - tried to list this speedy but couldnt Mayumashu (talk) 01:29, 25 March 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. Consensus in the survey and comments favor not keeping this category. I looked at a few articles and it is not clear how defining this membership is for the individuals. A navbox template might better address the interrelationship of the various organizations that are related by showing how they relate. This could be done with categories but then we would have a series of very small categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim Students' Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single article-category, and the one article (Ramzi Yousef) doesn't even mention the Muslim Students' Association. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe I've addressed both issues, the first by doing a quick search of the MSA on wp articles, and adding a good number of articles to the cat, and second by adding a WSJ article ref and text to the Yousef article about his co-founding the MSA at Rutgers.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It looks like any article that mentions Muslim Students' Association in any context has been added to the category. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is a helpful categorization at this stage. It maybe could be if it were cleaned up, but it looks like we've gone from casting the net too narrowly to it being cast much too widely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. There are more I could point to or add if you like.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I don't think Islam in Delaware should be in the category, nor should Isna convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take them out, though -- without my checking -- isn't the ISNA convention a joint one w/MSA, and that the big event of the year for both?--Epeefleche (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going by what was written in the article on it. According to it, the only connection is the MSA holds a "parallel" convention at the same time. The article could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me the article should be fixed with sourcing if it's going to be so categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:41, 3 April 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 to Category:Video game hardware templates. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Racing wheel templates to Category:Video game hardware templates

Nominator's rationale: Single-article category, no apparent likelihood of expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Even if one or two more such templates could be created, that would be the end of it; there's just not enough of the things out there. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:29, 1 April 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.