< August 18	August 20 >

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Albums produced by Eddie Holland to Category:Albums produced by Edward Holland, Jr.

Nominator's rationale: Per Eddie Holland/Edward Holland, Jr. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 19 August 2011 (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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Albums produced by Mickey Stevenson to Category:Albums produced by William "Mickey" Stevenson

Nominator's rationale: Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 19 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. We already have Category:Universities and colleges in Africa, subdivided by country and the one entry in this category can easily be moved into Category:Universities and colleges in Ghana. Rymatz (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also added Category:Academies in Ghana for the same reasons. Rymatz (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the entry Accra Academy is actually a boarding school in Ghana and is already so categorised. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ambiguous as well as (pernom) unnecessary. What is "academy" supposed to mean in this context? A school with "academy" in its name? And, yeah, only one member which is already adequately categorized (per FL). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Academy is an amorphous term that is sometimes used for secondar and sometimes for tertiary institutions. We have the schools cats and the university/college cats which are meant to include all possible iterations of this. There is Category:Military academies but that is not what we are dealing with here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entries can be categorized as schools or colleges. Pichpich (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2011 (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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Danube Swabian to Category:Danube Swabians

Nominator's rationale: This should be plural. The article it refers to is Danube Swabians, and our articles on ethnic groups tend to be in the plural. - 174.62.173.107 (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Even if the article was in the singular (many ethnic group articles are) the cat should be in the plural since it is meant to contain multiple people who are Danubian Swabians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2011 (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:Caves containing pictograms. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I just created this. May I ask: is it a worthwhile companion to Category:Petroglyphs in the master category Category:Rock art, or an unneeded splinter? It is underpopulated, but that can easily be addressed, if kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In my opinion, cave paintings and petroglyphs are different (see: rock art). Now about the category, I'm not convinced that it needs deleting. However there is a question about name. The articles are about caves that also contain cave paintings right? So is the category correctly named? While I could be convinced that the current name is acceptable, would Category:Caves containing cave paintings or Category:Caves containing pictograms be more accurate and clear? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a feeling someone would raise that. Yes, I think the current name is misleading and something like Category:Caves containing pictograms would be better (and less repetitious than the first option, perhaps). (Incidentally I saw Cave of Forgotten Dreams in 3d in Toronto and was blown away, hence my sudden interest. I highly recommend it.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But would Category:Caves with pictograms not be preferable? It's simpler. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The articles are about caves, the category should make this clear. The current name would suggest the articles are about cave paintings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

????!!! All this is nonsense. The caves are only notable because they have the paintings (and sometimes other stuff) in them. These suggestions are like Category:Canvases with paintings on them. Not all the articles now in the category are "by cave" ones anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as it is There are now 15 articles - the world's 3 most famous were not included - and I'm sure there are plenty more, as these articles tend to be in all sorts of funny categories. The category is certainly distinct and significant enough to keep, and should certainly not be renamed. In particular the term "pictogram" is totally inappropriate, as most of these images are not pictograms at all. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the articles were named after the canvasses, than I would suggest the name. As long as the articles are named after the caves we should reflect this in the category naming structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they aren't all, as has been pointed out above. There is already The Sorcerer (cave art), Cave painting and the UNESCO WHS Cave of Altamira and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern Spain, and no doubt others out there. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Caves containing pictograms. Having said that the question is what to do the the actual paintings that were added. These can be moved to Category:Rock art. If we have too many at some point, Category:Cave paintings can be recreated to hold those, but the introduction should be limit content to articles on the paintings and not caves that contain them. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The category basically contains colleges and universities recommended by the Cardinal Newman Society, an established but still rather marginal organization of the American religious right. Their recommendations don't constitute defining characteristic for a college. Pichpich (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have no article, or list for that matter, of these postsecondary institutions. We cannot verify the entrants. Thus we must delete.Curb Chain (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can tell the nomination doesn't seem to address any proper basis for deletion, but I will address it anyway. First off, neither the organization nor the guide are part of the "American religious right" (such a fact would not have any impact on deletion anyway). The organization's and the guide's aims are not political but theological - the schools selected are selected for adhering to Catholic orthodoxy, i.e. comporting with Ex Corde Ecclesiae, and would no doubt would and do appeal to devout Catholics of the left in the mold of Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and the like. The society is not just American (you'll note a chapter at the University of Louvain in Belgium) but the guide does concentrate primarily on American Catholic Universities and Colleges. To say that the Newman Society is marginal when it has over 20,000 members (on both Catholic and non-Catholic campuses) is rather silly. That is very large as campus organizations go - by comparison the Federalist Society (a campus organization which IS explicitly political) has 10,000 members. To the extent the nomination is framing an argument that the organization or the guide are not notable, the argument is not well founded. The society and/or the guide have been covered by the higher education press, the religious press and the general secular press (for example, here are a few articles from each of those media categories): Washington Monthly, Inside Higher Ed, Christian Telegraph, EWTN, National Catholic Register, Los Angeles Times, Catholic News Agency, Christian Newswire, The Washinton Post, and The Chronicle of Higher Education. As to the Curb Chain's comments re verifiability, they are easily verifiable by consulting the guide. As to the lack of an article on the guide, no doubt one should be started, considering its notability. Mamalujo (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have created the article on the guide to deal with Curb Chain's concern. Mamalujo (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the category is complimentary to the article. The cat is very useful for readers wishing to navigate colleges on the Society's list. Nominator's POV is showing with the bit about "American religious right." – Lionel ^(talk) 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Last I heard, "religious right" is not an insult and I hardly think the Cardinal Newman Society would find anything wrong with that label. In any case, Wikipedia does not exist to help readers navigate the list of an outside organization (and a fairly obscure one at that). I don't if you've visited it but the society's website is pretty good and is designed precisely for that purpose. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like any other university guidebook, this is non-defining with regard to article subjects. Sure, it can be mentioned in the article text, and the article on the guide might have its list, but there is no reason for a category. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly/probably listify. This is the type of thing that lists are good for. This is useful information, but it is not really a defining characteristic of the colleges and universities involved. We categorize universities and colleges by location, by accredidating association, and type (private/public, junior colleges/communitiy college/etc.) and by controlling organization. The issue here is not the Newman Society or whehther it is an important organization, but that this is just not a standard way to categorize things. A list would allow for listing of what years the institutions were on, or to reflect if there were higher and lower ratings involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as the guide seems to be published annually, this seems to be merely a fleeting accolade. Occuli (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the assertion that it is not a defining characteristic of the schools: unlike guides which rank schools (U.S. News, Princeton Review, etc.) and where inclusion is not a defining characteristic, here it is. Inclusion is a defining characteristic of the schools. Inclusion in the guide, unlike U.S. News or Princeton, says what type of school it is (those which comport with Ex Corde Ecclesiae and adhere to Catholic teaching), and it is legitimate to categorize schools this way, i.e. public, private, Catholic, Lutheran, conference (Ivy League, Sun Conference, Pac10). Mamalujo (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your definition of "defining characteristic" is much much looser than the one actually used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Categorization says that we should only create categories "under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject". Moreover, the list doesn't quite match the Ex Corde Ecclesiae colleges so the Society does give itself a bit of leeway, which makes the category somewhat subjective. Pichpich (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think we want to get into a system of categorizing schools that are recommended by a particular organization or publication. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 22 August 2011 (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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Testament albums to Category:Testament (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the title of the main article. This is the standard thing to do and though I'm not a fan of this convention, it seems like a particularly good idea since there is a slight risk of ambiguity here. (The album-testament metaphor is not uncommon) Pichpich (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – the idea behind the convention is that one doesn't need to consider whether all the possible cats ('Testament albums', 'Testament songs', 'Testament members', 'Testament images' etc) may or may not be ambiguous: just match the article name for the band. Also per Category:Testament (band). Occuli (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2011 (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 rename as a spelling fix. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vattenfall windfarms to Category:Vattenfall wind farms

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with other wind farms' categories. Beagel (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – as the category creator I admit to the mistake made during the initial naming. It should be renamed to the nominator's suggestion as per other categories. Delusion23 (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2011 (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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Berenstain Bears to Category:Berenstain Bears

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 19 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Too few articles and subcats. They can be (and are) linked by ((seealsocat)) and ((catmain))--that covers almost all of this content and a footer on the individual articles leaves them all well-navigated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 19 August 2011 (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 03:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Does not aid in the creation of an encyclopedia. Delete. - Eureka Lott 04:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pir nomunater. How this was intended to help the project out, I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pir nomunater, indeed. Consider renaming to Category:Wikipedians unfamiliar with whose. Occuli (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely uselessCurb Chain (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete on the grounds of utter uselessness and grotesque spelling. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not useful for making an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 23 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to the older, better populated, and correctly named Category:Lists of ambassadors. - Eureka Lott 04:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huge cleanup of the category tree
1. Merge Category:Ambassadors of Afghanistan is not in Category:Lists of ambassadors
2. Category:Ambassadors of Afghanistan and Category:Lists of ambassadors both contain ambassadors to and from countries, in a huge convoluted mess, where some ambassadors are doubly placed in cats, and they crossover, and it's a huge mess. Ambassadors can be divided in receiving polity and sending polity. I think that's what the Category:Ambassadors by mission country is for, but it's a huge convoluted mess, and I give up on trying to cleanup-and-list every action that needs to be taken.Curb Chain (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Lists of ambassadors. As for Category:Ambassadors of Afghanistan, it looks fine to me; it is not, and should not be, in "Lists" because it contains individuals as well as lists. The Ambassadors category tree looks mostly OK; "of" = "from" = country of origin; "to" = mission country. Category:Lists of ambassadors is a mixure and would probably benefit from being split between "from" and "to". Would it also be good to insert "current" into the name of all articles listing only current ambassadors (in either direction)? (Articles whose name specifies both "from" and "to" are lists of former and current ambassadors.) - Fayenatic (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Lists of ambassadors (the nom is delete, not merge). Category:Ambassadors of Afghanistan should not be in Category:Lists of ambassadors. It would be good to prepend 'List of current' to Ambassadors of Afghanistan; indeed I will do so. Occuli (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2011 (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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Australian cyclones to Category:Australian region cyclones
Category:Australian cyclone seasons to Category:Australian region cyclone seasons

Category:1974–75 Australian cyclone season to Category:1974–75 Australian region cyclone season
Category:1995–96 Australian cyclone season to Category:1995–96 Australian region cyclone season
Category:1996–97 Australian cyclone season to Category:1996–97 Australian region cyclone season
Category:1997–98 Australian cyclone season to Category:1997–98 Australian region cyclone season
Category:1998–99 Australian cyclone season to Category:1998–99 Australian region cyclone season
Category:1999–2000 Australian cyclone season to Category:1999–2000 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2000–01 Australian cyclone season to Category:2000–01 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2001–02 Australian cyclone season to Category:2001–02 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2002–03 Australian cyclone season to Category:2002–03 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2003–04 Australian cyclone season to Category:2003–04 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2004–05 Australian cyclone season to Category:2004–05 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2005–06 Australian cyclone season to Category:2005–06 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2006–07 Australian cyclone season to Category:2006–07 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2007–08 Australian cyclone season to Category:2007–08 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2008–09 Australian cyclone season to Category:2008–09 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2009–10 Australian cyclone season to Category:2009–10 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2010–11 Australian cyclone season to Category:2010–11 Australian region cyclone season
Category:2011–12 Australian cyclone season to Category:2011–12 Australian region cyclone season

Category:Category 1 Australian cyclones to Category:Category 1 Australian region cyclones
Category:Category 2 Australian cyclones to Category:Category 2 Australian region cyclones
Category:Category 3 Australian cyclones to Category:Category 3 Australian region cyclones
Category:Category 4 Australian cyclones to Category:Category 4 Australian region cyclones
Category:Category 5 Australian cyclones to Category:Category 5 Australian region cyclones
Category:Australian cyclone disambiguation to Category:Australian region cyclone disambiguation
Category:Retired Australian cyclones to Category:Retired Australian region cyclones

Nominator's rationale: Rename. After talking to people at WP:WPTC, apparently it would be a good idea to rename "Australian cyclones" (and subcategories) to "Australian region cyclones" (and similar), as a hurricane that hits New Zealand doesn't make it an Australian cyclone. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Support - this would bring them all into line with the where the season articles are located - and yeah a TC that affects New Zealand does not always count as an Australian TC.Jason Rees (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (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.

August 19

Category:Albums produced by Eddie Holland

Category:Albums produced by Mickey Stevenson

Category:Academies in Africa

Category:Danube Swabian

Category:Cave paintings

Category:Newman Guide Colleges and Universities

Category:Testament albums

Category:Vattenfall windfarms

Category:The Berenstain Bears

Category:Vanilla Ice

Category:Wikipedians Who's Surname Is Smith

Category:List of ambassadors by country

Category:Australian cyclones