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) 16:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bojutsu practitioners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A non-defining characteristic of these fictional characters. Only one of 21 articles that populate this category even mention the term "bojutsu". Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. With that low of identification it is clearly a misused category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 30 December 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: upmerge to Category:Mass media.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media by parameter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: And Upmerge Why does this exist? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Reason for existence: one of those 2440 Category:Container categories. — Stefanomione (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• — Note to closing admin: Stefanomione (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Mass media, to which it adds nothing other than confusion. (Category:Media redirects to Category:Mass media.) Occuli (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge. And sorry, but if, after months of this, Stefanomione still hasn't learned by now how utterly useless these "foo by parameter" categories are, then I just have to shake my head. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 30 December 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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films involving disabilities to Category:Films about disabilities

Nominator's rationale: Per all kinds of "X about Y" categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 28 December 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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming all "Government-owned companies in Foo" to "Government-owned companies of Foo".

Nominator's rationale: To follow WP:NCCAT#Companies and WP:NCCAT#State-based topics, which prescribe "...of country" for by-country categories for types of company and for topics related to the government. It also makes logical sense; a company owned by a government is a GOC of that country, not merely in it. htonl (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all categories have now been tagged, and Category talk:Government-owned companies by country and Talk:Government-owned corporation have been notified. - htonl (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: added some subcategories of the main country categories. - htonl (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I created the Australia category, and "of" was what I wanted to use, both for uniformity with the other cats in Category:Government agencies of Australia and because it sounds right ("of" the country['s government], not merely "in" the country). I forgot about the issue, glad to see someone's noticed and raised it. Miracle Pen (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the new term makes more sense to me as well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the new terminology is particularly useful when state owned enterprises (as they're called in New Zealand) invest in offshore companies. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:27, 27 December 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) 16:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paranormal portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Looks like Portal:Paranormal was redirected to Portal:Occult. This category is no longer needed, nor the pages within. œ^™ 15:53, 26 December 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) 16:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airliner accidents and incidents featured in a Mayday episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Being featured on a television programme is not a defining category for an aviation accident. As far as I know we dont categorise other accidents by similar tv mentions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. About a year ago there was a similar discussion[1] about a template for all the episodes. The decision was to delete it.- William 15:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• One alternative option would be to convert this category into a list article. -- œ^™ 15:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – not defining. List of Mayday episodes contains a list. Occuli (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pop culture-centric, non-encyclopedic in nature. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is in the nature of a performacne by performer category, which we do not allow. Perhaps listify first. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This should be a speedy delete. We have a consensus here and just one year ago another category page discussion on this topic ended in delete also.[2]- William
• Delete. The category provides nothing relevant to any accident article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is worse than performer by performance, this is more along the lines of "People person X wrote biographies of".John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 30 December 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 to Category:Daughters of viscounts. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Propose renaming: Category:Daughters of viscountesses to Category:Children of viscountesses, due to my mistake in naming category when I created it. Please delete original mistaken category name. Thanks, Quis separabit? 13:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Category:Daughters of viscounts. I do not think we need a separate category of suo jure viscountesses. Note: the only current content is a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:: Disagree, and when in doubt there is no need to foreclose options. I am aware that the only current occupant is a redirect but is that really relevant? We could compromise by uploading Category:Daughters of viscounts into Category:Daughters of viscounts and viscountesses, on second thought, I guess. Quis separabit? 00:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Peterkingiron. In any event, we surely do not use "children of" in such categories? Moonraker (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reconsidering, I withdraw my renaming proposal and support merge to Category:Daughters of viscounts as recommended by Moonraker and Peterkingiron. Quis separabit? 01:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge The one person in this category can not per merge to the proposed target. Her father was never a viscount, only her mother was made a viscountess (this is primarily because it was done shortly after her father's death, but her father was not a viscount, and so she is not a viscount's daughter.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know that, as her mother was a viscountess suo jure, and I am sure she's not the only one hence my original request to rename the category to either Category:Children of viscountesses or Category:Daughters of viscounts and viscountesses. However in light of the merge votes from peers whose judgment I respect I decided to go along with their merge recommendation. So I really am not sure how to proceed. Should the original category stand as created or can it be improved somehow? Quis separabit? 13:34, 31 December 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions to Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions

Propose renaming Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old to Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

Propose renaming Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions with invalid timestamp to Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions with invalid timestamp

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories don't only contain images. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also these:

• Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old
• Category:Rescaled fairuse images with invalid timestamp
• Category:Rescaled fairuse images

— Train2104 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 December 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 08:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meditation Leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete The term "leader" is obviously unacceptably subjective. The category seems to have been created solely for Tony Samara, an article which I've just tagged for speedy deletion as unambiguous spam. Pichpich (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- œ^™ 16:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. However, Category:Meditation instructors might be useful. I know thats off topic, and i will research creating it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:11, 27 December 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.