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) 11:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anika Moa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Plenty of precendent when a music artist has nothing more than their own albums and songs to categorize, an eponymous category is unnecessary per WP:OC#Eponymous. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is a strong precedent of not needing this type of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 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) 11:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vocal synthesising software to Category:Singing software synthesizers

Nominator's rationale: Rename to remove ambiguity with Category:Speech synthesis software which is what I thought this category was about. Consistent with Category:Software synthesizers and Category:Keyboard software synthesizers. Pnm (talk) 20:05, 29 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Free software by domain to Category:Free application software

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Nearly identical scope. Per prior Cfd which merged parent Category:Software by domain into Category:Application software. Pnm (talk) 19:09, 29 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) 11:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Software by used software to Category:Software by library used

Nominator's rationale: Rename. More clearly define scope of new category. If proposed title is too restrictive, rename to a title like Category:Software related to other software instead. Pnm (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree: This name sounds a lot better. In case of scope expansion, the parent category could be created or this category renamed, as you proposed.

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) 11:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music videos directed by Chris Marrs Piliero

Nominator's rationale: Delete Subject related to category does not have an article at the moment: Chris Marrs Piliero QuasyBoy 18:49, 29 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 per original proposal noting the precedent of other BAFTA categories. Revisit the whole tree if an alternative naming scheme is preferred. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:BAFTA Award for Best Supporting Actor to Category:Best Supporting Actor BAFTA Award winners

Category:BAFTA Award for Best Supporting Actress to Category:Best Supporting Actress BAFTA Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut convention for the naming of these types of categories for a speedy rename, but there is precedent with similar categories such as Category:Best Supporting Actor Academy Award winners and Category:Best Actor BAFTA Award winners. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer Category:BAFTA Best Supporting Actor award winners and Category:BAFTA Best Supporting Actress award winners with other BAFTA award categories renamed to match. Note that I am not putting in my usual vote to listify and delete as OCAT, because the BAFTA awards are major awards (unlike the MTV ones, also with a CFD today). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 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: delete. These are already listed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MTV Viewer's Choice Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:MTV Asia Awards winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There seem to be two types of MTV Viewer's Choice Awards, MTV Video Music Award – Viewer's Choice and MTV Video Music Award – International Viewer's Choice, and I am not sure if this category is supposed to contain winners of one or both. Regardless, all the winners are listed on those pages and previous CfDs on categorization by MTV Video Award winners suggest this category is overcategorization per WP:OC#Award (see Cfd 2006 Jul 23 and CfD 2010 Oct 15). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: added Category:MTV Asia Awards winners to nomination as overcategorization per WP:OC#Award. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete -- For awards, lists do much better than categories as they can put them in date order. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: Ambiguous title - if a person from one country is murdered in a second country by a person from a third country, the current titles are ambiguous to which of the 3 countries the victim should be categorized in. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no confusion. Turkish murder victims, for example, is clear that it relates to a Turkish person who was murdered, regardless of which country he/she was killed in and by whom. Lugnuts (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, these categories sound like they mean "Victims of Fooian murders", which would mean either that the murder took place in Fo, or that the murderer was a Fooian. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These titles are not ambiguous. An "Australian murder victim" is clearly a victim of murder who is an Australian. --Geniac (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not that clear. To me, it sounds like the person is a victim of Australian murder - that is, either the murderer is Australian (just like in Israel people talk about "Palestinian terrorism" meaing acts done by orginizations like Hamas and not Price tag activities) or that it took place in Australia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- the category clearlky refers to the nationality of the victim. If a Turk was murdered in England, we might need him in an additoon category for "people murdered in England", which should have a headnote, discouraging the addition of English people murdered in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the new name is less ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Everyone agrees that these are for nationality of the victim, but the proposed names are clearer. It also avoids the more emotive word "victims". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:38, 2 January 2012 (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) 11:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Coral members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Musicians by band says "Categories should not be created when only one member has an article."-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom but with no prejudice against recreating if other members of this band come to have articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 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.