< July 12 July 14 >

July 13

Category:Digimon by level

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) 23:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Digimon by level (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Yet more Digimon cruft. These categories are primarily made up of redirects to a list article which just lists the names of the Digimon. This content is of no real-world significance, and would not exist in the mainspace; as per previous discussions (here and here) it should be deleted. I am also nominating the subcategories: J Milburn (talk) 23:43, 13 July 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.

Category:Digimon by attribute

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) 23:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Digimon by attribute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: More Digimon cruft. These categories are primarily made up of redirects to a list article which just lists the names of the Digimon. This content is of no real-world significance, and would not exist in the mainspace; as per previous discussions (here and here) it should be deleted. I am also nominating the subcategories: J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 13 July 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.

Category:Forest Hill Community High School alumni

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Forest Hill Community High School alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non importence Bobherry (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are six other notable alumni of the school. It has some 1,800 enrollment. Quite a few high schgools have alumni categories. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:32, 13 July 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.

Category:Types of baseball venues

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) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Types of baseball venues to Category:Baseball venues by type
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming convention for categories that hold only sub-categories of specific things by type, rather than generic articles about types of things. (Compare others in Category:Categories by type, and the explanation at Category:Types of organization.) Not eligible for speedy renaming because of "no rename" decision as part of recent group nomination. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 July 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.

Types to be changed back

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 on main issue; rename Category:Types of university and college to Category:Types of university or college; revisit individual categories if needs be to switch to a totally different form. This one may have to remain a mess for now. The point about "and" vs "or" is relatively straight forward so I'll put that up for a rename. "Types of horse(s)" vs "Horse types" has some opposition and would need a separate discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Types of university and college to Category:Types of universities and colleges
Propose renaming Category:Types of horse to Category:Types of horses
Propose renaming Category:Types of business entity to Category:Types of business entities
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These were renamed in June 24 discussions and the July 6 discussion had a consensus to retain the other form. So I'm bringing these back here to see if we really want these to be different or if all of these should be returned to their original names to match the others. The business entity one was actually renamed from Category:Types of companies to Category:Types of company and then to its current name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say rename Types of horse to Horse types so it is similar style to the parent category horse breeds.RafikiSykes (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just quit: I don't give a rat's rear what is decided, I'm just tired of the debate. Gramatically, I think Types of horse, etc. is actually gramatically correct. "Types of" is a little clearer, possibly, but I don't really care deeply. Just end it soon, please. Montanabw(talk) 18:35, 14 July 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.

Category:Tuber (genus)

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:Tuber (fungus), create other categories & revisit if & when necessary. There's no support for the current location and the current article is at Tuber (fungus). It may be better to have a separate category for the family as suggested. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tuber (genus) to Category:Tuber (fungus)
Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with most (eventually all) other fungal genus dabs. Sasata (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good solution. Sasata (talk) 17:41, 18 July 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.

Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 15th century

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) 08:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 15th century to Category:15th-century Roman Catholic church buildings
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We normally don't classify by former v current and these are really converted to use by another religion. This discussion did remove the former but converted to use completed in the name. However the parent here already exists and rather then create two categories for the same purpose, better to merge in and clean this up. Someone can do the mass nomination in this tree to add completed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 13 July 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.

Category:F5 tornadoes

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, recommend revisit with a nomination covering the whole tree. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:F5 tornadoes to Category:F5 or EF5 tornadoes
Nominator's rationale: Since the United States switched to the Enhanced Fujita Scale in 2007, all maximum rated tornadoes have been on the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF5), with the only exception being Canada's only F5 tornado in history. It's probably about time that this category's name reflects the fact it's used for both F5 and EF5 tornadoes (which is fine since the ratings are considered equivalent). Note that I'm not sure whether it should be "F5 or EF5 tornadoes" or "F5 and EF5 tornadoes", so if the one with "and" is better I'd still be open to that. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lived in such a region in the US for a few year and can't say I ever heard of it then. Still seems to be jargon for the sake of it, and it seems obvious that EF and F are different, so I don't how that argument applies, either. When I saw it referenced I immediately thought I'd seen a variant of the F3 Tornado Ephebi (talk)
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.

Category:Manga series published in Weekly Shōnen Champion

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) 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Manga series published in Weekly Shōnen Champion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Excessive categorization. Many of these article already have a half-dozen or more categories and the article on Weekly Shōnen Champion already links to series that have ran in the magazine. —Farix (t | c) 12:17, 13 July 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.

Category:Truffles

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 Category:Truffles to Category:Truffles (fungi). Timrollpickering (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Truffles to Category:Tuber (genus)
Nominator's rationale: Merge. According to the article Truffle (fungus), all truffles (with this meaning) are of this genus. The nominated category only holds that article and the target category. Add all its head categories onto the target. Fayenatic (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the Tuber species are truffles. Renaming the cat to Truffles (fungi) sounds logical to me. Sasata (talk) 17:47, 18 July 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.

Indian people

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Relisting & expanded nominated following this previous CFD. The original rational was as follows:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ambiguous title - the word "Indian" also refers to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timrollpickering (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not matter what other half of US and the world minus US think.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:40, 15 July 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.

Category:American homicide victims

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) 11:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American homicide victims to Category:American crime victims
Administritive note: The target category is currently under discussion for renaming; the result of that discussion has no affect over this discussion, but may result in te target being redlinked for some time until some one gets around to updating it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It's populated by only a subcategory, Category:American murder victims, which appears to have an identical scope. And it adds nothing other than categorization in a never-existant category, Category:Homicide victims. No other country has a "homicide victim" category separate from its "muder victim" category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:06, 13 July 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.

Category:Narrow buildings

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) 11:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Narrow buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective definition. What is "narrow? And are we talking length-to-breadth ratio, or physical width in metres? Grutness...wha? 09:03, 13 July 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.

Category:Plays by Chambers Stevens

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Plays by Chambers Stevens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is populated solely by some dubious notability articles on plays by a non-notable playwright whose own page has been deleted four times. I don't think the category stands up. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My issue isn't with the category, but with the plays themselves. It's the plays in the category that are of dubious notability, not the category. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Desperate for Magic, Travels with Jack Lemmon's Dog and Twain and Shaw Do Lunch probably meet notability guidelines, so I shall withdraw this nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:52, 13 July 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.

Category:Double categories

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Double categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: *Delete. Unused and unnecessary. See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_5#Template:Double_category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:05, 13 July 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.

Category:Authors of Doctor Who books

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 as a G7, no reason to wait a week on a creator request.. Courcelles 07:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Authors of Doctor Who books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created in error. No pages in category. Created category Category:Writers of Doctor Who novels instead. mooncow 02:02, 13 July 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.

Singers by gender

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) 12:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Female singers
Delete Category:Male singers
Nominators rationale the existence of these two cats seems to violate WP:Cat/gender. Specifically this passage Do not create separate categories for male and female occupants of the same position, such as "Male Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom" vs. "Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom". The various voice types I think should be retained, while many of the other categories may need to be deleted, although there may be specific nationalities where specific categories should be retained.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 13 July 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.

Category:IR Constructivists

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) 22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:IR Constructivists to Category:Constructivist international relations scholars
Nominator's rationale: To expand the abbreviation, and per Category:International relations scholars. Also, see the main article: Constructivism (international relations). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:04, 13 July 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.
More