< March 20 March 22 >

March 21

Category:Honor killing in Pakistan

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. There's plenty of speedy precedent for renaming cats to match the local version of English used. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Honor killing in Pakistan to Category:Honour killings in Pakistan Category:Honour killing in Pakistan
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In Pakistan, UK English is generally preferred. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, support I misunderstood policy, and actually I support uniformity when possible, I think the consensus against deciding on one standard for the wiki was wishy-washy at best. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:21, 23 March 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:Christian terrorism

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 for now without setting precedent for the Category:Religious terrorism tree. There's some clear support for ending this sort of category but also a feeling that individual categories should not be picked off inconsistently. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: *Delete. Move to other categories as appropriate. This category is WP:POV and often WP:OR. The organization may have labeled itself as "Christian" which is okay for categorizing. It may have been officially labeled as "terrorist" by the government or judicial authority. That is okay. Putting the two together is clearly WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when Category:Terrorists and Category:Terrorist organizations were deleted (due to concerns about libel and POV), all of those people and organizations ended up being moved to Category:Terrorism in country X or Category:Type X of terrorism, which hardly solves the problem. I agree that these categories should not be applied to people or organizations, but I haven't had any luck in convincing the rest of wikipedia of that fact. That said, it doesn't make sense to delete this one category because of a fundamental problem with our categorization structure. If anyone would like to comment on the discussions I started recently at WP:Label or WP:BLP, I'd be happy to have your support. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely ironic. I was totally confused when I saw the cfd from you. =) Anyway, I agree with your motivation, but disagree with your strategy. Trying to delete these categories one at a time won't work, since the large number of similar categories undermines your argument, regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Moreover, it isn't fair to delete one but leave others around. It looks POV, even if that isn't your intention. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that it isn't fair to rm one pov category and leave the others. It is, however, a start. Trying to rm all of them at once, has, from my experience, resulted in failure. I thought I would start with the "easy" one first. You can see where that has led to! Glad I didn't submit them all. I just be fighting the same war on four or five fronts. A bit much for me, I am afraid. Student7 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's the choice. Either nominate them all so that we can have a discussion on the principle of labelling terrorism as religious ... or make what you acknowledge is an unfair singling-out of one category, and lose the support of editors who agree with you in principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'd rather be on the right, if losing side of one pov argument, than kid myself into supporting a lot of other losing pov arguments. Editors tend to dislike pov in text, but tolerate or even like pov in categories. Can't fight this trend alone.Student7 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 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:Twin-spool turbojet engines

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) 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Twin-spool turbojet engines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Undesired category, overcategorisation. Aircraft gas turbine engines are categorised by type (turbofan, turboshaft etc) and decade of introduction with the exception of turbofan engines which are further sub-categorised into bypass ratio (high, medium and low). The categorization advice and trees can be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Categories, this consensus system was arrived at after much discussion at WT:AETF that can be viewed in the archives of that page. The current discussion, where consensus has been gained to nominate this category for deletion, is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines#New category. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As described this category is not useful, is overly specific and collides with consensus categorization already in use. - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 21 March 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:Lithuanian expatriate footballers in Israel

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/upmerge. Had these been in the previous nomination, I would have closed them the same way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lithuanian expatriate footballers in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Expatriate footballers in X. Overcategorisation. Recently discussed on March 13 that these triple intersections would create thousands of lightly populated categories. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated
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:Zips

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:American mobsters of Sicilian descent. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have two redundant, somewhat ambiguous slang-based categories within Category:American mobsters of Sicilian descent:

I suppose it's possible someone could make a strict criteria for categorizing people in these, but even then they would probably still be challenged here. Recommending deletion. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the category, but I thought it should be pointed out that it was a 'term of art' in a fashion not a slur. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:10, 23 March 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:Greek expatriate footballers in Ukraine

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 delete. This clearly should have been in the nomination I just closed yesterday. I've also deleted the categories Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Austria and Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers in Greece, which contain only this footballer and one other.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Greek expatriate footballers in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This was tagged for CSD with no explanation. It does seem to be a rather unlikely to ever have very many members. I'm taking no position on whether it should be deleted and transferring it to CfD. Selket Talk 16:00, 21 March 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:Fictional masters of disguise

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) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional masters of disguise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: POV, vague category. I see no good way to define this category or any particular usefulness for it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:20, 21 March 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:Shaw albums

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:Leslie Shaw albums. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Shaw albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: One album isn't enough to merit a category. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 March 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:The Adventures of Pete & Pete

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) 17:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Adventures of Pete & Pete (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles and a redirect. WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:07, 21 March 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:The Secret World of Alex Mack

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) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Secret World of Alex Mack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT. Only three pages, two of which are lists of books and episodes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:06, 21 March 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:Washington, Maine

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) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Washington, Maine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for a small (1,345 residents) town that is unlikely to ever grow to usefulness. TM 04:00, 21 March 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