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) 17:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. All of these categories were recently created in a batch, but only the one main article was placed in each. One might be inclined to just keep these around and wait for them to be populated, but more than half of them are misnamed, in that the category name and the article name do not match. So it might be better to just delete these and start over. Of course, for the ones that are properly named, any deletion would need to be without prejudice to re-creation when more than one article can be added to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 6 October 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. I'll suggest the rule that "arranged by" and "conducted by" categories apply only to albums with symphonies or orchestras, or at least different conductor/arranger credits than the producer or artist.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums arranged by Chet Atkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Albums conducted by Chet Atkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am not sure that the arranger and conductor of an album, especially an album released in the modern music era (50s on) without a symphony or orchestra, is a defining quality anymore than an engineer or mixer. It all seems to be part of the production and since Atkins produced the only entry in these categories as it is, it almost seems redundant to list in three categories when just the one (Category:Albums produced by Chet Atkins) will do.

• Keep/COI I created the category. Keep as part of a larger scheme--that was my rationale for creation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories based on one completely uncited article, let-alone any suggestion that these characteristics are defining. Uniplex (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think arranging/conducting music on an album is defining for that album in most cases. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 21 October 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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 10. Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Real people associated with novels to Category:People associated with novels

• Category:Real people associated with Alice in Wonderland to Category:People associated with Alice in Wonderland
• Category:Real people associated with the Harry Potter books to Category:People associated with the Harry Potter books
• Category:Real people associated with Oz to Category:People associated with Oz
• Category:Real people associated with Peter Pan to Category:People associated with Peter Pan

Nominator's rationale: I think 'real' is unnecessary here. In Wikipedia categories, 'people' means real people; fictional people are categorised as 'fictional characters'. It's unlikely anyone would put Dorothy Gale in Category:People associated with Oz by mistake. Renaming would also make this consistent with the other subcategories of Category:People by association. Robofish (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination; "real" is superfluous. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - rationale is sound.--~TPW 02:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. These are all very vague: unspecified inclusion criteria. Category:Real people associated with the Harry Potter books could include all the actors in all the films. If kept, rename per nom. ('People associated with' is OK if there are tightly defined subcats, but not for random collections of people.) Occuli (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak upmerge to parent categories on Alice in Wonderland, Harry Potter, etc. I can't get past my own subjective dislike of either version of the category name, and Occuli has a point about inclusion criteria. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to main franchise categories and purge. L. Frank Baum, yes; Judy Garland, no. Also removing the translators of the Potter books seems wise.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge/delete per Shawn and Mike and Occuli. These aren't random collections of people, but they are getting pretty close. I would say upmerge and then purge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 21 October 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Techno music genres to Category:Techno genres

Nominator's rationale: The genre is listed on Wikipedia as merely "Techno", so should it not be just "Techno genres" or is "music" required before "genre"? Lachlanusername (talk) 18:56, 6 October 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surrealist comic strips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no factual basis for this categorization, as none of these comic strips were created by people associated with the Surrealist movement. This categorization as "surrealist" is based on the non-encyclopedic interpretation of "surreal/surrealist/surrealistic" as anything weird, offbeat, crazy, absurd, or inexplicable. Such a wide and useless definition has no place here. None of these articles contain references that indicate a connection to Surrealism. Krazy Kat and Little Nemo were recognized, after the fact, as having similarities to Surrealism, but this is not the same thing. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It obviously is really Category:Surreal comic strips but as the nominator says, this is not a well-defined characteristic. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too subjective. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as all of the above. The entries are definitely not surrealist, and it would be hard to define, unless there are references.Curb Chain (talk) 17:46, 7 October 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 as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alice in Wonderland derivatives and adaptations to Category:Works based on Alice in Wonderland

Propose renaming Category:Fiction based on or inspired by Beowulf to Category:Works based on Beowulf

Propose renaming Category:Ulster Cycle derived works to Category:Works based on the Ulster Cycle

Propose renaming Category:The Tale of Genji derived works to Category:Works based on The Tale of Genji

Propose renaming Category:Three Kingdoms related media to Category:Works based on Romance of the Three Kingdoms

Propose renaming Category:Three Kingdoms video games to Category:Video games based on Romance of the Three Kingdoms

Nominator's rationale: Per most other members of Category:Works based on literature. Another option is to convert all of these to "Adaptations of," per some other members of this category, but I think that might be more limiting. Maybe that's just semantics.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You beat me to the punch! For the record, my objection to "Adaptations of foo" as a naming principle is that it's out of sync with the terminology used in the master Category:Works by source. Indeed, Aristophanes68, who has created a number of "Adaptations of" categories, led with works when he created Category:Works based on other authors (which we may need to look at, as well). Yet I can't shake the feeling that Aristophanes68 and others may be at least equally right: that it's at least as easy and logical to simply add the prefix "Adaptations of" to "works by foo" to create a simple and elegant category structure. And Mike I see you're open to the idea, as well. So let's have this discussion now, if possible.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely open to the idea. I think the "Works based on" structure is taking root, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not choosy. I can't remember why I went with Foo-derived; I think there was already something else with that structure and I just used it. But whatever name works best, I'm fine with. Cheers! Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 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: administrative close: nominated category was speedily deleted as empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Media based on children's books to Category:Works based on literature

Nominator's rationale: Single-member category which puts an unnecessary layer between Category:Films based on children's books and the target category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and because Media is the deprecated term, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 6 October 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/delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Medicinal plants by country to Category:Medicinal plants by tradition

Propose deleting Category:Medicinal plants of Algeria

Propose deleting Category:Medicinal plants of Nepal

Nominator's rationale: This is a container category for systems of herbalism (e.g.Category:Plants used in Traditional Chinese medicine) as well as "by country" listings (e.g. Category:Medicinal plants of Nepal). The latter categories are questionable as for instance most plants do not respect national borders and often plants are used medicinally in countries where they are not grown. The first group of categories are useful and there is no container category specifically for them. I am open to suggestions for a better name as I am not altogether happy with "tradition". Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename My proposal for a replacement to "tradition" is "medical system" so it could be Category:Medicinal plants by medical system. I to have concerns of its subcategories such as Category:Medicinal plants of Nepal and Category:Medicinal plants of Algeria as they are probably not "of" them, maybe found in them so I don't see the purpose of those categories. IIt may be best to delete them.Curb Chain (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entries which are nominated as "Delete" I noticed that the proposal as been added with deletions, which I support as in my comment in this discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 16:13, 7 October 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: Deleted by Fastily. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:7.92 mm firearms to Category:8 mm firearms

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are no contemporary sources for a "7.92" calibre; furthermore, SAAMI and CIP consider them "8mm". (Military designation was 7.9 mm, see Talk:8×57mm IS#7.92mm dispute.) Hornsignal (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 7.92 was only used by the British armed forces to designate the British made 8x57mm IS ammunition fired by the BESA machine gun.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:26, 6 October 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: Deleted by Explicit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:7.92 mm machine guns to Category:8 mm machine guns

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are no contemporary sources for a "7.92" calibre; furthermore, SAAMI and CIP consider them "8mm". (Military designation was 7.9 mm, see Talk:8×57mm IS#7.92mm dispute.) Hornsignal (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 7.92 was only used by the British armed forces to designate the British made 8x57mm IS ammunition fired by the BESA machine gun.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:26, 6 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Billboard Hot Latin Tracks number-one singles to Category:Billboard Hot Latin Songs number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: To match the current name "Hot Latin Songs" by Billboard. Erick (talk) 09:00, 6 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Detective games to Category:Detective video games

Nominator's rationale: Category is for video games, is a subset of Category:Video games, and does not include non-videogame detective games (such as board games). McGeddon (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support this is badly misnamed. Also considering live action roleplay detective/mystery weekends that people do are also games. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment some of the subcategories also need renaming to conform to the lack of consideration for anything in the world other than videogames. Category:Sherlock Holmes series is completely senseless, since at first glance, I'd have said it was about the Basil Rathbone series of movies. Category:Sherlock Holmes games is also stupid, since there are several pen-and-paper or board games based on Holmes. Category:Scooby-Doo games is also bad, since there are pen-and-paper and board games based on Scooby-Doo as well. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 09:17, 9 October 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:Maidstone (borough). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Maidstone to Category:Maidstone (district)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous. Is this for the borough or the district or the county town? Add to that the other uses on Maidstone (disambiguation)? I'll let those in the know decide if there is a better name then the one proposed. The links in the category imply that this is for either the district or the borough. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The borough is the same thing as the district - see Borough status in the United Kingdom. The category is piped but appears to be for the borough - there seems to be a general problem with the Kent categories (and probably other places) as they seem to be based on the districts/boroughs/city but copy the main town/city article title. The whole structure may need a rethink. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposing the category rename to Maidstone (district) for as long as the article is Maidstone (borough). There should be some name conformity. A closing admin could consider changing both the article and category name. gidonb (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Category:Maidstone (borough). The district is a borough, which (I think) consists of the town of Maidstone and various nearby villages. Articles relating to the town will fit here, and the present category can if necessary be re-created for town-related categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---Closing Admin - please relist for discussion of this suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support any meaningful consistent name. gidonb (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 07:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Maidstone (borough) (as Maidstone (district) redirects to Maidstone (borough)). And then speedily rename Category:People from Maidstone (district) to Category:People from Maidstone (borough). Occuli (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objection to Category:Maidstone (borough) if that is correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 6 October 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: do not merge. These are very different things in the US. The category tree for public schools can be created and populated as desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Publicly funded schools in the United States by state to Category:Charter schools in the United States by state

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The vast majority of schools in the US are publicly funded. So being one is not defining. However, being a charter school might be defining. The subcategories tend to included in both and if merged, some cleanup will be required. A delete would keep the subcategories categorized in the proposed merge target and remove all of the public schools. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost support At least in these parts (Maryland) there are some publicly funded schools for disabled kids which are not charter schools. I'm not sure whether we have articles on these, however. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• do not merge Charter schools have their own category structure and do not need to be merged to publicly funded schools categories where they are already a subcat. Pulbicly funded school categories are used to distinguish these schools from private schools. Publicly funded school categories by state are also part of the Category:Government buildings in foostate category structure. It seems that these Category:Publicly funded schools in foostate categories need to be created and populated for each US state. Hmains (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US, what schools are not publicly funded? In many/most/all states, state law commonly funds private schools for some programs. So this category would at some point cover all pre-tertiary schools which is likely it's intended scope. So this factor would not be defining. As I said above, charter schools may be a defining class so they would likely be the exception. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never populated anything into these publically funded categories as I thought there was somehting suspect about them. Since whoever created these categories never explained their purpose/expected content and never worked to create them for all the 50 states, maybe those editors need to explain these categories or the categories just need to be deleted. There are also no such categories for other countries than the US: the assumption seems to be that schools are government/public funded in less they are noted as being private. And charter schools are very different from regular public schools in their rules and control structures so they need to keep their own, existing category structure. Hmains (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with deletion. No matter what, the state categories will need to be discussed for deletion at some point. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 13 October 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:

Propose renaming Category:Miss Nicaragua to Category:Miss Nicaragua winners

Propose renaming Category:Miss Gibraltar to Category:Miss Gibraltar winners

Propose renaming Category:Miss Angola to Category:Miss Angola winners

Propose renaming Category:Miss Argentina to Category:Miss Universe Argentina winners (change per Miss Universe Argentina)

Propose renaming Category:Miss Egypt to Category:Miss Egypt winners

Propose renaming Category:Miss Italia nel Mondo to Category:Miss Italia nel Mondo winners

Propose renaming Category:Miss Sweden to Category:Miss Sweden winners

Propose renaming Category:Miss Israel to Category:Miss Israel winners

Propose renaming Category:Miss Thailand to Category:Miss Thailand winners

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These categories are ones that are essentially categorizing winners of the pageant rather than acting as necessary eponymous categories for the pageants themselves. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:29, 6 October 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.