< January 4	January 6 >

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Mobile telecommunications software to Category:Mobile software

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The contents aren't specific to communication, so the scope of these categories is identical. Pnm (talk) 22:15, 5 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: merge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Online shops to Category:Online retailers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Underpopulated category with identical scope. Pnm (talk) 20:53, 5 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Online supermarkets to Category:Online grocers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Underpopulated category with identical scope. Pnm (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete HomeGrocer and Mysupermarket are already listed in the latter category, and the others are brick-and-mortar supermarkets with online services rather than online supermarkets— and if that were generally allowed, Category:Online retailers would cease to serve a purpose, considering any enterprise with a WP article is likely to offer some sort of online purchasing.- choster (talk) 23:16, 5 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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:DVD backup software to Category:DVD ripping software

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Identical scope with substantial overlap. Pnm (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that doesn't seem to be the same. DVD backup creates images or copies of DVDs; DVD ripping creates MP4s or some other transcoded format, or otherwise modified versions. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, that makes sense. But are any of the articles for software which doesn't encode MP4s or Ogg Theora or some other modified format? I don't think there are enough to subcategorize on that criterion, if there's even one. – Pnm (talk) 19:27, 6 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) 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Gambling and Category:Gambling by country‎ provides sufficient organization at the top of the tree. I believe that all of these sub categories are already contained there so a merge is not necessary. This seems like an attempt to add a by continent categorization. I believe that is the past, there has not been strong support for this since there are several countries that either are in multiple continents or some disputes about which continent they belong in. Additionally the by continent categories are generally reserved for geological or geographic features since that is the only things that are really about the continent. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I would also delete the continental categories which currently serve no purpose other than isolating the by-country categories. Pichpich (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was considering that and I have added them based on your comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just in case there's any ambiguity, I support deleting all four. Pichpich (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole idea of having categories like the continents, is logical to get an easy overview about things. The country only belong to one continent, how can a country be in two different continents? Please check the specific article about a country, and you will see it for sure belong to one continent.If no categori for a continent, you loose the overview very easily. The only not usable category in that way is the "category for the World", but that was more to finish the logic.Regards Softron (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is another example of having a category for continents: :Category:Wikipedians in Europe Softron (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - One other example of continental categories is Category:Companies of Africa. Softron (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep anything. Have you read the article on Turkey lately? As I said above, continent categories can make sense 'for geological or geographic features' and not for something like gambling. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - As mentioned here at Wikipedia: "Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information." If you e.g. compare with Category:Sport in Europe - i do not see the difference at all. Why are we having categories at all? Exactly to make it easier to navigate through the information. Actually to get an overview of Gambling in the world, it makes it much easier to navigate, if you want to focus on e.g. Europe, and not all the time needs to jump to navigate by country. Check also the Wikipedia:Categorization Regards Softron (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please also checkout Category talk:Gambling in Australia . Looks like this page is part of a special project. Regards Softron (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but when did country level projects become a special project? This is normal and rather common. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, continental categories are quite artificial when there's apparently no link between the topic and specific continents. At least Europe has a little bit of cultural homogeneity and gambling and gambling laws are very much dependent of culture. But grouping Gambling in Israel, Gambling in India and Gambling in China because the three countries are Asian is no more significant than grouping Gambling in Israel, Gambling in India, Gambling in Ireland, Gambling in Italy because the four countries start with the letter I. Our readers are not idiots and will have no trouble finding the country they're looking within Category:Gambling by country. Pichpich (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can only repeat - as mentioned here at Wikipedia: "Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information." When I was examining the topic myself, gambling, I found the categorization was messed up - and the overview was lacking, and therefore I added the categories to improve the overview and make the logical next step - to make categories for each continent. Regards Softron (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That does not mean that you want every category and every article in every possible category that exists or can be created. At some point categories become more of a burden then a navigation aid. The by continent ones have been rather problematic hence the comments above. Gambling has nothing to do with continents other than the fact that the government that licensed the activity or the crime syndicate that is involved just happens to be on some continent. That clearly does not make being on that specific continent defining hence needing or deserving categorization or organizing in that way. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is finding the right balance between ease of navigation, ease of maintenance and category clutter. The by country category is small enough to navigate and you're pretty much guaranteed that whoever creates Category:Gambling in Croatia will place it in Category:Gambling by country. The chances that it's also placed in Category:Gambling in Europe are good but smaller and this is a serious maintenance headache. Pichpich (talk) 05:12, 8 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: Merge per the original proposal. The title may need to be revisited. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Pharmaceutical Formulations to Category:Dosage forms

Nominator's rationale: Merge I don't see any difference between the intended scopes. Pichpich (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I noticed that category the other day, looks unnecessary. – Pnm (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer a reverse merge -- I note that the present dosage category also has a link to Category:Routes of administration. I wonder whehter we may not to do more merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:08, 10 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Conditional access system to Category:Conditional-access television broadcasting

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify scope of category. Main article is Conditional access. Pnm (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really I'm trying to get "television" in there. Category:Television conditional access, Category:Television conditional access systems and Category:Conditional access television are fine by me too.

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. From the comments below, this would seem to be a clear WP:BLP violation, even beside the obvious WP:OR concerns. Miscategorising people. I would strongly suggest that this whole category structure be closely examined. - jc37 18:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is completely subjective. There is no proof that any of the people listed in this article are of Black African descent, ie. that their ancestors came from Africa. Whoever added them did so based solely on their appearance (the very definition of subjectivity). Since every single article in the category is unreferenced with regards to this, I propose that the whole category be deleted (and removed from the articles). TonyStarks (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

probably keep but...: I created this category mechanically as follow-on from the discussion of Category:Arab people by ethnic or national origin in which it was decided to change the whole class of "Arab people of" categories to "Saudi Arabian people of" categories. I did not at the time verify that the articles in question were properly categorized. A quick check now discloses that probably most of them are soccer players (e.g. Osama Hawsawi, the first one I checked) with little or no discussion of their ancestry. Apparently most of them don't even have a picture. On that basis perhaps most of them could be removed from the category as lacking justification; however, this doesn't seem to be a case of subjectivity, but of insufficient research. If for example one of the articles says that the subject's parents came from Namibia, there would be nothing subjective in including him in this category. I note that Category:People of Black African descent has an enormous membership of national subcategories, of which this is but one. Therefore it seems to me that the category could be deleted if it were emptied, but not because of its nature. Mangoe (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've corrected the link to the recat discussion. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in saying that there is nothing wrong with the category itself. However, what I meant was that all the people in it should have not be listed in the category. Therefore, essentially, we are left with an empty category. I do agree that the category should exist for Saudi people from Country X that is found in Black Africa, but even then, it would make more sense to list them by that country instead of "Black African." Which actually brings me to another problem I see on WP .. since we have this "Black African" tree of categories, how come we don't have a "White European" one for people around the world who are of European descent? For example, Americans are listed by their country of origin (Italian, Irish, Dutch, etc.) without being listed in a "White European" category but when it comes to Black/African people, they are categorized under this broad umbrella category of "Black African". Surely if we a take an unbiased approach, we should apply the same rules to everyone, no? TonyStarks (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could propose deleting the whole "... of black African decent" subtree, but that's a much bigger argument, and one on which I have no opinion. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Note Further investigation shows that this category structure has a bad history. The original category was Category:Afro-Arabs, which User:Koavf replaced with Category:Arab people of Black African descent, and which set off my original CfD which was expanded to encompass the whole 'Arab people by" structure as noted above. The problems with all of this are (a) Afro-Arab is considerably different from where we ended up, and (b) Koavf, in justifying all the moving, referenced a CfD discussion which as far as I can tell never took place. I cannot determine when the Afro-Arab category was created, but spot checks reveal that it was added to articles by a variety of people, generally the article creator. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I checked a sample of articles. Where there was a photo, the person had a dark skin. Accordingly their skin colour is evidnece of their descent; it may be generations back that an ancestor left Africa. Clearly skin colour is defining. When it comes to those of mixed race things will become more difficult, of course. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see - so Jonah Lomu, Lasith Malinga and Michael Somare must be of African descent ... obviously using a photo to deduce anything is OR. Occuli (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's exactly my point! People are simply using skin color from a photo/video to determine descent, purely subjective, not to mention OR like you said. And I only mentioned the case of Saudi Arabia but you can apply this to plenty of other categories in Wikipedia. TonyStarks (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it sad that some would still confuse skin color with descent or say that skin color is defining. I would also note that if the number of generations isn't an issue then we can probably place every human being in the Black-African descent category. Pichpich (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all articles where descent is based solely on a photo and guesswork and see if anything is left. Occuli (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support this as a first step; if the category survives this then we can discuss the larger issues. I would note that most articles I've checked don't have an image. Mangoe (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I start removing the unreferenced articles or do I have to wait for some sort of consensus or admin decision before I proceed? TonyStarks (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents I was asked to come here to explain my perspective, but simply put, I don't have one. I moved this category's parent simply because there was a CfD on that topic--I have no horse in this race, nor any expertise to offer. I appreciate being asked, but I can't help resolve this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I could not find a trace of this CfD. Indeed, there are no links anywhere in Wikipedia to the category that was replaced. Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went through all the articles in this category. The only one that said in the text of the article that the person was of "black-African" descent had one source. What did that source say. Absoltely nothing about the subject's ancestry. Anyway the rules in wikipedia is we classify by ethnicity, not by race. That means that if someone adopted straight from Kenya to the US at the age of two months choses to present themselves as a white American, than we would be wrong to classify them as an African American. There is no biological reality of race. In this case no one has presented evidence that there is a group of self-identified people of black African descent in Saudi Arabia (and even less evidence that these men's dark skin comes from Africa and not the south of India). Even if there was such a group beyond this these articles would have to 1-include mention of these people identifying with the group and 2-find a source showing these people so identify. Nothing of the sort has been done. This category needs to be deleted as wquick as possible. It is serving currently to create a racial division that does not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as another example of the total futility of using visual evidence to judge someone's race, here is the first governor of Louisiana of African descent, P. B. S. Pinchback. This link here [1] gives us what they seem to be claiming is a picture of Homer Plessy, the "Octoroon" who turned himself in for breaking the street car line to end division of people along racial lines. If Mr. Plessy's goal had been just to ride the white car he could have done so, at least in parts of New Orleans where he was not well known. I am not sure if that really is a picture of Plessy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source for any of these articles being included, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What happens now? I opened this discussion over 3 weeks ago .. TonyStarks (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will be along to close. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per deleters. I might add that the first 6 articles I looked at were all footballers, and I suspect (though none of the articles said so) that several or most were born elsewhere - if we had the facts that might make a better category. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they're actually all born in Saudi Arabia and I'd bet that most if not all of their parents and grandparents are born there as well. There's lots of black people in Saudi Arabia that have been there for centuries thanks to the spread of Islam. TonyStarks (talk) 18:24, 27 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: merge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Short films directed by Charles Lamont to Category:Films directed by Charles Lamont

Nominator's rationale: Overcat. I don't think there is a need to split films by either short or feature film within a directors' category. The parent is fine. First it will become short films, then by genre or decade. Lugnuts (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support No need to a create a split within the films by director tree for film length. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 5 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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fans to Category:Mechanical fans

Nominator's rationale: Per fan and mechanical fan. I found this by almost making Category:Science fiction fans a subcat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but electrostatic fans don't use mechanical action... (so the main article seems misnamed) perhaps fluid-circulation fans? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are electrostatic fans in Wikipedia somewhere? – Pnm (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did say the main article is misnamed. It is misnamed because it covers electrostatic and convective fans. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How does that work for European Hand Fans in the Eighteenth Century? Another thoughtless nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article on people who fan the reputation of sports stars etc is fan (people). I suspect that the primary meaning is hand fan and all the rest are derivative. Though most fans are now driven by a power source and have blades like a propellor, they are still performing the function of moviong air about. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the potential problem but it's not that serious and the proposed solution is even worse since it would require a new category for things like paper fans and electrostatic fans. The resulting group of categories would surely need to be placed in a common parent whose most likely title would be Category:Fans. Pichpich (talk) 19:29, 5 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: rename (speedy C2D). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian Peranakan people to Category:Chitty people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. My understanding is that "Indian Peranakan" and "Chitty" are equivalent, and the Wikipedia article is at Chitty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 5 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) 19:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I added this category to maintain consistancy. When I added it, it appeared to me that all or most other groups had similar categories that included all related pages, i.e. albums, singles, songs, members, etc. Either do it for all or do it for none. Also, I don't see that "over-categorization" is a particular problem with Wikipedia. Effort would be much better spent improving poorly written or incomplete articles.GullyWalker (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response There is plenty of precedent for this. For a recent example: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_25#Category:Deep_Blue_Something. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Ok. So then just tell me what the criteria are so I know for future. Notability is somewhat subjective and seems to me would allow people with differing opinions to continually move things back and forth, accomplishing nothing but upping some people's edit counts. How about the number of sub-categories and pages? John and Mary currently has 2 subcategories and 1 page, John & Mary Albums has 4 pages, John & Mary Members only has 2 pages. Again, I don't see this as being a particular problem with Wikipedia and worthy of the effort being expended, especially when so many articles are in need of more substantial work.GullyWalker (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I don't know that there is a hard and fast rule, but if the main category only has the main article and there are two subcategories, then I would generally !vote delete. If a band has album, album cover, member, and song subcats and a main article, discography, and navbox, then it's worth keeping. In between, it's tough to say. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I added the template so now there are 2 pages and 2 subcategories. I think there is a possibility that there might be more pages added in the future when I get some more time to work on it. I don't see any reason to remove the category now only to add it back in the future since it isn't hurting anything to be there now. I don't know how useful any of these categories are, but I did put some effort into creating them and they have been there for a year without any complaints.GullyWalker (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The basic rule is if all the articles of an eponymous category are directly related to the subject in which they would already be linked in the subject article, there really isn't a need for the eponymous category (per WP:OC#Eponymous). John & Mary is not a large article, and I can easily navigate to the 2 members of the band and their 4 albums from it. Precedent has typically been to keep such categories for music artists, particularly groups, if they have subcategories for songs, albums, and group members, and perhaps a discography page. That's my minimum requirement anyway. Navboxes and images aren't articles and I don't consider them in !voting to keep/delete these type of categories. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I guess I wasted my time. I'll leave the categorization to others from now on.GullyWalker (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the most obvious, canonical example of where an eponymous category for a band is useful, look at Category:The Beatles. They're a band who are so culturally important, so historically notable, that sometimes it almost seems as though we actually have articles for each individual toenail clipping that was ever excised from John Lennon's feet — meaning that an eponymous category is useful, because there's just so damn much to crosslink that it exceeds the functional capacity of the primary article. That's not to dismiss John & Mary as unimportant, because they're certainly notable enough for an article, but they haven't had the same level of cultural impact as the Beatles — pretty much everything related to them can be handled and/or linked to in one manageably sized article rather than requiring a million spinoffs. That's the difference. Delete as WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category does not meet the requirements for it to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:51, 16 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.

January 5

Category:Mobile telecommunications software

Category:Online shops

Category:Online supermarkets

Category:DVD backup software

Category:Gambling in the World

Category:Pharmaceutical Formulations

Category:Conditional access system

Category:Saudi Arabian people of Black African descent

Category:Short films directed by Charles Lamont

Category:Fans

Category:Indian Peranakan people

Category:John & Mary