< October 31 November 2 >

November 1

Category:Economics of innovation organizations

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) 01:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It would appear that the correct name for this cat should be 'Innovation economics organizations", but in any case, none of the entries currently in this cat actually seem to have anything to do with innovation economics. Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 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.

Economy of the People's Republic of China

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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging/renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge all to match the head article China, which was recently moved from People's Republic of China. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 1 November 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.

Category:Economics of innovation

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) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To bring this cat name in line with the other Category:Economics subcats. Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 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.

Category:People associated with Ibiza

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. No prejudice against an immediate re-nom or a group nom. - jc37 04:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#ASSOCIATED and Category:People from Ibiza already exists. Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the following was mistakenly posted[1][2] at CfD November 2. Reposted here by BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.:“People associated with Ibiza” has a distinctive difference to “people from Ibiza” as this category list people who have been born on the Island e.g Olivia Molina (actress), Born on the island in 1980, Where as, for instance Raoul Villain sort refuge on the island and then died there. this gives him the distinction of having an association.Stavros1 (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People associated with Aberdeen this a further example of this kind of Category already used on wikipidiaStavros1 (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.:No problem with this Category, plenty of examples on Wikipedia but needs an introductory explanation and possibly a subcategory for people born on Ibiza ie This category contains biographical articles about people with a strong association with Ibiza. People actually born on the island are listed in Category:People from Ibiza, which is a subcategory of this one.--palmiped |  Talk  18:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must confess to being confused (Wikipedia categories often confuse me, and when I nominate them for deletion, I always do so with trepidation). I thought that categories from a certain place don't necessarily mean just people who are born there but also people who have lived there or been raised there. I've certainly seen articles that use from cats that way. Either that's a misuse of the from cats or I don't see why we need an associated cat. And what's the point of even having an associated overcategorization rationale if it's, uh, not true?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A category called DJ in Ibiza, as suggested by BrownHaired girl, would be Vague, as many of the DJ’s who appear in Ibiza arrive, do there gig, and then leave the island.In the case of a DJ, saying that he/she has an Association clearly describes that persons relationship with the place Stavros1 (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, at least I have done something useful, even if it's only to compile a list of existing categories for deletion. I think, however, that these categories are justifiable, because the nature of the association should be described in the person's article, and cited, just like any other defining characteristic that we use to categorise people. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Stavros1. If a DJ's only association with Ibiza is that they did one gig there, then they should not be categorised under Ibiza. That is a form of performers by performance category, and if we categorised musicians by every place they performed, we'd have massive category clutter on most musician articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a fair comment! Most of the DJ’s, But not all, on this particular list have weekly residencies in some of clubs. But do not stay on the island as a rule. But would be regarded as a regular performer in Ibiza. As far as I can see the DJ’s on that list would be considered to have an association with Ibiza, and especially with the clubs. If this still annoys you, why not create a category called DJ with residencies on Ibiza and then make it a sub-category of say, OOWW!! People associated with Ibiza' Stavros1 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should perhaps let BrownHairedGirl reply but the whole problem is with the phrase "as far as I can see, the DJs on that list would be considered to have an association with Ibiza". Membership in categories should ideally be unequivocal and clearly this isn't the case here. I would add that DJ residencies can be fairly fleeting things which brings up many questions with subjective answers. When is the residency long enough to make a DJ associated with Ibiza? If the DJ has a residency for a year, does he stay associated with Ibiza for his whole career, despite the fact that ten years later, an overwhelming majority of people may be unaware that he ever set foot there? And now how do you compare the degree of association to Ibiza of a DJ who works there every week with a painter who has a famous painting of a sunset there? Two famous paintings? With some wealthy person who owns a second home in Ibiza and spends a week there every year? A month? There are no objective answers to these questions which is why "associated with" categories are explicitly discouraged in the guideline. Pichpich (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the key word we need here is eligibility. The example of DJ’s (which this discussion seems to have been become focused on) that are notable or having a long term affiliation with the island could be described as eligible for such a category. The example of a wealthy person who owns a second home in Ibiza and spends a week there every year, has an association but is not necessarily notable and there for would not be eligible. A contributor would have to make an informed decision on eligibility of a person to be included, and were possible add reference to that persons notability within that article to back up the inclusion. Stavros1 (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But who determines eligibility? Who determines notability of an association? It's still subjective so it seems to me that we're back at square one. Pichpich (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already suggested an answer to eligibility in the last sentence of my last comment Stavros1 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call me dense but what I see is "contributor would have to make an informed decision". That's subjective inclusion criteria and all our guidelines say it should be avoided. Of course, you can (and should) provide evidence that person X is linked to Ibiza because of reason Y. But you can't provide evidence that reason Y is sufficient for eligibility since you're inventing criteria as you go along. Pichpich (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This getting very boring and going no where fast!. An informed decision is not necessarily subjective/slanted as a decision can be made gathering previously available material, look at the evidence, and then come to a conclusion based on that available material. Wikipedia would have no content if all editors stuck to your distorted view of the guidelines. Stavros1 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Distorted view? How else do you interpret the following sentences:
The problem with vaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of "association" is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category. The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; but applying some threshold of association fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
I think that's fairly unambiguous. Note that I fully agree that there's a need for subjective choices by editors to build articles. This debate is about categorization, an area where subjectivity should be avoided. Pichpich (talk) 19:51, 5 November 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.

Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China

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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging/renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge all to match the head article China, which was recently moved from People's Republic of China. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 1 November 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.

Category:Biographical films about creators

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) 00:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to be consistent with parent Category:Works about people in arts occupations and its parent Category:Arts occupations. – Fayenatic London 21:15, 1 November 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.

Category:Vicars of St George's Edgbaston

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) 01:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization - there is no general category scheme of "priests by parish" (and it could cause significant category clutter if it did). All four vicars are mentioned in St George's Church, Edgbaston, which is the obvious place to check for people connected to the church, and all are sufficiently categorised as CofE clergy already, so no upmerging is required. BencherliteTalk 20:53, 1 November 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.

Works based on Dune

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 all; move. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Dune universe media to Category:Works based on Dune
  • Propose renaming Category:Dune games to Category:Games based on Dune
  • Propose renaming Category:Dune music to Category:Music based on Dune
  • Propose renaming Category:Dune books to Category:Books based on Dune
  • Propose renaming Category:Dune book series to Category:Book series based on Dune
  • Propose moving Category:Dune novels out of Category:Dune books into the top category Category:Dune universe, as the original work category; add "see also" links between it and the other books
Nominator's rationale: Rename and restructure as agreed by just about everybody at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 24#Category:Dune on film and television. – Fayenatic London 20:48, 1 November 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.

Category:Bitcoin companies and organizations

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The SPI creation of the cat aside, this is far too broad a cat title, and very likely incorrect given its scope. I would assume this to be "groups associated with Bitcoin," but it is a mix of company-related articles and "businesses that accept Bitcoin." As we don't maintain categories for "payment types accepted," we don't need this category, and as there are only two articles that would fall into the "associated" category, we don't need a cat for that either. MSJapan (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Companies and organizations that accept Bitcoin. --74.196.114.169 (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — 74.196.114.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. IP blocked 72h for socking. MSJapan (talk) 04:20, 4 November 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.

Category:Conservatism audio files

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We either need to make a much larger scheme for audio files by topic or delete this single category of one political persuasion with one file. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So the category is working as intended, and is well populated. Solution in search of a problem. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:20, 1 November 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.

Ambassadors of and to the People's Republic of China

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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge all to match the head article China, which was recently moved from People's Republic of China‎. These are call theoretically eligible for speedy renaming per C2D, but they are clearly controvesial. One editor has been moving these categories out-of-process to the PRC format (e.g. [3], [4]), so a full discussion is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. PRC is the correct name or would you prefer Mainland China. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 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.

Category:Films about Leonardo da Vinci

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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Films about Leonardo da Vinci to Category:ALL PARENTS
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category, not part of a larger overall scheme of similar categories and unlikely to expand. Merge to all parents to retain the single film in the structures. Buck Winston (talk) 18:55, 1 November 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.

Category:Works of Joseph Paxton

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:Joseph Paxton buildings and structures. - jc37 04:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Works of Joseph Paxton to Category:Joseph Paxton buildings
Nominator's rationale: Rename per convention of Category:Buildings and structures by English architects, which is where I eventually found where to categorise this uncategorised category.
Alternative rename to Category:Joseph Paxton buildings and structures, per Category:Isambard Kingdom Brunel buildings and structures , to reflect that fact that one of the articles in this categ is not a building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 1 November 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.

Category:Descendant of Charles the Great

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 - jc37 05:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, possibly listify. Beyond the first or second generation, descent is usually a trivial, characteristic. There are no other sub-categories of Category:Descendants of individuals, and numerous other similar categories have been deleted, such as Category:Descendants of Queen Victoria (deleted at Cfd 5 May 2008).
If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Descendants of Charlemagne, to match the head article Charlemagne and adopt the plural convention of set categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 1 November 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.

Category:World War I veterans

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:Lists of World War I veterans. Feel free to "purge" at editorial discretion. - jc37 05:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate category to the much larger and more complex Category:Military personnel of World War I, to whose sub-categories its members should be added (those that aren't already). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of World War I veterans. BHG has a point about the lists, so this seems like a good idea. All individuals should be moved to the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Military personnel of World War I. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 2 November 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.

Category:Mai Safoora

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) 01:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Mai Safoora to Category:Hazrat Mai Safoora Qadiriyya, or delete
Nominator's rationale: If kept, this category should be renamed to match the head article Hazrat Mai Safoora Qadiriyya.
However, eponymous categories for people are discouraged per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, and there seems to be no need for this one. The 3 articles in the category are already adequately interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Islam has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
The Notice board for Pakistan-related topics has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
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:United Nations controlled drugs

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 - jc37 05:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:United Nations controlled drugs to [[:Category:]]
Nominator's rationale: The title of this category should reflect the fact that it appears to relate to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, but I'm not sure what format it should take.
Note that I found this in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, and the parent categories which I added should be refined. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Drug Policy has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 1 November 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.

Category:Interdisciplinarity in contemporary art

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) 01:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Neither of the two articles mentions interdisciplinarity, and I have found no related category or article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 1 November 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.

Category:Regeneration in Manchester

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 to Category:Redevelopment projects in the United Kingdom - jc37 05:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can't find any other categories relating to regeneration of a city, and it's hard to see how to define any inclusion criteria for such a category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Greater Manchester has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 1 November 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.

Native Hawaiian Latter Day Saints

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 - Feel free to immediately re-nom for further discussion. - jc37 05:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we also have gagillions of articles on virtually every bishopric in the Roman Catholic church, too; that doesn't mean we now get to categorize Roman Catholics by see. The article you point to has virtually nothing on the members of the LDS church, rather more on its hierarchy, history, and real estate (little different than the RC bishopric articles, other than the usual list of occupants of the clerical office). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD October 24 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 1 November 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.

Cover girls

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) 01:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
added 16:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as a "performers by performance" category per WP:OC#PERF, which specifically includes models. It is in the nature of a top model's work that they will appear on many front covers, and this form of categorisation causes massive category clutter. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 1 November 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.

Category:Yuri (genre) manga magazines

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. – Fayenatic London 14:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I can't see any other cases where manga is separated from a corresponding "manga and anime" category. The article Yuri (genre) is in Category:Lesbian fiction, so it should be OK to add the target into the source category's other parent, Category:Lesbian-related magazines. – Fayenatic London 13:21, 1 November 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.

Category:Yuri (genre) anime and manga

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: Opposed - jc37 05:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation is absolutely not needed. Not sure if this is a speedy criteria or not. —Farix (t | c) 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other Yuri categories to disambiguate from, so why is disambiguation still needed at the category level? Just like Category:Harem anime and manga isn't at Category:Harem (genre) anime and manga even though the main article is at Harem (genre). Disambiguation is only needed at the article level, not the categories. —Farix (t | c) 15:16, 4 November 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.

Video game images

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. Consensus holds that these categories should contain both images and other types of files. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Click to see full list
  • Propose renaming Category:Counter-Strike media to Category:Counter-Strike images
  • Propose renaming Category:Crash Bandicoot media to Category:Crash Bandicoot images
  • Propose renaming Category:Day of Defeat media to Category:Day of Defeat images
  • Propose renaming Category:Doom media to Category:Doom images
  • Propose renaming Category:Dota media to Category:Dota images
  • Propose renaming Category:Earthworm Jim media to Category:Earthworm Jim images
  • Propose renaming Category:The Elder Scrolls media to Category:The Elder Scrolls images
  • Propose renaming Category:Enix media to Category:Enix images
  • Propose renaming Category:Game-Maker media to Category:Game-Maker images
  • Propose renaming Category:Half-Life media to Category:Half-Life images
  • Propose renaming Category:Left 4 Dead media to Category:Left 4 Dead images
  • Propose renaming Category:Level-5 media to Category:Level-5 images
  • Propose renaming Category:Namco media to Category:Namco images
  • Propose renaming Category:Need for Speed media to Category:Need for Speed images
  • Propose renaming Category:R-Type media to Category:R-Type images
  • Propose renaming Category:Team Fortress media to Category:Team Fortress images
  • Propose renaming Category:Total War media to Category:Total War images
  • Propose renaming Category:Tri-Ace media to Category:Tri-Ace images
  • Propose renaming Category:Valve Corporation media to Category:Valve Corporation images
  • Propose renaming Category:Ace Attorney media to Category:Ace Attorney images
  • Propose renaming Category:Breath of Fire media to Category:Breath of Fire images
  • Propose renaming Category:Mega Man media to Category:Mega Man images
  • Propose renaming Category:Street Fighter media to Category:Street Fighter images
  • Propose renaming Category:Diablo media to Category:Diablo images
  • Propose renaming Category:StarCraft media to Category:StarCraft images
  • Propose renaming Category:Warcraft media to Category:Warcraft images
  • Propose renaming Category:Dragon Quest media to Category:Dragon Quest images
  • Propose renaming Category:Star Ocean media to Category:Star Ocean images
  • Propose renaming Category:Professor Layton media to Category:Professor Layton images
  • Propose renaming Category:Soulcalibur media to Category:Soulcalibur images
  • Propose renaming Category:Tekken media to Category:Tekken images
  • Propose renaming Category:Donkey Kong media to Category:Donkey Kong images
  • Propose renaming Category:Nintendo DS media to Category:Nintendo DS images
  • Propose renaming Category:F-Zero media to Category:F-Zero images
  • Propose renaming Category:Fire Emblem media to Category:Fire Emblem images
  • Propose renaming Category:Golden Sun media to Category:Golden Sun images
  • Propose renaming Category:Kid Icarus media to Category:Kid Icarus images
  • Propose renaming Category:Kirby media to Category:Kirby images
  • Propose renaming Category:Media from The Legend of Zelda series to Category:Images from The Legend of Zelda series
  • Propose renaming Category:Metroid media to Category:Metroid images
  • Propose merging Category:Pokémon media to Category:Pokémon images
  • Propose renaming Category:Satellaview media to Category:Satellaview images
  • Propose renaming Category:Star Fox media to Category:Star Fox images
  • Propose renaming Category:Super Smash Bros. media to Category:Super Smash Bros. images
  • Propose renaming Category:Wario media to Category:Wario images
  • Propose renaming Category:Wii media to Category:Wii images
  • Propose renaming Category:Virtua Fighter media to Category:Virtua Fighter images
  • Propose renaming Category:Front Mission media to Category:Front Mission images
  • Propose renaming Category:Mana (series) media to Category:Mana (series) images
  • Propose renaming Category:Parasite Eve media to Category:Parasite Eve images
  • Propose renaming Category:SaGa media to Category:SaGa images
  • Propose renaming Category:Dragon Quest media to Category:Dragon Quest images
  • Propose renaming Category:Star Ocean media to Category:Star Ocean images
  • Propose renaming Category:Contra (video game series) media‎ to Category:Contra (video game series) images‎
  • Propose renaming Category:Dance Dance Revolution media‎ to Category:Dance Dance Revolution images‎
  • Propose renaming Category:Gradius media‎ to Category:Gradius images‎
  • Propose renaming Category:Parodius media‎ to Category:Parodius images‎
  • Propose renaming Category:Silent Hill media‎ to Category:Silent Hill images‎
  • Propose renaming Category:Suikoden media‎ to Category:Suikoden images‎
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 13:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious question - Why do this? Salvidrim! 18:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm bad at understanding or you're bad at explaining, but I still fail to see a compelling reason to use your proposed system. My !vote stands. Salvidrim! 05:53, 3 November 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.

Category:Fictional Black English 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: delete/merge back to Category:FIctional Black British people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Black British" is an identity wheras "Black English" is not. As an aside, User:MaybeMaybeMaybe has been creating a lot of categories recently, a lot of which should be deleted and the user appears to be ignoring the messages on their talk page. (Should be merged back to Category:Fictional Black British people). –anemoneprojectors– 09:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is a fictional person being black and english any more trivial than a fictional person being black and british?
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:Star Wars episodes

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 Category:Star Wars episodes to Category:Star Wars films; do not merge Category:Star Wars spin-off films. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This subcategorization is not needed and smacks of canon-ology fandom. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 1 November 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.

Category:Hardcore musicians

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) 01:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I submit that neither "hardcore techno" nor "hardcore punk" has a unique claim to the term "hardcore" in music. Therefore, I suggest that the term "hardcore" in music be clearly labeled as either techno or punk specifically rather than left ambiguous. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This should probably also include Category:Hardcore music genres, which refers specifically to techno and not to punk, so again the "hardcore" is ambiguous. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:49, 1 November 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.

Category:Metaphysical cosmology

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 - jc37 08:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "metaphysics" in Wikipedia is reserved for scholarly and academic philosophy, not spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism. Let's not mish-mash the two, as it is a disservice to legitimate scholars, and hurts the credibility of Wikipedia.Greg Bard (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Greg Bard (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as "Celestial spheres" are concerned, it seems that Category:Early scientific cosmologies would suffice, which is under the scholarly and academic "physical cosmology" category tree, consistent with what you are saying.Greg Bard (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm convinced. The category Metaphysical cosmology seems to have about the same value as the "Metaphysics" shelves in the mass market bookstores. I'll withdraw my Keep "vote". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the whole point is to make a distinction between the scholarly, and the nonscholarly stuff. This category had contained all the nonscholarly stuff and was giving a bad name to the term "metaphysics." Please reconsider. This is very ill advised. Greg Bard (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here is saying esoterica is synonymous with metaphysics and I agree that's unacceptable. Anyway, my !vote isn't kept. In terms of using it correctly, I can only think of a few more Aristotelian/Platonic articles... but if it's been prone to abuse, perhaps that's just too obscure?—Machine Elf 1735 23:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do we have the issue of scholarly v esoteric, but we also have the issue that a lot of editors in the sciences see philosophy and esotericism as being in the same category. So there actually are several good reasons to delete this category. It isn't right to put philosophers of time, philosophers of physics and legitimate academic metaphysics in the same category as the esoterism, and that is what was happening. Please support deletion. +Greg Bard (talk)
Yes, that was my fault. I thought it would be noncontroversial. I hadn't counted on people within the philosophy department attempting to "reclaim" the title "metaphysical" for the scholarly subject. I just don't see that as useful for the reader, nor as helping the credibility of WP, nor academic metaphysicians. The content of the category "metaphysical cosmology" was all the occult, and esoteric stuff. My goal here was to preserve the term "metaphysics" for scholarly, academic philosophy. There are only two subjects, and really, there is no need for either the article "cosmology" nor the category "cosmology". There are NOT three subjects, that's for sure. There are only two as described in the article "cosmology" and the category page for "cosmology". Please, help us straighten this out by supporting the proposal to delete. Greg Bard (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my fault. Up until this point I would just plow ahead putting things in their place, and then propose the cleanup afterwards. But, I have learned my lesson. In fact, I have a proposal to split Category:Initiatives and referendums in the United States, because not every ballot question is either a referendum, or an initiative (and other reasons). I managed to do it correctly this time.Greg Bard (talk) 10:11, 5 November 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.

Category:American people of Latin American descent

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. Clearly, there is some overcategorization here, but what to do about it needs more discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD October 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The propsal is to delete this category, but the arguments appear to support upmerger. I hope that further discussion may clarify which action is intended.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 1 November 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.

Category:American Jews of Latin American descent

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD October 19 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The propsal is to delete this category, but the arguments appear to support upmerger. I hope that further discussion may clarify which action is intended.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 1 November 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.

Category:Hawaiian players of American football

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2012 October 24 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There id clear support renaming this category if it is kept. There is also there is a strong argument that this category should not be kept, an argument which is supported by WP:CATGRS's deprecation of intersections between occupation and ethnicity unless the the intersection is itself an encycloedic topic. However, there is no consensus so far for either approach. Also, the editors opposed to retaining the intersection recommend deletion but their the arguments support upmerger to both parent categories.
I will notify the participants and WP:HAWAII of this relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 1 November 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.
More