< November 2 November 4 >

November 3

Category:Wikipedian of Earth

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. BencherliteTalk 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I make new category. --B767-500 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.

Deaths from neurodegenerative disease

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/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Deaths are not categorised by location e.g see Category:Deaths from Alzheimer's disease, so two categories should be upmerged to the main category. The container category should be deleted. Tassedethe (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom. There is nothing to indicate that these two states have a particularly high or low death rate associated with the neurodegenerative diseases, in comparison with other states (or indeed with the rest of the world). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Leave. I suggest leaving the categories intact, simply because as deaths from this cause become more commonly identified, this is a category which is likely to grow a great deal. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Fans of San Francisco Giants

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: nothing to see here, move along please. BencherliteTalk 22:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I creating this kinds of category? Other editors is fan, can add those category to [[User:]] page. --B767-500 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Luxembourgian sport stubs

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: procedural close as category page had not been tagged. To be re-listed in the top-level nomination on Nov 12. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I've proposed this category for re-naming to bring it into line with the guide on Wikipedia:WikiProject Luxembourg#Spelling and usage. Brigade Piron (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely changing them all would be a good bet? If this is changed, it would set a useful precendent for the others...--Brigade Piron (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, it's an oddly obscure place to start.
And secondly, I'm still hoping for refs to reliable sources which support this renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Luxembourgish ---Brigade Piron (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary is clearly not a reliable source. See WP:USERGENERATED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) •

(contribs) 02:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3601/whose-usage-determines-correctness - not the best source, but it does illustrate that that is what people call it there, natural considering the etymology "Luxembourgeois". I'd also add, that the reason why many dictionaries will list "Luxembourg" as the adjective itself is that the terminology has changed significantly in recent years in English, from when the country was "Luxemburg". Brigade Piron (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - the precident should be a category directly in Category:Luxembourg - one of Category:Luxembourgian culture, Category:Luxembourgian law‎, Category:Luxembourgian society‎ and Category:Luxembourgian people‎. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see where you're coming from, but surely Oppose for Now would be better? I assume you support the eventual move of the category, after a precedent has been found? --Brigade Piron (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boggle! What a bizarre comment.
It amounts to "I have no evidence to justify this change, but expect you to support it in the hope that I will eventually find some scrap of evidence somewhere to justify it". How about you produce the evidence to justify the proposal, and let editors make up their minds on the strength of that evidence?
BTW, I hope that other editors will agree that Jimbo Wales is a vandal/sockpuppet/extraterrestrial/talking-chimpanzee/ninja-turtle (or whatever). I have offered no evidnence whatsoever to support any of these claims, but obviously you will all agree that we should convict him now, and then look for some evidence to justify the decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely expect that this discussion will be closed by a human being who will look at the comments and not just count the votes - the "for now" is clear from my comment about "the precident". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:African journalists by type

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) 15:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This level is no longer needed after the deletion of Category:African photojournalists at CFD Oct 26, leaving only one sub-cat. A special sort key can sort the sub-cat to the top, apart from the national categories. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Murdered American mobsters

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. Might fare worse if nominated for upmerging, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does the nominator want to do this?
Why does this nomination seek to remove Category:Murdered American mobsters when it is the parent to six by-ethnicity categories of murdered American mobster?
Why does the nominator want to delete the category of murdered American mobsters, but not the wider Category:Murdered mobsters or any of the nine other sub-cats of Category:Murdered mobsters by nationality?
Either the nominator has some undisclosed reason for proposing this deletion, or this is an exceptionally ill-considered nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Or, the nominator nominated the category he saw and was unaware of the existence of the remainder of the ethnicity tree. Why do so many people in these discussions feel the need to ascribe sinister motives to others?
    Regardless, the category can simply be merged to the first two of its parents, but not the third since individual articles shouldn't go into the "by ethnicity" category. Buck Winston (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I didn't ascribe a motive. I just pointed out that unless there was undescribed motive, the nomination had lots of apparently bad effects. If there is an undescribed motive, I did not presume that it was "sinister".
    Some of the mergers suggested by Buck Winston may ensure that this particular category can be removed without ill effect ... but I see no reason to remove this category while keeping the rest of Category:Murdered mobsters by nationality. Per WP:BEFORE, a nominator should do a little checking before making an XFD proposal, and it was not hard to see that Category:Murdered mobsters by nationality is listed at the bottom of the nominated category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just don't see "there are a few other other categories in the tree" as a valid reason to keep a category. If this discussion shows that there is consensus for deleting one category in the tree then another nomination can address the other categories. Yes, it would have been nice if the nomination covered all of the categories at one time but it's hardly fatal. Buck Winston (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See my reply below to JPL, and note that if we simply remove Category:Murdered American mobsters, then every one of these articles can be legitimately recategorised in Category:Murdered mobsters. Categories are not like articles; they need to be considered as a part of a series, and this nomination fails to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 actresses

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:American actors. I carefully read this discussion and also kept a tally of the various opinions and weighed up the strengths of the various arguments. Assuming the category is to exist, the discussion clearly results in a "no consensus" with regards to whether it should be named "American actresses" or "American female actors". However, I do see a consensus on the issue of whether or not the category should exist at all. Yes, I realise that this result is different than that in two previous discussions for other nationalities here and here, but participation in this discussion was much wider and this discussion successfully reached a consensus, which the other ones did not. This discussion does not have to be the final word on the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I have been asked to require further details about my rationale in closing this discussion. I initially posted such further detail on my talk page. For convenience, I include a copy of it here: — Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The nomination started out as a proposal to rename the category to Category:American female actresses. In the end, this was not the focus of most of the discussion, but some users did comment on it. For those that did, it was fairly evenly split, with three being explicitly in favour of it, and two being explicitly opposed to it. Those in favour highlighted the fact that singer categories are named, eg, "American female singers", and the actors category should correspond. Those opposed highlighted the fact that "actress" was a commonly used word in sources and was more commonly used than "female actors". I did not see a consensus from those discussions, and in any case it was rendered somewhat moot by the consensus identified in the "merge" vs. "do not merge" debate which dominated the overall discussion.
On this latter issue, the "vote-count" split was not as even. There were 10 users explicitly in favour of merging the category to Category:American actors. On the other side, there were five who opposed such a merge. Clearly, those who were opposed to such a merge bore a greater onus to prove their case, given (1) what is currently explicitly written in category guidelines, and (2) past CFD consensus. Regarding (1), the relevant guideline, found at Wikipedia:CATEGRS#Gender, states: "As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed ...". This guideline was referred to a number of times by those in favour of the merge, and in my view it constituted a strong, guideline-based argument. Those opposed to the merge argued that this example should not be one that is used in the guideline, arguing that gender has a specific relation to the topic of acting, and, as the guideline states, "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." Nevertheless, the example of an actresses category is given in the guidelines as a category that is not needed, so those opposed to the merge have a difficult argument to make. Ultimately, their arguments would be more appropriate in the context of a discussion that attempts to change the wording of the guideline. Here, the gender-specific category was created before such a change was made, which makes the argument a little more difficult to make.
Regarding (2), several users referred vaguely to past precedent on this issue. I was aware of such past precedents as well and for convenience can include some of them here. Categories in general that have referred to "actresses" or "male actors" or "female actors" have been deleted in the following discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Some of these go back a fair way in time, and of course many of them are tempered by this recent DRV, which opened to door to reconsideration of the issue, but nevertheless as a body they remain a persuasive piece of evidence, especially when combined with the specified guideline.
What the "do not merge" side countered with, in summary, was the argument that the guideline, if interpreted correctly, would not prohibit the creation of "actresses" (or "female actors") categories, given that gender does have a specific relation to the topic of acting. Some users doubted this premise on which the argument was based, but if we accept the controversial point as being true, this is a decent argument, and it was pursued at length. Ultimately, however, it is an argument better suited to an attempt to change the wording of the underlying relevant guideline. In any case, a clear majority of users who participated in the discussion were not convinced by this argument.
These factors led me to believe that the users in favour of merging had a much stronger argument overall. This—combined with the fact that the users who participated in the discussion favoured merging by a 2:1 margin—led me to conclude that there was a fairly robust consensus to merge the category to Category:American actors.
In the close, I noted that this result was different than the "no consensus" closes that had recently been completed with respect to discussions for "Kuwaiti actresses" and "Portuguese actresses", but I evaluated each of the three discussions based solely on the arguments made in each individual discussion. I could well have closed those other two discussions as "merge to the appropriate 'actors' category", but I felt that given the actual contents of the Kuwaiti and Portuguese discussions, that approach could have been viewed as inappropriate in isolation.
In conclusion, I noted that "This discussion does not have to be the final word on the issue", which acknowledged that those opposed to merging had made decent arguments that the guideline itself—which was a strong factor in the merge taking place—could be open to future discussion and possible amendment.
If the close of this discussion proceeds to DRV, please include the text of this explanation in the discussion. Thank you, — Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This "different role" stuff has a few problems for me. First and foremost you keep assuming that actor only means male - in the same way that poet or author only meant male - but it doesn't. Actor means one who acts regardless of gender. Next, if your classification were the case why are so many people within the acting industry perfectly happy with using the term actor for both genders. Please watch the opening of any of the Screen Actors Guild award shows. All of the women introduce themselves as actors. All of them are still working after labeling themselves as this and none seem to have trouble finding new roles nor is there any confusion over who they are within the film/TV/stage industries. Second, the idea smacks too much of pigeonholing for me. To put it another way there was a time that black men and women would only be allowed certain roles - all of your percentages could as easily have applied when they could only get cast as pimps or whores. Or in Shakespeare a black man could only play Othello. Yet if you look at the recent production The Hollow Crown (TV series) or TV shows like Merlin (TV series) you will see black men and women in various roles none of which have to do with their race. Let me say right off that this might weem like I am putting words in your mouth which is not my intent. I most certainly apologize if you are offended in any way. I suspect that you will disagree with my comparison of the two situations. I am only using this as an illustration of claiming that we need to determine a persons category based on some percentage of roles that they portray. Finally documentaries like The Celluloid Closet and programs on The Biography Channel and TruTV identify men and women as actors. None of them cause any confusion or use any percentages as a basis for using the gender neutral term. I don't expect any of this to change your mind but I would be interested whether you can find a WP:RS that the distinction that you keep making is supported by anyone who works in the film/TV/stage industry in the performing or the production end of the business. I also apologize for taking up so much room in this thread with this post. MarnetteD | Talk 02:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One last thing and then whatever the consensus is will be fine with me. Elizabeth Taylor's roles were all as women (except for Cleopatra of course - heehee just kidding) but if AMPAS is okay with calling her an actor in their tribute to here passing away then I would say that illustrates the continuing move to use of the term actor as gender neutral and I would doubt that they are going to change back based on the argument that none of her roles could have been played by a man. MarnetteD | Talk 02:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Marnette, please do not put words in my mouth. I am absolutely definitely not "assuming that actor only means male", and I don't think I have said anything which could be misread to imply that, even at a stretch. (Further down you try to avoid putting words in my mouth, but you start off by doing it to me on terminology).
    Second thing: I really don't care much whether the category is called "actresses", "female actors", or "women actors", or "women in the acting profession" or whatever. (I have some views on that, but to my mind they come a distant second to the question of whether to keep the category, so I'm not going off down that path). So please stop addressing with me arguments about terminology: I'm not going there.
    Thirdly, we are are not discussing race here, nor are we discussing class, disability, marital status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, or any of the other factors which may relevant in a person's career. We are discussing gender. So please leave the stuff about black and white people for another time and place.
    I was hoping that you might have some evidence to support your opposition to categorising actors by gender, other than the terminology, but I don't see it. AFAICS, the crucial issue is that for most women actors, the proportion of male roles they play is zero, or near-zero. We may disagree about how to interpret that, but for starters do you that it is the case? (BTW, the space is no problem. People flooding a page with screenfuls is disruptive, but a few tightly-argued paragraphs is just what discussion pages are for.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I read it you are saying that men must be called actors because they play male roles and women must be called actress because they play female roles. The arguments to use to use gender to justify are little different then the ones race or any of the other things that you list. Actually I have supplied several sources showing that the term actor is gender neutral and can be used for both men and women what I haven't seen is any sourcing that supports you assertion that women must be called actress because they play female roles. According to the entomology of the term that is not why the term actress started being used in the first place. And again why are those within the profession not following your assertions. MarnetteD | Talk 05:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's not the case. Please re-read what I wrote.
As I have repeatedly written in this thread and elsewhere: I really don't care much whether the category is called "actresses", "female actors", or "women actors", or "women in the acting profession" or whatever. Why is that so hard to understand?
My concern is that since gender is a defining characteristic of an actor, actors should be categorised by gender. The question of how we name such categories is a secondary issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that you have provided no evidence that gender is the defining characteristic of an actor. I have provided dictionary definitions, a writing style guide, programs and films that label men and women as actors and sources within the acting profession (the Screen Actors Guild and AMPAS) that do not adhere to the criteria you set. I full well know that none of these will persuade you so lets leave it at this. If you can convince the SAG or any of these sources that your theory is a reason they should change their gender neutral usage back to gender specific then I will consider changing my support of this motion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marnette, what on earth makes you think that I have any interest in trying to persuade the Screen Actors Guild to change their terminology, or that I have any objection to their terminology? Your repeated assertions that I am trying to achieve something wrt the terminology are starting to look like a sustained exercise in misrepresentation. Please stop it; it is tendentious and uncivil.
I am quite happy to use the terminology which the Screen Actors Guild uses. Take a look at the 18th SAG Awards.They have awards for
  • "outstanding performance by a male actor in a leading role"
  • "outstanding performance by a female actor in a leading role"
  • "outstanding performance by a male actor in a supporting role"
  • "outstanding performance by a female actor in a supporting role"
As you can see, the SAG regards gender as such critical factor in acting that it segregates its awards by gender ... and the terms it uses are "male actor" and "female actor". You approve of the SAG's terminology, and I have no objection to it.
The AMPAS also divides actors by gender in its award ceremony. At the 84th Academy wards, its categories were "Actor in a Leading Role", "Actor in a Supporting Role", "Actress in a Leading Role" and "Actress in a Supporting Role". I'm fine with that terminology too.
As you can see, both AMPAS and the Screen Actors Guild do treat gender as a defining characteristic. What more evidence do you want? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((od}As you can see SAG does not consider the word actress as needed to denote a persons gender. While AMPAS has not yet changed the wording for the awards they have changed the way that they label the the women in the Im Memorium segment of their show. These are "evidence" that they consider actor as a gender neutral term and they do not see the need to have two different words to describe the same profession. Actors like Helen Mirren and Vanessa Redgrave (to name but two) prefer to be referred to as actors, they see no threat from it and both have excelled in their profession. I do not understand what you think I am accusing you of. I have asked that you provide a source that gender is the defining characteristic of an actor and that the term actress is necessary to denote females in the profession. I have not yet seen any. I have presented WP:RSs that the term actress - while still in use - is no longer the only way to describe a woman in the acting profession. I have even presented a link (here it is again [9]) that shows that at least one other wikipedia category has replaced the word actress with actor so a precedent has been set that this can occur. I have also said that all of this is unlikely to convince you that actor is becoming the accepted term for both genders, but, as so many in the profession are happy to accept that fact then I will concur with that situation. Your accusations of tendentious and uncivil are unfounded - and also chilling considering that they are coming from an admin. I will be happy to have an uninvolved outside party examine this discussion to determine the validity of the claim. We have each presented our case and our support or lack of it far this particular change and/or merge. I see no need to respond further to your posts. Especially as they now come with accusations of policy violations. MarnetteD | Talk 20:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marnette, this is about the fifth time that you have trued to claim that I am promoting a particular terminology, despite repeated my denials and explanations. That's way beyond a misunderstanding, and it's a pity that you can desist only by withdrawing from the discussion.
Your ref to Wikipedia is irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Previous discussion did indeed delete such categories, but approval for their relisting was given at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 11. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, if it did exist, it would redirect to actor. It's not rocket science. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please re-read WP:CATGRS#Special_subcategories. The test is not whether a head article does exist, but whether it could exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.

Web browser engines

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename/Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Half of the articles in Category:Web browser engines are already correctly named "XXX (layout engine)". Discussion is here. (There is already a Category:Layout engines, so this is a proposal to merge them). LittleBen (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All but one of the pages in Category:Web browser engine comparisons are already correctly named "layout engine". Discussion is here. LittleBen (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Siblings of Presidents of the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tenuous, trivial association which is not useful for navigation. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_30#Category:Parents_of_national_leaders, which deleted Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 The Beatles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other "People associated with X" categories. cf. Wikipedia:OC#ASSOCIATED —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Artist's books and multiples

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:Artists' books. This is without prejudice to the creation of Category:Artists' multiples, if necessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Artist's books and multiples to Category:Limited edition artist's books
Nominator's rationale: I recommend have the parent cat be Category:Artist's books, with the renamed category here being a subcat of it, along with another sub cat created, Category:Individual artist's books Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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:Failure albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2B/2. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misleading name: I initially thought this category was for albums which were commercial failures, or something like that. In fact it's for albums by Failure (band), and should be renamed to match that title. (It should also be removed from Category:Failure, which is for the general concept, not the band.) Robofish (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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