< October 21	October 23 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:American mobsters of Irish descent and Category:Murdered American mobsters.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Murdered American mobsters of Irish descent
Nominator's rationale this is a four-way intersect. The person has to be murdered, of Irish descent, American and a mobster. While the three way intesect without the murdered seems to be notable enough (although too often applied to articles that never in text say the subject was of Irish descent) the four-way intersect is just over the top in its trivality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To go with all the others.Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Vote: Upmerge to Category:American mobsters of Irish descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not change until there is a proper nomination that places the articles into all the parent categories (3 of them) to which they belong Hmains (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article only has two parent cats. The American mobsters of Irish descent and the Murdered American mobsters. There is no other parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Vote upmerge to Category:American mobsters of Irish descent and Category:Murdered American mobsters. The intersection of type of death, occupation, nationality and ancestry is a 4-way combination, and unless we can show people pay any specific attention to this four-way intersection we should not categorize by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 14 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.

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 per WP:SNOW. Clearly a nonsensical category. — ξ ^xplicit 01:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sphinx Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category appears to be a complete spoof i.e. a dubious grouping of articles under an unrelated category title with a fantastic explanation and no parent category. If someone can come up with a credible (sourced) explanation of this grouping - fine. Otherwise it should be deleted. Bermicourt (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparent nonsense. Angr (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible hoax. Unsourced. Jokestress (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable hoax. The same unsourced claims are made in this article by the same user: Von Roggenhausen. dissolve ^talk 19:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, do not dare!!! Do not try to pursue!!!!! I need more time, and this does not mean, what ever you are claiming. I do not have at present my former work don in this topic. No one does say anywhere, to be push or on harry. And if you are so smart, as you are does claim, please explain to me why, at the same time all of you does provide similar statement on this talk.Finkpal (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above comment demonstrates pretty clearly that this is a hoax category that should be deleted and that the creator is a vandalism-only account that should be blocked. Pichpich (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is the behavior attributed originally to the Vandals. This talk, it is a form of hearing to describe the wrong and right. WHAT SOME OF YOU IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE, it does not means, that you will. I think that the most important be the truth, and if you are in position to kill the intention before you are learning the very end outcome, then let it be. Kill the knowledge, show your power, stupidity. I got the knowledge, so i may say it is your choice to learn it or not. All yours curiosity be satisfied with the von Monzingen article, unless you got the knowledge.Finkpal (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unsourced. Perhaps even more simply, no main article, so no category. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. The issue here -- If someone can come up with a credible (sourced) explanation of this grouping - fine --Only the blind person do not see the similarities of all these articles. A simple question, where from the have come? And if all of you, or some of you, are able to bring to the attention of this court of any vandalism then OK with me delete. Finkpal (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear vandalism. What a blizzard! Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—while not in my usual areas for comment, the suggested etymology is just so far out and faulty that I can't not comment. Looks like it's snowing to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - either hoax or crackpottery of the silliest kind. I too smell SNOW!--Orange Mike | Talk 00:10, 26 October 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 - jc37 07:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Beauty columnist to Category:British columnists

Nominator's rationale: another Laura Frey category, no parents or other contents, it doesn't seem that we need to break down Category:British columnists any more at present so merge without prejudice to splitting out beauty columnists if numbers warrant this in the future. If kept, needs to be renamed to add the missing "s". Bencherlite ^Talk 17:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Part of a series of dubious categories. Pichpich (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Clearcut case of overcategorization. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 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) 14:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People educated at Convent School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't do "people educated by type of school" (state/private/public/single sex/mixed), we do "people educated at X school". I can't work out which of the various Ursuline schools Laura Frey might have attended, otherwise I'd add her to to the appropriate school category. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is too common to be defining. The right way to deal with the issue is via the normal school alumni category. Identification of that school as a convent school should come further up the cat-tree, possibly several stages above. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:31, 30 October 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) 14:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Presenters who are stepmothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:Stepmothers does not exist, and having either a category system of "Stepmothers by occupation" or "Radio presenters by parental status" seems a bad idea. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As being non-defining. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is so absurd, I'm tempted to see it as vandalism. Pichpich (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a reason that we do not have a cat for stepmothers. Lots and lots of people would fit the description, but it is unclear it is notable for any of them. Beyond this, it would be hard to figure out a definition that is limited enough to collect like people. Even if we limited it those those who became mothers-by-marriage to people under the age of 18, there is a big difference between a lady who becomes a stepmother to a child at age 1 and at age 17, and it remains unclear it is notable for either case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable intersection. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable intersection. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a NN intersection: the presenter has married a man who has had children by a previous marriage: far too common to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 29 October 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) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Presenters with dogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Presenters who fish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Presenters who self build (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection of career with hobby. Laura Frey was or is in all of them (I removed her from the fish category because there was no mention in her article of her fishing interests; if that was a bad idea, please trout me, ho-ho). Bencherlite ^Talk 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. We don't even have categories for dog owners or people who fish as a hobby. The intersection with presenters makes it even less relevant. Pichpich (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Perhaps we should should create a category, "Publicists and Self-Publicists who don't know how to use Wikipedia" and "Self-building fish who dog" or maybe "Self-building dogs who fish," but not these Laura Frey related cats. BigGrin. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delte all the last one is particularly bizarre, since "self-built houses" are impossible, unless maybe we make the house out of a still alive whale.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Top quality cats today. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-defining. These are blatant trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- far too common to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 29 October 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) 14:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Female Radio Presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created for Laura Frey but Category:Radio presenters has not been divided this way in the past, seems unnecessary. If kept, capitalisation needs to be fixed and the category populated Bencherlite ^Talk 17:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. I could live with Category:Female radio presenters though I don't think it's necessary to isolate female presenters in a subcategory. Pichpich (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nip this madness in the bud.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:07, 26 October 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: No Action - I suggest the nominator start a new nomination for clarity. - jc37 01:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose ~~renaming~~ deleting Category:African jazz guitarists ~~to Category:African jazz (genre) guitarists~~

Nominator's rationale: ~~Rename~~ this to "Category:African jazz (genre) guitarists", remove it from Category:Jazz guitarists by nationality and instead place it within Category:African jazz (genre) musicians by instrument, i.e. musicians who play African jazz, as opposed to jazz musicians from Africa (or, {African jazz} guitarists vs. African {jazz guitarists}). Currently, it is the only category within Category:Jazz guitarists by nationality that refers to a continent; all ~~other~~ individual nations (including South Africa) are directly placed in that category. Gyrofrog (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, weak delete all of the following:

(Sorry if I've made a mess of the nomination)

See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 26#"African Jazz" musicians, in which another editor had suggested deleting the "African jazz" category scheme. Five years later those same concerns remain. There was, and still is, no African jazz main article; it's a disambiguation page. Category:African jazz (genre) musicians by instrument ultimately rolls up to the South African jazz main article, which otherwise corresponds with Category:South African jazz musicians etc. If the African jazz style is supposed to be synonymous with South African jazz, then I'm not sure how well Randy Weston fits in this category; it certainly isn't representative of all his work as a pianist. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 22 October 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People born in Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete We don't categorize people by place of birth and use the more meaningful notion of nationality to categorize people. Note that this should not be merged to Category:Swedish people since the latter should be diffused. Note that all articles currently in Category:People born in Sweden are already categorized in an appropriate subcategory of Category:Swedish people by occupation. Pichpich (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the long-standing convention that we don't do "Category:People by place of birth" or its potential subcategories. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if we did some people born in categories, doing them where they would be largely synomonous with well diffused people by nationality categories is an extremely bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But there is the category “People from” apparently covering people either born there, or residing there for a significant period? Eg Bjorn Ulvaeus is in Category:People from Gothenburg as well as Category:People born in Sweden (though he was born in Gothenburg but moved to Vastervik as a child). Hugo999 (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "People from" is not to be used for people only born in a place. The connection must be more than having been born in a place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP's norms are people from - most of our recent people are "from" many places, their place of birth usually among them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:08, 26 October 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Places named Trujillo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete loosely associated topics that just happen to share a common name. Pichpich (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, well maybe some people could not to know that there are several places in the world that uses the name Trujillo, and I think this category could help them to know fastly about it.--Antodeabout (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an example of categorization by shared name, which is non-defining and not suitable for categorization. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bencherlite's argument. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We classify things by what they are, not what they are named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in wikipedia is said about encyclopedia: "is a type of reference work – a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge", and its function is to spread the knowledge so it should be consider renaming the category beacuse to delete it would mean we are against the function of the encyclopedia.--Antodeabout (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Trujillo is the page wherein the various usages of Trujillo can be listed. Oculi (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is numerous precedent on this, most notably: (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Eponymous_cities). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've changed my mind and I think Oculi has right, in article Trujillo can be cited all about the name Trujillo.--Antodeabout (talk) 17:53, 26 October 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Niece of Baron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Being the niece of a baron is not a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I suggest having a look at the other categories on the same single member article Laura Frey. Perhaps they could be added to a multi-nomination instead of being done individually. --Qetuth (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no this isn't defining in any way. Further Laura Frey categories now nominated above, some grouped as appropriate. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I wonder if there would be a way to make it so people need the same level of authorization to create new categories as they do to create new articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 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 category. No consensus on deleting the template, but feel free to open an immediate new nomination to discuss it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Plan 9 stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Vastly undersized. Upmerge until 60+ articles found. Dawynn (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I'm going to suggest delete template as well. It was deleted once before and the discussion at the time argued future growth and an active wikiproject. The growth hasn't seemed to happen and the wikiproject appears inactive. Only 40 or so articles exist on the topic, and most that are stubs are already sorted into software by type. --Qetuth (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 26 October 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 category, but keep template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Turkish Paralympic medalist stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized. Upmerge template until 60+ articles found. Dawynn (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but keep template, premature per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 26 October 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 category, but keep template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Mykolaiv Oblast geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized. Upmerge template until 60+ articles found. Dawynn (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but keep template, premature per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 13:30, 22 October 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Akan sport stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Severely underpopulated. Upmerge until 60+ articles found. Dawynn (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and delete the templates as well? I'm unclear on what the scope is exactly, because there does not seem to be an article or category defining the scope - relating to sport in Akanland - this is a redirect to an article about an ethnic group which doesn't mention sport. It is very unusual to see a sport stub cat and template for a subnational area at all (England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland being all I could find) because it is usually not relevant. Do Akan people compete separately internationally? --Qetuth (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a result of the highly confused creation of WP:WikiProject Akan, which wants to supplant national, ethnic and regional categories&projects with its own usage. This stub deals with ethnic&regional stubs that cross country boundaries and treat all within the region under one umbrella, when we already have country-heirarchy stubs, and this doesn't serve as strictly ethnic stub-tree. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly irregular way to classify sports, are quite possibly with specific political motivations that will make it highly disruptive at some point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 24 October 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 category, but keep template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Polioptilidae stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Upmerging these to the parent (Category:Certhioidea stubs) will result in less than 50 articles combined. Upmerge until 60+ articles found. Dawynn (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but keep template, premature per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 26 October 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 category, but keep template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Azerbaijani Paralympic medalist stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Tagging every article in the permanent parent category produced only 11 articles. Upmerge template and delete this undersized category. Dawynn (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but keep template, premature per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 13:23, 22 October 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 both category and template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Malaya stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Perm cat is a redirect. This is a historic country, but now is mostly entirely contained in Malaysia. Propose deleting this empty stub category altogether (category and template). Dawynn (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both cat and template - Malayan categories appear to be interspersed within the Malaysian tree, not kept seperate, and only exist for period-specific categories. There is no need for this distinction in the Malaysian stub tree, unless it were to split something like Category:Malaysian history stubs which does not exist. --Qetuth (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restrict/redefine to the pre-colonial period to prehistory, when Malay and Malaya meant the Australasian archipelago west of Wallacea and included the Malayan Peninsula, and their languages (currently called Malaysian and Indonesian, but which are little more than national dialects of Malayan) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am not convinced the restructuring would work, or that our articles would fit well in the new structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 26 October 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: Upmerge category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Algerian sprinter stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only 2 articles, and parent stub category, with only 73 articles, is nowhere near needing to split. Propose upmerging template until article count justifies new cateogry. Dawynn (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both category and template - I only see one article now, it is also in the parent cat anyway, and this is clearly overcategorization at this point. --Qetuth (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 26 October 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, justabout. I think that this disucssion justabout amounts to a consensus to keep the category, though there is little enthusiasm for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Peter Andre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ok content wise and lots in the subcats for musicMaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response There are two categories: just use ((catseealso)). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah as there are plenty of things not covered by the music subcats. Like eponymous shows and his discography etc.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think this just squeaks by. While I don't think Katie Price should be in this category, I still see four legitimate articles and two meaningful subcategories (I'm not counting the technical "album covers" category). I think this is sufficient though it's close. I also see some room for growth: the filmography could be spun off at some point and articles on his fragrances or on his book might be created. Pichpich (talk) 10:17, 23 October 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 to both parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Defunct casinos in Missouri to both parents

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to both parent categories. Only has one entry at this time. While it may grow in the future, it may be a while before Category:Defunct casinos needs to be divided this way. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 22 October 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 and rename template to ((BíoBío-geo-stub)).--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Region geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Aisén Region geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Biobío Region geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Soft-redirected stub categories are unnecessary. Dawynn (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I would usually be inclined to agree, because stub categories should be added through the stub template, rather than by direct categorisation. But in this case the inconsistent use of accented characters would make it hard to find the categories. The head article is at Bío Bío Region, yet the stub type is the unaccented ((Biobío-geo-stub)), and the category is Category:Bío Bío Region geography stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 02:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category redirects per nom, and Rename templates: ((Biobío-geo-stub)) to ((BíoBío-geo-stub)) and ~~((Aisén-geo-stub)) to ((Aysén-geo-stub))~~ with template redirects as needed, to match everything else Bío Bío and Aysén related on en.wp. In the Bío Bío case the main cat doesn't have such a redirect, so why should the stub have one which can't even be used, and in the others it is not accents that differ but other spelling and completeness of name - again the category redirect is basically useless besides a template redirect. --Qetuth (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Second rename I suggested already exists as a reversed redirect. Not sure if it's worth swapping these around or not --Qetuth (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my keep. It seems better to Delete category redirects per nom, and Rename templates per Qetuth. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 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.

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. This was first listed 7 weeks, and relisting it a week ago has generated no further comments. There's no sign of a consensus or of any desire to discuss this further at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Filing this as deletion, but I don't really want to delete this category. Rather, I'm suggesting moving this to where all other WikiProject categories reside, the talk page. Why this one WikiProject's category should be on the articles themselves is quite beyond me. Courcelles 02:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hidden maintenance category like all other maintenance categories. Ryan Vesey 02:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is it named as a wikiproject category? If it is a maintenance category, it should be something along the lines of Category:All articles requiring wikification Courcelles 03:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a broader category not linked to a specific maintenance tag. See Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify and it's subcategories. Category:Articles that need to be wikified already exists, but deals specifically with those articles tagged with the deprecated ((Wikify)). Ryan Vesey 03:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify has the pages directly in that category where all other Wikiproject categories reside, the talk page. Besides, how do we need both Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify and Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify? They're the same thing. Courcelles 01:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - One is an all category, it has a list of all pages in the category. Ryan Vesey 01:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "all" one is for counting totals (((PAGESINCATEGORY:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify)) = 189 ; ((PAGESINCATEGORY:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify)) = 31,778), the other is for each backlog category (dead end, add infobox, etc). benzband (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a backlog tracking category for WikiProject Wikify. benzband (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does this one Wikiproject category need to be different than all the others on talk pages, though? No one has yet to answer why a wikiproject category should ever be in mainspace. Courcelles 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ((Wikify)) and the whole wikification system is currently undergoing some long overdue maintenance. I understand your concern, but in this case--and despite the name--this isn't really a Wikiproject category. As far as I know, this category was created just so that there would be something broader than Category:Articles that need to be wikified. I would support Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify being renamed to the older category name, and then Category:Articles that need to be wikified changed to "Category:Articles tagged with Template:Wikify" or something similar. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem here is the ambiguity of the term "wikify". As noted above, the category in question is a superset of Category:Articles that need to be wikified; the category in question also includes categories like Category:Articles with too many wikilinks and so on. "Wikify" should only refer to one definition; it should either mean "needs more links" or "needs layout/formatting cleanup". I suggest a new term be designated for either one definition or the other. Or, perhaps, the entirety of the category in question could be merged with Category:All pages needing cleanup? Guoguo12 (Talk) 15:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. As noted here, in the new TfD discussion for Category:Articles that need to be wikified, I think this category should be renamed to "Articles that need to be wikified", or some other more descriptive name (if possible). Guoguo12 (Talk) 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 22 October 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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Brigades of the British Army in the First World War to Category:Brigades of the British Army in World War I
Category:Battalions of the British Army in the First World War to Category:Battalions of the British Army in World War I
Nominator's rationale: This was originally proposed for speedy renaming, but objected to as “First World War” was BRENG. However the parent category Category:Military units and formations of the British Army in World War I and other subcategories of it use “World War I” not “First World War”; as does the subcategory Category:Infantry brigades of the British Army in World War I. Likewise see Category:Military history of the United Kingdom during World War I etc. Hugo999 (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia has a specific guideline, WP:ENGVAR, that allows variations between article names. Why cannot this apply to categories as well? Why cannot we use 'First World War' for British categories? User:Buckshot06.
Comment The use of local terminology eg BRENG in category names as well as article names would be less convenient, similar to having to decide which countries apart fronm the USA use “transportation” rather than “transport” in category titles. But is it proposed to change all the “World War I” and “World War II” in the British category titles above to “First World War” and “Second World War”; as only the two above use “First World War” at present, with most British categories using World War I/II? Hugo999 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Since the majority of British World War I cats use the World War I form, I see no good reason to change this. I also doubt it is an English varriation issue, since Americans are as likely to see "First World War" as "World War One". Anyway if we want to reflect actual British usage, especially by those involved, we should name it Category:Brigades of the British Army in the Great War, so consistentcy outweighs usage in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename these two are outliers and a (by WP standards) fairly uniform nomenclature. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 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 - jc37 07:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Protest disrobing to Category:Nudity and protest

Nominator's rationale: These two categories appear to cover the same topic. The head article is at Nudity and protest, so that seems to be the better category to retain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - a single category as proposed would appear to (un)cover the subject adequately. ~~
Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 04:14, 6 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.

October 22

Murdered American mobsters of Irish descent

Category:Sphinx Family

Category:Beauty columnist

Category:People educated at Convent School

Category:Presenters who are stepmothers

Category:Presenters with dogs

Category:Female Radio Presenters

Category:African jazz guitarists

Category:People born in Sweden

Category:Places named Trujillo

Category:Niece of Baron

Category:Plan 9 stubs

Category:Turkish Paralympic medalist stubs

Category:Mykolaiv Oblast geography stubs

Category:Akan sport stubs

Category:Polioptilidae stubs

Category:Azerbaijani Paralympic medalist stubs

Category:Malaya stubs

Category:Algerian sprinter stubs

Category:Peter Andre

Category:Defunct casinos in Missouri

Soft redirected stub categories

Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify

Category:Battalions & Brigades of the British Army in the First World War

Category:Protest disrobing