< September 21 September 23 >

September 22

Category:Original image 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: a very small subset of what is out there, difficult to get anywhere near a complete coverage of the topic and of little use to the project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:07, 22 September 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:Wikipedia icons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at CfD October 10. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains three images and the topic is far better covered by the Wikipedia categories over at Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:52, 22 September 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:Health, education, and welfare economics

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. I agree that a greater discussion has to happen before we can deal with the details.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Health, education, and welfare economics to Category:Health, education, and welfare (economics). The change would parallel the naming convention of Category:Mathematical and quantitative methods (economics). Both categories mimic there proper JEL classification codes, which leave out "(economics)". The addition of "(economics)" is necessary to mark each as a specialized usage of the correct shorter term from the JEL codes (an econ source). Its current form is not only inexact (because of the added 'economics') but misleads by suggesting that Welfare economics is classified under that category. The latter is false. Rather, Welfare econ is classified under JEL: D6 (source: JEL Classification Codes Guide at http://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php: there click on [JEL:] I Health, Education, and Welfare, then [JEL:] I3 Welfare and Poverty for reference to JEL: D6 as not a "Poverty and welfare" category ).
P.S. How does one remove the apparently transcluded and incorrectly placed Category:Welfare economics from Category:Health, education, and welfare economics as a subcategory there? Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:43, 22 September 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:Diasporas

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, clear consensus against treating the word as uncountable as proposed. Jafeluv (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Without considering the previous arguments regarding using the term, the word diaspora is uncountable.[1] The category should be renamed to be grammatically correct. Paul_012 (talk) 18:05, 22 September 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.

Terms to terminology

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. There is a general mooting that something should be done, but no agreement as to what. Probably discussion elsewhere is needed to decide the eventual state of this set of categories. -Splash - tk 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose
  1. Merger of Category:Technical terms to Category:Technical terminology
  2. Renaming of the following:
Procedural listing. This is a procedural followup to CfD 2012 August 24, where there was a consensus to merge Category:Terms to Category:Terminology. The majority of editors there supported merging the sub-categories too. It was noted there that this preference contradicts the outcome of the RFC in June 2012, which was that "Category:Terminology should only contain articles, which discuss the concept of terminology and that articles about specific terminology should be placed in a another category".
I have no preference either way, and make this nomination solely to allow interested editors to seek a consensus on how to proceed. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If terminology categories are bad, I can't see the point of renaming them "concepts". They will still be just as bad. SpinningSpark 19:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh* No, no they will not. "Concept" is well defined, and is one of four fundamental categories into which every Wikipedia article should be placed into a subcategory. "Terminology" doesn't fit into this scheme at all. Greg Bard (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you propose persuading more people to take part than did in the last RfC? SpinningSpark 23:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(this is getting a bit off the topic of this CfD, but to answer the question) If a "Foo terminology" category was listified to "List of foo terms" I don't think it'd make a very useful list. For example it would include some names (e.g. Yaesu FT-77 (S)). From looking through the history of some articles it appears that if an early revision of an article read "Foo is a term that refers to ..." (and many new articles do) then it's likely to be placed in a terminology cat - and still be there after the lead sentence has been wikified to "A foo is ..." and content (about the subject, not the word) has been added. So in many cases you'd be creating a "List of articles that were mis-categorised ". And I do mean "mis-categorised" - e.g. POMCUS is about logistics, not about language. I'm not sure what you mean by "articles on ... terms" - are you referring to "articles whose titles are terms" (much of WP) or "articles about terms" (of which there are a few, e.g. Fat cat (term)). DexDor (talk) 17:11, 23 September 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:Jeffersontown, Kentucky

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, without prejudice to a new nomination.
This nomination is misleading, because the bolded description of the action says "delete", whereas the rationale actually proposes a merger; similarly, the category is tagged for deletion rather than merger. The merge target is neither named or linked in the nomination, which impedes editors who want to assess the validity of the merge target.
A new nomination may be submitted without delay, but should clearly describe the proposed action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recommend deleting this underpopulated category and upmerging the articles to the County category. Only 3 articles in the category and the town has about 25000 people so there would likely never be very many articles that apply. If we get enough at some point in the future we can recreate the category. Kumioko (talk) 13:32, 22 September 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:Salyersville, Kentucky

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, without prejudice to a new nomination.
This nomination is misleading, because the bolded description of the action says "delete", whereas the rationale actually proposes a merger; similarly, the category is tagged for deletion rather than merger. The merge target is neither named or linked in the nomination, which impedes editors who want to assess the validity of the merge target.
A new nomination may be submitted without delay, but should clearly describe the proposed action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recommend deleting this underpopulated category and upmerging the articles to the County category. Only 1 articles in the category and the town has less than 1900 people so there would likely never be very many articles that apply. If we get enough at some point in the future we can recreate the category. Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Never been to Salyersville, but from what I hear about it, I doubt there's any reason to have this category. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 September 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:Anchorage, Kentucky

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, without prejudice to a new nomination.
This nomination is misleading, because the bolded description of the action says "delete", whereas the rationale actually proposes a merger; similarly, the category is tagged for deletion rather than merger. The merge target is neither named or linked in the nomination, which impedes editors who want to assess the validity of the merge target.
A new nomination may be submitted without delay, but should clearly describe the proposed action. ------
Nominator's rationale: Recommend deleting this underpopulated category and upmerging the articles to the County category. Only 2 articles in the category and the town has less than 2500 people so there would likely never be very many articles that apply. If we get enough at some point in the future we can recreate the category. Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 22 September 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:Touch (TV series)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at CfD 2012 October 10. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response One of them is the footer to the same three articles (nominated at TfD) and one is an image used in one of the articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 27 September 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:Rathore

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Our long standing consensus here and at WT:INB is that biographies are not categorized by Caste/Clans etc for people from the subcontinent. The most recent discussion at CfD which has relevant links to past discussions is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 10#Category:Rajput people. While this particular one doesn't have the "people" tag in the name, it is used only for that purpose, so delete. —SpacemanSpiff 04:46, 22 September 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