< September 6 September 8 >

September 7

Category:Repetitive guitar-tunings

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear inclusion for what's "repetitive". Is EADGBE "repetitive" because it has two E's? Repetitive tuning doesn't have an article. This seems completely arbitrary and non-defining. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that "categories must have a ((cat main)) article or else they should be deleted" is nonsense (and not the first time that TPH has invented such spurious conditions and cited them as if they were policy). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 10 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:Non-Catholic Christian sex abuse cases

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 delete WP:CSD#G7. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an ambiguous open-ended category. The entries in this category should instead be in a parent category (e.g. Christian sex abuse cases). That category should include the Catholic sub-category. Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the entirety of the nominator's rationale. Create the higher level category if not already present and migrate the contents of this category into it and relevant (yet to be created?) sub categories. The creator is doing an excellent job with sorting out this hierarchy 0f categories. One cannot get everything right. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes sense, will do that. GoodParabolē (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not empty categories that are under discussion, as a general rule (and one that is explicitly stated in the CfD procedures). It is helpful to see how editors are using a category when it is under discussion.- choster (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a procedural note, the category was only created today, as part of an exercise to regularise the categories (in my opinion). As such no editors are actually using it save for the editor who created it, who agrees with the nomination. This is a good case for WP:IAR. I imagine the category may be speedied if the creating editor suggests it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes agree, please delete the category at will. GoodParabolē (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have requested speedy deletion based upon your message above. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, there should be no logical inversions in a category name. Yworo (talk) 14:31, 7 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:Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:SMALLCAT ; satellite is inactive, and objects discovered by this satellite appear in its subcategory. No upmerge needed, since the satellite is already categorized in them, and the subcategory should not be categorized into them. Aside from the subcategory, there is only the satellite article in this category. 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:03, 7 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:Native American fiction books

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Native American fiction books to Category:Fiction books about Native Americans
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous and could either refer to books about Native Americans or books written by Native Americans. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • Support on the basis of the wording inside the category. It is obviously what the creator intended. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:05, 7 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:Canadian Mohawk people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. As there are both Category:Mohawk people and the wider Category:People of Mohawk descent, it is not WP:OCAT to sub-categorise both by their legal nationality. There are also Category:Canadian Métis people‎, Category:Canadian Inuit people‎, Category:American Inuit people‎ etc. If self-identification is a problem, as stated by the nominator, perhaps a group nomination to rename all such categories to "Foo people from Bar" might work. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge (or rename). This category is an admirable attempt to provide readers for a way to determine if bio articles are from Mohawks in what is now Ontario, Quebec or New York State. Still, the Mohawk people reject (to varying degrees) being defined by Canadian or U.S. citizenship. If kept, I'd propose a rename to Mohawk people in Canada (or Ontario or Quebec) as the current name, again, seems to emphasize nationality (which is an imposition) as opposed to location. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything in the category description that precludes that. Yes, I think that would work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 7 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:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings by decade

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 into Category:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings. The "by decade" category will have to wait until the 19th century category can be evaluated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings by decade
Nominator's rationale: Rename Delete. Normal building tree category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that there really is no reason for this category. The proposed renames below would be fine with some sorting of the categories and by including these in Category:20th-century Roman Catholic church buildings, it would encourage the movement of the articles into subcategories. Even if the change below this fails, this category still is not needed and in fact its existence could discourage migration into the by year categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:09, 7 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:Roman Catholic churches completed in the 1930s

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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. By decade categories add an unnecessary level of navigation. Virtually all building categories are organized on a by year or by century basis and they do not pose a navigation issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the actual categories now have just one article. Looking at the 2 article categories - most of them will have more by the end.JASpencer (talk) 20:58, 8 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:Monorchism

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, no point in dragging this out any further. BencherliteTalk 21:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is this editor's third attempt at creating this category in some form or another (see Category:Monorchid people and Category:Monorchistic people). The editor is well aware that the other two categories are nominated for deletion and that all other editors have so far agreed that these categories need to go. At this stage, creating this category is pure disruption. Pichpich (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SEE ALSO: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_4#Category:Monorchid_people.  Frank  |  talk  13:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Category:Diabetes supposed to be about a 'defining' condition too? No. It's a category that aids to link together a number of articles which have relationship to a medical syndrome. My research discloses that there's no lower limit to the number of members in a category. There can be one like in Category:Gambian amputeesOxycut (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diabetes doesn't have to be 'relevant to a person's notability' for there to be a category which groups together numerous article which aren't disputed to have some relationship to its subject matter.Oxycut (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly reject that type of argument. Call me cold-hearted but we're an encyclopedia, not a support group. We don't have categories for sufferers of alopecia or people who have only one functioning kidney despite the fact that both conditions can be quite problematic. The key here is the difference between problematic and defining. Besides, if people with monochrism want to see a list of examples, it's already in the article. Pichpich (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And one more thing: it's true that we wouldn't necessarily have this discussion if it was a different body part. Indeed, everyone agrees that Category:Amputees makes sense. But this is because missing a leg is typically defining. Nobody here is skittish about discussing testicles and you can see above and in the related CfDs that people are perfectly comfortable defending Category:Castrated people. Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no people in this categoryOxycut (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at the moment; but other editors might add them later, especially if the other one is deleted. – Fayenatic London 07:41, 8 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