< August 19 August 21 >

August 20

Category:Anglican bishops of Limerick and Killaloe

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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to disambiguate it. There is no "Bishops of Limerick and Killaloe" in any other denomination in Ireland or elsewhere. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2013 (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:SCO-Linux litigation

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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and WP:DASH —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Patterson, Georgia

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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just two entries ...William 12:13, 20 August 2013 (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:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Girona

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: listify Category:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Girona. The other two categories are untagged, and therefore need a separate nomination. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Girona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "A non-defining "award" of sorts—information should be in a list, not a category. The people who receive these are defined by the reasons they are receiving the honorary degree, not by reception of the honorary degree itself. This is another instance where unchecked proliferation of categories like this for every possible university could potentially lead to category clutter on a massive scale, since those receiving these honors usually get them from multiple schools."
Rationale copied from here. Also nominating Category:Honorary degree recipients from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Category:Former honorary degree recipients from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. SL7968 12:04, 20 August 2013 (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:Foundation degrees

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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems that only Foundation degree falls under this category. Merging to Category:Academic degrees of the United Kingdom is also an option. SL7968 05:56, 20 August 2013 (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:U.S. Highway System

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: Close. The only way to have a valid discussion would be to start a wheel war which is not going to happen. So this discussion is closed since the source is empty. I'll leave it to the participants to decide on what, if any, actions are needed. In no way should this close be considered as setting any kind of a precedent for naming in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match United States Numbered Highways. Proposed speedy lacks the word "Numbered", which is part of the system's name. Imzadi 1979 → 05:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Bridges on the United States Highway System to Category:Bridges on the United States Numbered Highway System
This should be renamed to match. Imzadi 1979 → 05:45, 20 August 2013 (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:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These user categories do not group users on the basis of any ability, knowledge, interest, or other characteristic that is relevant or useful to encyclopedic coordination and collaboration. Using Microsoft Windows requires no special set of skills that would justify creating a grouping of users. In fact, the category's existence basically is incidental to transclusions of ((tlu|User:Technical 13/Userboxes/OS}. The userbox more than suffices to provide notice of a user's OS preference, and there is no value in a category that serves as nothing more than a bottom-of-the-page notice. This is similar to a recent CFD (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_9#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Gmail). DexDor (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not defining. What is next= Wikipedians who take medications daily?...William 12:16, 20 August 2013 (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:Best Animated Feature Film Chicago Film Critics Association Award winners

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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Best Animated Feature Film Chicago Film Critics Association Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Having received an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a film (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Best Animated Film. DexDor (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I worry about phrasing it this way. We do not creat cats for all "major awards" because they deserve such. We create cats for a few defining awards because they define the people or things that receive them. It is not an issue of "deserving". That seems more to be a question for if we should create a lsit for the award. Categories are not "diserved". Do people convicted of murder "deserve" a category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2013 (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:Recipients of the Order of Courage (Libya)

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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one article (Fidel Castro) and that article doesn't mention that he's a recipient of this award (so it's hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic). See WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World War II British electronics

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency of naming with most other categories below Category:Military equipment of the United Kingdom. DexDor (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Some categories use "British" (e.g. Category:British military aircraft). DexDor (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "British foo" is more natural than "foo of the UK", but I've just looked at a few things around me and they're marked "Printed in the UK", "MADE IN ENGLAND" etc (i.e. not using the adjectival form). One advantage of using the "Foos of Fooia" style rather than the "Fooian foos" is that it saves looking up the adjective which sometimes isn't used anyway (e.g. "Category:United States military aircraft" rather than "Category:American..."). Another advantage is that it makes category indexing easier (e.g. should "Dutch foos" be indexed as "Netherlands"?). Note also that these categories are about equipment developed by the UK - including equipment not used by the UK's armed forces. DexDor (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you write "the UK's armed forces" and not "British armed forces"? -- PBS (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to insert the word "military" then a new CFD covering Category:World War II electronics and all its subcats would be the way to go. In the meantime, I don't see that as a good reason to oppose this change. DexDor (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World War I American electronics

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency of naming with other categories below Category:Military equipment of the United States. DexDor (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the current name does not include the world 'military' either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2013 (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