< January 6 January 8 >

January 7

Category:Untitled albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As with the previously deleted Category:Untitled works, unrelated items with shared names (or lack thereof). Trivialist (talk) 23:46, 7 January 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:Black English singers

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:English singers. 3 participants seem to feel that 'Black' is a good way to categorize English singers, 4 apparently don't, so this was a close one. But there's consensus that it should be upmerged. delldot ∇. 05:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't think we use "black" as an ethnicity in the category namespace and in any case, we don't categorise British singers (or English singers) by ethnicity. Pichpich (talk) 23:09, 7 January 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:User:Scriberius

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) 14:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per many precedents. In any case, pages with a common prefix can be found through Special:PrefixIndex. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 7 January 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:Ross Lynch

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) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#Eponymous and numerous precedents with only two subcategories: all articles are easily linked from the topic article and the categories can be linked with a hatnote. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:44, 7 January 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:Invisible Children

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Propose merging Category:Invisible Children to Category:Lord's Resistance Army
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Until such time (if ever) that we have a main article on "Invisible Children" which is distinct from Lord's Resistance Army. Biographical articles about unfortunate inductees who have been "Invisible Children" at one time should probably go in Category:Lord's Resistance Army rebels‎, anyway. Invisible Children is merely a documentary film about the plight of these children. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 7 January 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:Firearm brands

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:Firearms manufacturers (manually. I will list this at WP:CFDWM if anyone is willing to help with this task). delldot ∇. 05:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not include firearm brands, it includes firearm manufacturers, we already have Category:Firearms manufacturers and the related subcats  Ryan Vesey 17:00, 7 January 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:Spiny rats

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Spiny rat is an ambiguous term, which refers not only to the American family Echimyidae (the subject of this category), but also to a variety of Old World rodents. Therefore, the article was recently moved to the scientific name. The category should follow suit. Ucucha (talk) 08:32, 7 January 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:Surf revival albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Surf revival is a redlink. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was the creator of the article, and the genre doesn't currently have enough information to warrant it's own cat, let alone it's own article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:31, 7 January 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:Things named after Albert Einstein

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. I will check that each item in the category is in the list before deleting. delldot ∇. 05:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES and many previous discussions, we don't categorize things that are named after a particular person. A similar category for institutions named after Einstein was deleted here. These are already listified at List of things named after Albert Einstein. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 7 January 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:Drugs law enforcement agencies

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename slightly to match the name formatting of Category:Drug control law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 7 January 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 involved in incest

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 salt. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I suspect that this is something we would want to stamp out fairly quickly. There are WP:BLP ramifications, obviously. The definition of "incest" is not clear-cut and opinions on the issue differ from person-to-person and from culture-to-culture—how closely related do two people have to be for a sexual relationship between them to be "incest"? It's also not clear if the category intends on categorizing people involved in illegal incestual relationships, or if it is broader than that and would include ancient people who married siblings or parents, and so forth. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tricky thing here is that there are numerous people who, in the absence of this category existing until a few days ago, were (and still are) instead filed directly in Category:Incest — a situation which presents exactly the same potential issues as this one does, and some that are even worse because the more general topic category doesn't provide context: for instance, it fails to distinguish between perpetrators, victims, alleged perpetrators whose guilt wasn't actually proven, people who are in there because somebody applied contemporary moral and ethical standards to behaviour that wasn't seen as illegal or inappropriate in the subject's own cultural and historical context, people who are in there because they were conceived from an incestuous relationship, and people who are in there because they merely studied the phenomenon from an academic or sociological perspective. So I think there needs to be a broader discussion on whether it's appropriate to apply incest-related categorization to individual people at all and/or how to do so fairly and safely, which would impact both this category and whether individual people should be filed directly in Category:Incest in its absence. Accordingly, CFD probably isn't the right venue for this at the moment — because as long as the people in question could just be readded directly to the general topic category again, deleting this would just shift the problem to another category rather than solving anything. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above that this is a broader problem. A similar problem existed (exists?) with categories like Category:Racism and Category:Homophobia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 7 January 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:Cricketers who retired in 2012

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) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We do not have an overall category scheme of sportspeople by retirement year. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 7 January 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:Shakespeare authorship questioners

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) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. If a person is notable for having questioned Shakespeare's authorship, then they could be placed in the already existing Category:Shakespeare authorship theorists. But if a person has simply expressed an opinion that they question who actually wrote Shakespeare's works, per WP:OC#OPINION we shouldn't be categorizing by this factoid. The latter is what this category seems to be to me, which is why I have not proposed a merge with the category for theorists. It is not defining for those included—Charlie Chaplin, Harry Blackmun, Mark Twain, Orson Welles, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 7 January 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:Shakespeare authorship candidates

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) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is already listified at List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, and it doesn't seem to me to be the kind of thing we should categorize by. It seems quite "centric" to one particular topic, and not particularly defining for those included. If it was ever proved that someone other than Shakespeare wrote what Shakespeare wrote, then that fact would be defining for that person, but simply because someone has proposed that a person might have done so? This is not the reason the candidates are notable in the first place, after all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 7 January 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:Chaco War infantry weapons

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Per the precedent set by this CfD. The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 7 January 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:Falklands War aircraft

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per the outcome of this CfD. "Weapons by war" is very much like "performances by performance" and is non-defining; either it's a small war that's a footnote in the careers of most types, or it's a major war and thus indiscriminate. The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 7 January 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.

Carl Sandburg categories

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. I see no objections to creating the list but from the outcome of this don't see it as necessary (Category:Carl Sandburg eponyms is currently empty, so deleting it won't get in the way of future list making). There's no problem with the navbox or the works by category. delldot ∇. 05:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Carl Sandburg eponyms and creating List of things named after Carl Sandburg
  • Propose deleting Category:Carl Sandburg related people
  • Propose deleting Category:Carl Sandburg related miscellanea
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The first: we don't categorize things for being named after a particular person per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The contents would be good for creating a list, however. The second: we generally don't categorize people by person per WP:OC#ASSOCIATED. The third: we don't create subcategories for "miscellaneous" or "remainders" about a particular topic per WP:OC#MISC (in any case, it will be empty if the first two are deleted). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator's comment. I was trying to make the recently created Carl Sandburg navbox template into something useful. The original was just a stub, with two rows, one for "works", one for "other things". I've seen two kinds of navbox templates, and I was imitating the kind that creates categories for each row. Since works are rather common for navbox templates, I split the template into two, "Works" and "Miscellanea". I have no qualms about the second one being speedily deleted, since the arguments against it seemed rather obvious to me as I was entering it. However, I want to defend the Works template. Sandburg was quite prolific, and created works of many different kinds, and I found myself creating 8 rows, so 8 categories, some empty, the rest stubs. The existing Sandburg entries are few and rather weak, and the existing lists of his works are poorly organized (Poetry and Sundry). So while here, tell me if I'm being reasonable about the Sandburg Works template and associated categories, so I can try cleaning things up a bit. Choor monster (talk) 14:30, 7 January 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:Hispanic slang

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Spanish variants.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Hispanic slang to Category:Hispanic slangs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This contains articles on slang languages of Spain, as opposed to Category:Spanish slang which contains slang words and phrases.
Alternatively, as it currently has only 2 pages which may be WP:OCAT, upmerge to Category:Spanish language and a new Category:Slang languages which could also contain pages such as Bombay Hindi, Digger slang, Helsinki slang and Category:Cant languages. – Fayenatic London 18:05, 20 December 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, delldot ∇. 00:33, 7 January 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.
More