< October 30 November 1 >

October 31

Category:Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic 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: speedy rename. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 19:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The race has reverted to it's former title and the rename will bring the category into line with the main article Bcp67 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 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:Articles that link to foreign language Wikisource

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 to Category:Articles that link to foreign-language Wikisources. There was agreement on the hyphen, I'm using the "Wikisources" grammar b/c both users mentioned it as an acceptable option.. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Articles that link to foreign language Wikisource to Category:Articles that link to foreign-language Wikisource
Nominator's rationale: Compound modifier. Also seems like it should either be "foreign-language Wikisources" or "foreign-language Wikisource articles" Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a comment to say that this would require an edit to Template:Infobox book, which, as a template in wide use, may be worth combining with other edits which may need to be done. ‑‑xensyriaT 17:45, 3 November 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:Rectories

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reflecting move of main article from Rectory to the more general and inclusive title Clergy house. Vicarage, parsonage, parish house, Pastorium etc all redirect to the main article. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And where are you exactly? See Alfriston Clergy House for example, and Bradford, Willesden etc. A google search on ""clergy house" Texas" shows plenty of uses for specific places. A bunch of these terms rightly redirect to one article, & clergy house is the best common denominator. "Rectory" was hopeless. I'm not saying it's the most common, but it is denomination neutral, & the easiest to understand for those without your wide circle of clergy contacts. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An "apartment house" is a house just as much as a single family dwelling, and RC clergy houses invariably share the communal reception rooms, kitchens etc, though of course people have their own bedrooms. No doubt many RC clergy now live individually in normal apartments, but all the local parishes round here use normal houses not purpose-built, mostly with more than one occupant, and this has certainly been the case historically for RC clergy worldwide, as much as Protestant ones, even with no need to accomodate spouses & children. One nearby RC parish (with other priests around too) has just built a new one nicknamed the "McMansion". Plus the category is for individually notable buildings, the vast majority of which are listed on cultural heritage registers, and we aren't likely to have any articles on clergy apartments, are we (I rather doubt even the present Pope's apartment in Buenos Aires is notable)? The categories contains many RC clergy houses, or ones that formerly were. Your inability to distinguish between a "religion" (Christianity) and a denomination (Roman Catholicism) suggests this is not an area you are familiar with. Are there any articles in the category for which you think the term "house" is inaccurate? Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 9 November 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:Schiller (band)

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) 18:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. More unnecessary eponymous categories only to hold subcategories of albums and songs. WP:OC#Eponymous. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 13:51, 31 October 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:Dale Carnegie

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) 18:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Following category cleanup, the remaining contents leave us with a small category with little to no probability of growth. Existing contents do not require an eponymous category for navigating them. The category was speedy deleted G7 13 months ago and re-created in good faith in May of this year.
  • Sure, I didn't mean to imply that there was, which is why I specifically noted as part of the nomination that the re-creation was done in good faith. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:58, 3 November 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:Persistent pollutants

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) 18:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category without clearly defined criteria. Hence, the decision whether an article should be considered is arbitrary. The existing categories, Category:Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Stockholm Convention and Category:Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution have clearly defined inclusion criteria. Leyo 10:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Object: I agree that there is allready a Category:Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Stockholm Convention and Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution however: these do not list actual products, rather they list compounds that are forbidden under the convention. The consumer does hence not know whether a certain product (ie pesticide) is a persistent polluter, unless he starts reading the label for the contents (assuming he actually has the product in his possession) or unless he researches this online. I think that we can't assume that wikipedia readers will do this for very product, and so it certainly has its merit for the pages here. Also, there is no specific category for inorganic persistent pollutants. KVDP (talk) 13:10, 2 November 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:Maps illustrating African American history

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) 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL, there is only one map in the category and even that should be moved to Commons. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:01, 31 October 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:Music published by Another Victory

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) 18:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The publisher of the songs within this category is not a defining quality of these songs. Most of the songs in the category are redirects and the ones with articles don't even mention who the publisher is, and it surely wouldn't be something that would be mentioned in the lead of the article much less anywhere else. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 07:01, 31 October 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