< September 11 September 13 >

September 12

Category:Danna Paola

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Minimal content for an eponymous category. Films and television shows are not categorized by its stars due to potential overcategorization. The songs and albums subcategories here can stand on their own with a hatnote to one another. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:03, 12 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:Grand Masters of the Order of the Loyalty to the Crown of Kelantan (Malaysia)

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) 22:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Loyalty to the Crown of Kelantan (Malaysia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale 1- This category violates the general principal of WP:OC#Awards. 2-The award here does not even have an article, so it is an especially egregious violation of the rules against award categories, since it is unclear this award is even notable. 3-2 of the three people in this category are also in the Knights category, which is also up for deletion, as well as lots of other categories. They are notable for being regional monarchs, and are categorized as such. We do not need to put them in categories for all the various honors, awards and recognitions they have received as such, that just leads to category clutter. Maybe, if we want and do not have it, we can create a list for this, but we do not need a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 12 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:Zurich

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 all, and leave category redirects for ease of navigation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I missed the recent RM Zurich→Zürich, but seeing as the article was moved, I suggest its eponymous category should be renamed too. As a matter of course, the related categories should also be renamed in batch. I suggested this to the admin who closed the RM, whose reply was that I take this to CfD. Jared Preston (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus rename the following related categories:

I may have missed a few, but I also left some out where I was in doubt. Jared Preston (talk) 19:01, 12 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:Economic and Technological Development Zones

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge, somehow I created the target category and put a merge template on the two main articles before realizing that another category structure already exists. So this makes the merge issue rather more urgent. Do we have a duplication or is the nominated category a subset of my just-created parent cat -- or the other way around? I can't see from the main articles if there is a meaningful distinction here, or just terminology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the blog makes it sound like they ARE one and the same. Here, from the lead: "... special economic zones (SEZ), officially called Economic and Technology Development Zones." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 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:Personality with a animal survived

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 articles were in any of the categories at the time of closing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Personality with a animal survived (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Also nominated are all subcats. These are:
  • Category:Personality with a kangaroo survived by nationality
  • Category:Children with a kangaroo survived by nationality
  • Category:Australian children survived with a kangaroo
Nominator's rationale: Quite aside from the poor English in the title, there seens to be no criteria for inclusion in this category. I'm not even sure what the category is for, but it and its subcats seem to have been created specifically for an article that is both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. It's unlikely to include any more articles AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that none of the subcats were nominated but if the article gets deleted as it should, the line of categories in which each was placed will be eligible for speedy deletion as being empty. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issue: Hello, I am the user that I created this category . When I heard Simon Kruger, a small boy Australian in seven year old who knows lost in quarrels after he receives flowers for her mom. At night, he says he knows a kangaroo and sleep with him and it had occupied during the night, mentions in the news and I think if it's a good idea for this page and also I create some categories because if people who survived traveling with animals when he knows where lost when part of the adventure . So my dear users can search somewhere people survived with an animal may be somewhere on Wikipedia and Internet to search. Expect before this category will be removed, users will do their best to find people survived traveling with a pet to sleep with at night where the break. Ah yes, I think you can also change the name of Category:People with animal survived instead Category:Personality with a animal survived. Thanks, Godinpédia ( talk) 12 September 2013 ( UTC)
Comment: Even with your explanation, Godinpédia, I still don't understand what this category is for and how it connects to other categories in the Wikipedia category tree. It sounds like it might be an article, but not a category. Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issue: But, this is a category, and this is not an article Liz, then you can put something with other category, if you want. Godinpédia ( talk) 12 September 2013 ( UTC)
Here they're just a bloody nuisance when you're driving. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category titles have been added and the subcats have been tagged. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 14 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:Degraded Extra Knights Companion of the Garter

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is in general violation of WP:OC#Awards. In this case it is an award given to foreign royals, a class of people who get lots of awards just for being who they are. We have categories for specific royal people in specific positions, we do not need to categorize them by the various and sundry awards and honors attached to them. It is even worse when we categorize them by having been depived of an award. This type of thing is not useful as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because in this case the people getting the honor was not defining, they were being used as pawns in diplomacy, and their being stripped generally had nothing to do with their action as people, it was the result of actions of government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 23 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:Operas by Frank Desprez

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:Libretti by Frank Desprez. The current convention of Category:Opera libretti by writer is Libretti by FOO; to change it, please initiate a group nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Frank Desprez is not a composer but a librettist. "Category:Operas by" is generally used for composers (cf. Category:Operas by composer). For librettists, "Category:Libretti by" seems to be used (cf. Category:Opera libretti by writer). --Tijd-jp (talk) 12:51, 12 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:John Jay College

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, retaining a category redirect at Category:John Jay College. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Official name of the university – Muboshgu (talk) 12:44, 12 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:Births of the September 11 attacks

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. Category was empty at the time of closing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Oddly-phrased WP:SMALLCAT for two people who happened to have been born on September 11, 2001. McGeddon (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Godinpédia , this sounds like a great idea for a list, not a category. If you had the information as a list, you could include people who are not notable enough to have a WP article written about them. Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good Idea Liz, i even think that creating a page (List of people is born on the day of the September 11 attacks). But we will wait for other users if we can keep this category and also Liz where others users can make this page for me. If you have any questions you can send to my talk and whether users are French, you can write in French, and I am francophone of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, county of Canada. Godinpédia (talk) 12 September 2013 ( UTC)
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:Grand Officers of the National Order of Vietnam

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:Recipients of the National Order of Vietnam. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. There is only one recipient in this category, and this order was only awarded by South Vietnam, an entity that no longer exists, and only existed for a short time. 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:19, 12 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:Knights Grand Companion of the Order of Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu (Malaysia)

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Knights Grand Companion of the Order of Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu (Malaysia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Supreme Classes of the Order of Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu (Malaysia)
Nominator's rationale: We generally prefer to categorize articles about people by what makes them notable (e.g. being a politician or being a member of a royal family) rather than what awards they have received as it is not usually a WP:DEFINING characteristic (see WP:OC#AWARD) and can lead to articles being in a lot of categories (e.g. see Mohd Khalil Yaakob). For info: These 2 categories currently contain only 3 articles and could be listified to the Order of Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu article. DexDor (talk) 05:51, 12 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:Australian Knights of the Thistle

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, and a reminder to focus one's comments on the quality of the arguments rather than the nature of the participants.
With regard to ((Post-nominals)) and its category data templates for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, I would like to note that, as far as I can discern, the data template for Australia is the only one that generates a nationality-based subcategory of the main category. For example, for the code "GCVO", ((Post-nominals/NZL-cats)) adds:
On the other hand, ((Post-nominals/AUS-cats)) adds Category:Australian Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, which is a nationality-based subcategory of Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.
There may need to be a wider discussion about this practice. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to all parents. There's currently only one article in this category, it'd be better to use the two parent categories directly. 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • it'd be better to use the two parent categories directly - I don't see why; yes, that's your POV, but it isn't an explanation.
  • "no need for a subcat of one"" - More POV without explanation.
  • "in which case there is absolutely no need for a seperate national category of one" - Like most statements that include the word "absolutely", it is complete crap to say "there is absolutely no need for a seperate national category", (even if/when you spell "separate" correctly). Again, POV without explanation.
Pdfpdf (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense! He is notable for MANY things - not just for being PM. One of these is for being the first and (to date) only Australian KT. (At the time, this was a BIG DEAL - check the Australian press of the time.)
Categorizing him this way lead to just way too many categories - More nonsense. This is simply your opinion; how about something concrete to back up your POV?
Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: The proposal is to merge, not delete. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a way to create more category clutter. He is notable because he is prime minister. What did he do to be made a knight. He was prime minister, it is a recognition of his position, not independent from that. Categorization should be by core notability and importance to the person, and these high level recognitions that some people have 50 or more of are not notable to the person. These categorizations go against the rules set down at WP:OC#Awards. The awards need to be defining to the person, and in this case the award is not defining to the person. We should delte. Just because the press make a big deal about something does not mean we should categorize by it. We need to categorize by core defining characteristics, and most awards are not such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're pretty consistent in failing to answer questions you have been asked, aren't you. You also seem to be pretty good at making statements not based on any evidence.
So far, I've yet to see you express anything other than your point of view, and even then you haven't produced anything to support your point of view.
This is just a way to create more category clutter. - You still haven't defined "category clutter", much less provide a supporting reference. You may as well speak Swahili if you are not going to explain yourself.
He is notable because he is prime minister. - I've already addressed that and refuted it. Why are you ignoring what I've told you? Do you even know who "he" is, or what he did?
What did he do to be made a knight. - Quite a number of things. Do your homework and you'll very quickly find out.
it is a recognition of his position, not independent from that - What's your supporting evidence for that false statement?
Categorization should be by core notability and importance to the person - Again, despite my request, you still haven't defined that, or provided a supporting reference.
and these high level recognitions that some people have 50 or more of are not notable to the person. - Your ignorance is truly impressive. I suggest you educate yourself before you continue to make such false sweeping generalisations. PARTICULARLY given that you are unwilling to provide any evidence to support your false sweeping generalisations. Given that you have no basis for your initial statements, I see little point in proceeding further. Pdfpdf (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will not proceed with your merger proposal, Pdfpdf? Because you had several votes of support. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Liz, please note that it is not my merger proposal - the proposal was made by 70.24.244.158 (talk).
In fact, I neither support nor oppose the proposal. I simply point out that the reason the category was created was to be consistent with, and within, the post-noms template. However, nobody seems to have paid any attention to that issue.
A further confusion is that the proposal is for a merger, but User:Johnpacklambert has come up with a "delete" response, and has not explained what he wants to delete.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A) It is getting really frustrating trying to get you to explain yourself. All you do is say "This is my opinion, and I'm right".
  • I have asked politely, several times in several places for you to supply links to the Wikipedia policies that support your opinions. You have not done this.
  • I have politely pointed out that you have made several sweeping generalisations that are false. But you continue to repeat them. I have pointed out to you that your false sweeping generalisations show that you have no knowledge or understanding of the subject matter. But you continue to repeat your false sweeping generalisations. I have suggested that you educate yourself on the subject matter. But instead, you continue to repeat your false sweeping generalisations.
B) " how much people want to insult me for trying to improve the category system."
  • At no time, and in no place, have I ever insulted you.
  • At no time, and in no place, have I ever made any comment about you "trying to improve the category system".
  • What I have done is 1) observe that you have opinions about the category system, asked you to clarify some of the terms you are using, and asked you to point me to the policy statements that support your opinions and your points of view, (you appear to refuse to do this) and 2) observe that have made a series of sweeping generalisations which are false, (and you appear to simply repeat these false sweeping generalisations.)
C) In response to your posting:
  • It is getting really frustrating with how much people want to insult me for trying to improve the category system. - I have not seen any evidence of anyone insulting you, but I admit that I haven't gone looking for any. I see no evidence of you trying to improve the category system. I see no evidence of you discussing changes in the appropriate forums. I see no evidence of you gaining consensus before making changes. What I do see is lots of evidence of you trying to bully people and force your opinion on them, and when they ask you to supply information about the policies that support your opinions, you refuse to supply them - you just continue to bully them.
  • We have a rule against most award categories - What rule? Please state what this rule is, and supply a link to it.
  • I see no reason to have this award category. - What a strange statement. How should I respond? To what should I respond? How about: "Well, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to your own opinion, but I do not share it."?
  • The one person in it is a Prime Minister. They get lots of awards and probably should be categorized by none of them - I have already explained to you that the above statement is false. As you have not disputed my explanation, I assume you must agree with me. Or not. I wouldn't know - you refuse to explain yourself. I fail to see how continually repeating false statements adds value to the conversation. What you have seen in other, different, situations is irrelevant. He is not "they"; he is dead, so he's not getting any awards; when he was alive, he did not get "lots of awards"; the awards he did get were not just because he was Prime Minister; and many of them did appropriately categorise him.
  • When I have seen multiple articles with 50 and more awards categories tagged on to them, I know it is high time that something be done to correct this major glut of unneeded categories. - And how is that relevant to this situation and this discussion? (You are not seeing that in this situation.)
  • I also think it is very uncivil of users to go around attacking me for expressing this well reasoned view. - I have not seen any evidence to support the statement that this POV is "reasoned", much less "well reasoned". In fact, I have yet to see any evidence of you attempting to explain anything. And further, no one is attacking you for expressing your POV.
  • Awards categories lead to clutter and need to be eliminated - a) What is your evidence that "Awards categories lead to clutter"? b) What is your supporting argument that they "need to be eliminated"? c) What is your evidence that this is a problem? This may be your point of view, but you provide no reasons or explanations that might lead me to share your POV, so at this point I can only say: "Well, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to your own opinion, but I do not share it".
  • If we do so, we will have a much more controllable number of categories. - a) What is your evidence that we want or need "a more controllable number of categories" Your statement implies that we currently have an uncontrollable number of categories. b) What is your evidence that we currently have an uncontrollable number of categories?
  • It is too easy to get lots of awards to make it worth categorizing by them. - I'm afraid I don't understand that sentence. Could you clarify it please?
Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are overpersonalizing this John Pack Lambert. When people ask an Editor to explain the rationale for their decision making, it is not an "insult", it is asking for further information. This happens on Wikipedia all of the time, to everyone. I see no name-calling here, just requests for explanations which you can choose to or refuse to supply. If one proposes a lot of categories for deletion at CfD and I think one should expect to be challenged by those who want to preserve the status quo. Liz Read! Talk! 15:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The particular statement is "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." I see no evidence that this is a defining characteristic. Rare exceptions should mean that only very rarely do people show up in multiple awards categories. The fact that the individual here does shows this is not living up to the rare exceptions rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see attacks or belligerent, "rude, cutting remarks", just Editors looking for explanations which you have provided (several times). Liz Read! Talk! 15:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it anything other than rude to open a response to my comment with "nonsense"?18:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
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:Works about the Virginia Tech massacre

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with only one entry. Propose upmerging. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:27, 12 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:British architecture by period

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:British architecture by period to Category:British architecture by period or style
Nominator's rationale: Only 9 of 26 entries are actually periods, of which some are defined or named after a style, like "Gothic", and some by monarchs etc, like "Elizabethan". The rest are styles that overlapped within their period with other styles, mostly from the 19th & 20th centuries. I see no point in splitting the two types of category; better to rename it correctly. On a quick look most other national subcats of Category:Architecture by period are the same, but in none is the problem so acute. This might be viewed as a test-case for the lot, which I would support changing. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On the whole this proposal seems to make pretty good sense. I'm just wondering whether it's entirely necessary to include the word "period" in the name of the category, since in this context it is construed as equivalent to "style" in any event. Which is to say, it might suffice to simply rename to Category:British architecture by style. Just throwin' that out for consideration. :) Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is in fact impractical and undesirable. 7/26 of these categories are already "neo-" or "revival" ones, rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 21 August 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, Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 12 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.
More