September 16
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:Songs produced by Nicole Scherzinger
- 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) 18:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Almost every other category of this nature is named in the convention of "Song recordings produced by" as opposed to "songs produced by" → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:13, 16 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:Members of the Special Forces of the United States
- 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) 23:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Since Special Forces is often used to describe all Special Forces of a nation's military this nomination is to clarify between United States Army Special Forces and Special Forces. I propose moving it to make it very clear that the category by name is referring strictly to the U.S. Army Special Forces. — -dainomite 20:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — -dainomite 20:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - Rename to "Members of the Green Berets" since the list is not just limited to US Army Special Forces, but limited to the Green Berets. They may be the main US Army Special Force, but they're not the only one. ie the Rangers, etc. Caffeyw (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nomination to be consistent with Special Forces (United States Army) which states The United States Army Special Forces, also known as the Green Berets.... and with the name of each group within the forces structure. Gnangarra 14:23, 19 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:Tijuana folklore
- 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: administrative close: already deleted as an empty category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Empty. Keizers (talk) 15:20, 16 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:Memorial bridges
- 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) 18:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Memorial bridges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Memorial bridges in the United States
- Propose deleting Category:Veterans Memorial bridges in the United States
- Nominator's rationale: That Memorial_Bridge and Veterans'_Memorial_Bridge are disambiguation pages (rather than articles) indicates that this is (mainly) an example of WP:OC#SHAREDNAME. It's likely that the main purpose of all these bridges is transport rather than as a memorial. Much infrastructure (airports, schools, roads etc) is named to commemorate a person (sometimes a legendary person) or a group of people and the place may even have a related plaque or statue, but that's not really a WP:DEFINING characteristic and there are better ways to categorize things like bridges - by type (e.g. suspension), purpose (e.g. footbridge) and location. A merge to Category:Bridges is unnecessary as all the articles are probably in subcats of that already (those I've checked are all in "Bridges in <state>" categories etc). Note: Before deleting, someone could check whether any of these should be added to the dab pages. Note: Category:Memorial highways (and subcats) has similar issues, but would probably be better considered in a separate CFD. DexDor (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This has no relevance to the use or function of the bridge. This is categorizing by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete virtually every thing is named after someone these days; not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAME. That a bridge is named as the "XYZ Memorial Bridge" is not a comment on its function, and thus not a defining characteristic of the bridge, but is merely a naming custom. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 17 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:Terms for females
- 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: Purge and upmerge. I believe that the consensus is clear that the category is problematic and needs to go. So I'll leave it to the more informed to do the cleanup. Afterwards, leave a note on my talk page or list for deletion after the cleanup to have the category deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Terms for females to Category:Terms for female humans
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The title literally implies it is about terms for all female animals. Georgia guy (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm the original creator. The new title would be more precise. Apparently, I can't make a similar move for Category:Terms for males, but it should be moved to the corresponding new title for the same reason (I created that also). Nick Levinson (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or rename to something without the word "terms". The articles in this category are not about terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a collection of articles about occupations, articles about words that stereotype, articles that are about things, and is really not held together by its claimed name. Those that are really terms are already in better and more concise categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Purge and Upmerge. This is incorrect categorization (per BHG and JPL), but some articles (e.g. Girl) should be in Category:Women or Category:Females. 19:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Edit into list or index or upmerge (adding to my vote above for more options). Editing would have to be done before category deletion, so if deletion is preferred then it should be delayed long enough to allow moving the category page across namespaces and writing the list or index before the article titles can be forgotten. Upmerging would be easier and would work, since Category:Women does not have many members now. I'm not clear which terms are about occupations and not about the persons holding those occupations so I'm not sure the category is inapropos and I don't know which more specific categories are believed to apply, but these are alternative approaches. Similar reasoning applies to the male counterparts. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- upmerge some terms that are truly articles about generic terms applied to women to Category:Women and then delete --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 25 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.
Comment This CfD is advertised with a faulty CfD banner sending editors on a wild goose chase. It should be re-listed to get non-professional CfD participants. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]