< January 5 January 7 >

January 6

Category:World War II armoured fighting vehicles by nation

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency - this is the only "vehicles ... by nation" category (currently in EnWP). "vehicles ... by country" is the normal wording (e.g. see Category:Vehicles by country). DexDor (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2014 (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:Association football midfielder

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is practically procedural; XXN nominated this for deletion at RfD, but it was closed after a week without objections because it hadn't been tagged properly. Ugh. Category redirects tend to be discussed here, however, and reserved for likely errors. This doesn't seem to fit that standard, any more than any singular form of a category name would. BDD (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice, but C1 exempts category redirects. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2014 (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:Cult related terms and concepts

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Based on this edit to Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts and subsequent recategorisation of articles in that category (since reverted) and categorisation of all sorts of non-mainstream religious topics in the new category (since reverted), this undiscussed new category seems to be a deliberate attempt to rename the old category in a non-neutral way without discussion. HelenOnline 12:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any objections to Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts ("intended for concepts and terms used or coined by the anti-cult movement" per the category text), the way to resolve them is via a discussion such as this one, not creating a new category with a different name, then moving all the articles across to the new category, and then adding all sorts of articles related to non-mainstream religion with no mention of "cults" whatsoever into the mix. I and Zambelo reverted these bold (re)categorisations followed by discussion on both the talk page of the editor involved, namely Kitfoxxe, and the category talk pages in line with WP:BRD. HelenOnline 21:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, depopulating Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts without CFD discussion was wrong. But so was depopulating Category:Cult related terms and concepts.
Now, please can you explain your assertion that "Cult-related" is non-neutral? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even realize Category:Cult related terms and concepts was a new category until after I had done most of my reverts to Kitfoxxe's bold categorisations, and that I and another editor were effectively independently "depopulating" it. When I realized the whole story after Zambelo posted a comment on Kitfoxxe's talk page and the new category's talk page, I checked to see if the category was worth keeping and decided it wasn't which led to me opening this discussion. Characterising our BRD reverts as intentional "out-process emptying" and "depopulating" is unsupported and misguided. We have been very open about our reverts and followed BRD voluntarily so I don't appreciate your assumption of bad faith. Based on this edit however, Kitfoxxe clearly intended to rename a category without discussion (note that per WP:NPA I have supported my allegation with evidence).
The old category is intended for "concepts and terms used or coined by the anti-cult movement". Defining something as "cult related" is much more subjective and open-ended than defining something as anti-cult. It is the anti-cult movement that defines things as a "cult" or "cult related" not the world at large or the groups themselves. As openly stated on the new category's talk page, I reverted Kitfoxxe's categorisation of various articles related to non-mainstream religion that do not even mention "cults", i.e. Occult, Thelema, New Age, Spirituality, Esotericism, Spiritual evolution, Open-source religion, Syncretism, UFO religion, Cybersectarianism and Intentional community. Do you really think that is neutral categorisation? That is the sort of POV editing a "cult related" category is open to. HelenOnline 07:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-cult refers to the Anti-cult_movement, which has it's own (and varied) definition of the word "cult". The articles categorised are more to do with the opposition to cults rather than to cult groups themselves - terms established by the various opponents to cults. Neutrality is maintained by not defining groups as "cults", which is a non-neutral label. Zambelo; talk 00:08, 8 January 2014 (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:Cuca (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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 7. The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 6 January 2014 (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:Sports Night

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 7. The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:01, 6 January 2014 (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:Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity

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: renamed. The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More normal category name (there are no other "Representative List" categories in EnWP). After renaming those articles that are not lists should be removed from the category. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2014 (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.

Club Championship Cats

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 7#Club_Championship_Cats. The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. All these categories contain Championship matches from a certain year. These categories are unnecessary and I'm pretty sure these are a clear example of WP:NOTDEFINING. – Michael (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If categories cannot be populated then what purpose do they serve to aid navigation, whether they are part of a series or not? Perhaps those that can be populated (3 articles as an absolute minimum) should be kept, and if they are I agree they should be renamed. GiantSnowman 13:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are coming to a bit of agreement here, because I agree no point in keeping them all if they are tiny; but a few tiny ones as part of a series can serve a useful purpose. Unfortunately, we don't yet know how much material exists to populate these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 14 January 2014 (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.

Iceland youth international footballers

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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Iceland under-17 international footballers to Category:Iceland youth international footballers
  • Propose merging Category:Iceland under-19 international footballers to Category:Iceland youth international footballers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Only the top (major) youth national teams from each country should be given its own category and the lower youth levels grouped together. – Michael (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2014 (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:2Cellos

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 7. The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:13, 6 January 2014 (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:List of Kapus

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 and delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise people by caste, for which I've got a standard note here. This category is being used solely for that purpose and has no other useful purpose. Sitush (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2014 (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 Mount Oliver, Pennsylvania

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry. ...William 01:24, 6 January 2014 (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:Role-playing games using Yes-But mechanisms

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The definition is too fuzzy to be a sound basis for characterization. Moreover the term "Yes-But mechanism" is not well-established so this categorization would be of little use for readers. Pichpich (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2014 (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:Alternative reproduction in fiction

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:Alternative reproduction in fiction.
User:Debresser also proposed deleting Category:Artificial uterus in fiction, but it was listed in this discussion after most editors had commented, so no consensus was formed on it. I will therefore untag it; feel free to nominate it again immediately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete not precise enough to be a sound basis for categorization. Moreover, in general, we do not categorize works of fiction according to plot elements. Pichpich (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts no; but technologies in science fiction are used to categorize them. This would be relevant for the same reason robots in fiction is a category. I propose creating two pages; artificial wombs in fiction, (mostly sci-fi) and artificial people (mtyhology, fantasy, horror; soft science fiction) which would cover anyone created without the use of a womb. Brave new world is all about the sociological and psychological effects of being born that way and is regarded as a classic. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative is far too vague I realize that now; however artificial uterus is a much narrower definition. I think stories indeed are categorized according to plot elements; such as time travel, robots etc. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2014 (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