Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3

Gender-specific college athletic teams

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 per nom except Clemson and Texas Tech. The latter two should be: renamed Category:Clemson University athletics to Category:Clemson Tigers and left intact, respectively. Ruslik_Zero 13:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:University of Central Missouri athletics to Category:Central Missouri Mules and Jennies
Propose renaming Category:Centenary Gentlemen to Category:Centenary Gentlemen and Ladies
Propose renaming Category:Chattanooga Mocs athletics to Category:Chattanooga Mocs and Lady Mocs
Propose renaming Category:Clemson University athletics to Category:Clemson Tigers and Lady Tigers
Propose renaming Category:Furman Paladins athletics to Category:Furman Paladins and Lady Paladins
Propose renaming Category:University of Georgia athletic teams to Category:Georgia Bulldogs and Lady Bulldogs
Propose renaming Category:University of Hawaii athletics to Category:Hawaii Warriors and Rainbow Wahine
Propose renaming Category:Louisiana Tech University athletics to Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs and Lady Techsters
Propose renaming Category:LSU Tigers athletics to Category:LSU Tigers and Lady Tigers
Propose renaming Category:University of Mississippi athletics to Category:Ole Miss Rebels and Lady Rebels
Propose renaming Category:Mississippi State University athletics to Category:Mississippi State Bulldogs and Lady Bulldogs
Propose renaming Category:Oklahoma State University athletics to Category:Oklahoma State Cowboys and Cowgirls
Propose renaming Category:Penn State Nittany Lions to Category:Penn State Nittany Lions and Lady Lions
Propose renaming Category:Southern Miss Athletics to Category:Southern Miss Golden Eagles and Lady Eagles
Propose renaming Category:Tennessee Volunteers to Category:Tennessee Volunteers and Lady Vols
Propose renaming Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders to Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders and Lady Raiders
Propose renaming Category:UMass Minutemen to Category:UMass Minutemen and Minutewomen
Propose renaming Category:Washington College athletics to Category:Washington College Shoremen and Shorewomen
Nominator’s rationale: In
Hawaii is off-the-chain bizarre on this score.—Mike Selinker (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Opposed to all but Centenary. Especially opposed to those that just add "Lady" to things- it's all just making things too clunky when there's nothing actually inaccurate about the current names for the vast majority of these. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Makes sense if the women use different names, since these are uber-parent categories and should be inclusive of everything within them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just added UMass to the nomination. That school consistently uses "Minutemen" and "Minutewomen" for its respective men's and women's teams; see the school's official athletics site. — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except Clemson. Lady Tigers isn't used very often, if at all; for example, the latest two press releases use only 'Tigers': [1] [2]. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:14, 26 January 2010 (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 by province in Finland

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 Category:People from Lapland Province to Category:People from Lapland (Finland), and Delete the others (per nominator). I'm closing this discussion two hours early, but since 4 editors support the nomination and nobody opposes it, consenus seems clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: The Provinces of Finland were abolished on January 1, 2010, and three of them (Eastern, Southern and Western Finland) were short-lived bureaucratic constructions. The regional and municipal categories underneath can be kept. Lapland and Åland were both provinces and regions, and they still exist as regions. Lapland can refer to many different areas, so I think we should specify it as Finnish Lapland. --Silvonen (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be enough to categorize people by municipalities and regions. If we want to categorize them by provinces, the pre-1997 provinces would have more historical value than the latest provinces, but such categories would be difficult to maintain. The current categorization is actually somewhat anachronistic, as many of the categorized people died before 1997. --Silvonen (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree that there's no need to categorize people by historic province – the "by region" and "by city" categories are far more useful. Rename the Lapland category to match the article Lapland (Finland). The subcategories are already correctly in Category:People by region in Finland, so no need to merge anything. Jafeluv (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no provinces anymore. I think whole province categories could be deleted. --Pudeo' 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- most of these only existed for 12 years or so anyway. No reason to keep them after the provinces' abolition. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2010 (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.

National Basketball Association owners

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: No consensus to merge. The discussion is divided on whether subcategorizing by team helps navigation. A list can of course be created and can co-exist with the categories. Jafeluv (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It probably is a defining characteristic of most of the owners that they own a sports team, so I don't see any problem with the existence of Category:National Basketball Association owners. However, sub-dividing that owners category by which team they owned is unnecessary (there's no sign of the category getting over-large). Sports clubs are not bought and sold every day like commodities; in most cases, ownership seems to be something which last for five years or more, sometimes a lot more. So for most individual clubs, the list of owners will be short enough to make a small section in the head article on the team. Making a sub-category for each of these small sections just creates lots of small categories, splitting up Category:National Basketball Association owners into tiny categories which impede navigation rather than helping it. (Currently, there are 45 articles on NBA owners in the 13 sub-categories, an average of less than 4 per team).
See also related discussion on the upmerger of the one sub-category of Category:National Basketball Association owners which is not included in this nomination: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 30#Category:Milwaukee_Bucks_owners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Most sports teams have multiple owners, but you only usually hear from the majority owner. I think there is much room for expansion on this.--Levineps (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. If, as you assert, "you only usually hear from the majority owner", then minority ownership is indeed a non-notable attribute, and not something by which people should be categorised. In any case, we don't categorise people by all the shares they own in various businesses, and doing so would cause horrible category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Minority owners are still owners, else we would categorize them as "minority owners" and "majority owners." Some minority owners do actually have other titles and powers related to the team. I am not suggesting we distinguish between majority and minor owners.--Levineps (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So fa as categorising them is concened, the issue is whether they are notable for being owners. Accoding to you, most of them are not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think if they are mentioned as owners by a credible source, they can be categorized as such.--Levineps (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like specifically categorizing these people into owner categories. If this change gets made, however, I would suggest merging into categories like Category:Chicago Bulls executives to keep the owners out of the main team categories. --Mike Selinker (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not just listify them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is more useful as it is.LanternLight (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you are saying that a list that omits dates that they were owners and who they were owners with and the percentage of the club they owned is better then one that includes this type of information? Sounds rather odd. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I am saying that. As a way to navigate, to quickly and easily see what articles exist in a particular category, to go from one similar category to another, the category is a superior method of organization. There's nothing odd about that.LanternLight (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is a useful reference. If someone wants to learn about the various owners of an NBA team - and just about every NBA team has had various owners - the category is the best way to find them. The category is a reference tool; there is no reason to make it less accurate, precise or useful by aggregating it that way.LanternLight (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if people want to learn about the ownership, a list in the article would be much more useful than a category, because it can explain who sold what share to who, and when, without repeating the information in several articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, no. I disagree with your generalization, which does not square with my own experiences as a user. The category is a superior method for grouping items for quick reference and navigation, among other things. I also disagree that, if a list were included as you describe, the information would not be repeated elsewhere - in fact, the relevant information would be repeated more if such lists were created and inserted into articles on the teams, at least for those owners who merit their own articles (and there are many of those).LanternLight (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom as overcategorization, and
    WP:USEFUL, respectively? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as an effective means to allow navigation for this defining characteristic, in addition to any other articles, lists and templates. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. Too small and not defining. Debresser (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom- too many overly small categories. A list on each team's article is many times more useful than this category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and
    WP:CLN. A nice structure in concept but it has issues. For how many owners is being the owner a defining characteristic? Clearly this level of detail is much better covered in the team articles. This just adds to the category clutter at the bottom of person articles. A better solution may well be a team executive navigation template. 00:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs
    )
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:All-electric vehicles

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: no consensus to merge; obviously this needs more thought and work to make it intelligible to the average reader. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:All-electric vehicles to Category:Battery electric vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Merge redundant cat. I suppose the former might include some cars which the latter would omit (say, a supercapacitor-powered car), but it's redundant for now. Dethroned Buoy (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After reading some of the articles, I'm not at all convinced that we need multiple categories and if we do, they may well need to completely reorganize the structure. If you start with the simple premise that an electric vehicle receives its motive power from an electric motor, then the parent category, Category:Electric vehicles, contents are obvious. One logical break out would be by source of energy, say solar giving you Category:Solar vehicles (which are a variation of Category:Solar powered vehicles??). So how does Category:All-electric vehicles fit in? Is Category:Battery electric vehicles a parent category for all electric vehicles since they all have a battery? I'd really love to see a table that explains all of these terms being used to create categories and see what they actually mean. It is possible that the current structure is clear to the experts, but the the average reader it may be an overly complex mess. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose you can store electricity in things other than batteries, and some vehicles that are all-electric do not use batteries. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are battery-less solar vehicles, and have been for many years (as they are not designed for use outside of research...) they do not store electricity, just use it, and there are also broadcast energy vehicles, that also do not store energy, just use it. We probably have articles on space elevator demonstrators, that are all electric and do not store propulsion power either. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're missing a point there, though space elevators may have their own category (which they don't since the category you point to isn't a space elevator category since it isn't called Category: Space elevators), this category is a by-power-system category, and the category you point out has nothing to do with power systems. (ie. some space elevators are not electric) Further, why create another category when this will do as named? Especially when separate categories may be small. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vertical transportation devices" is where the article on "space elevators" is, so it's the "space elevator" category unless a more specific cat is created. Anyway, there are no space elevators in the "all-electric" category, and any electric space elevators can be put into an "electric space elevators" subcat of "space elevators", should the latter be created. This category is redundant to "electric vehicles" anyway (it's not immediately clear to a casual browser what the difference should be between "electric vehicles" and "all-electric vehicles"). Why is "all-electric vehicles" a good category for space elevators anyway? "All-electric" is a very small cat anyway once you recat the articles that are incorrectly in there. Dethroned Buoy (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the category is meant to cover vehicles powered by electricity then there are all those supplied by overhead power: dodgems, trolley buses, trams, even trains. The category may be useful - a little more thought needs to be applied first. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Battery electric vehicles" is hopelessly vague too, given the fact that you intend it to mean battery-only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Battery electric vehicles" is the established usage, so we shouldn't break that without good reason. Vegaswikian wants to reclassify everything (I suppose we could use that opportunity to make the category names more specific), but that would require breaking conventional usage. Dethroned Buoy (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2010 (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:English libertarians

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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English libertarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge with the British libertarians category. The English libertarians category is underpopulated and unnecessary.
talk) 12:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Um, leaving aside the national affiliations, this/these, to at least as high a degree as the conservative and liberal categories of so much anguish, look problematic (even if I am intrigued to see Messrs Lemmy, Branson and Hollis sitting together). AllyD (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the 9 entries: one was an individualist anarchist (Bool), one C18 (Hollis) and one C19 (Spencer) philosopher; Branson's supposed libertarian leanings are marked as uncited, Jones and Singleton not mentioned at all, and two (Lemmy and Stoppard) unclear in context. AllyD (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment I've just noticed that the CFD template has not been placed on Category:English libertarians. Should it be added now or does this process have to start again, as it is 7 days since the discussion began but without notification? AllyD (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In theory, yes ... but AFAICS it's only an issue if the category is heading for deletion, and so far there are no !votes to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- British categories are frequently disambiguated inot the four home countries. There is no reason for not doing so here. Whether the people are correctly categorised I cannot say: I have my doubts. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2010 (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:Dandies

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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dandies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Isn't this a bit, er ...
subjective? Defined in dandy as "a man who places particular importance upon physical appearance, refined language, and leisurely hobbies, pursued with the appearance of nonchalance in a cult of Self". Happy to be proven wrong, but that seems to me to be an inherently subjective standard: especially the "particular importance" part. That could be interpreted pretty widely, couldn't it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Strong Keep There are a number of figures from the 19th and early 20th century who are particularly noted for belonging to this archtype. The coverage would not be too wide if kept only to people who have been notably referred to as such. Oscar Wilde and Beau Brummell, for example. Zazaban (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Generally used as an epithet, it's an opinion often provided by people who dislike the subject. Unless someone self-identified by the term, I don't see the point in trying to categorize them this way. (see also Category:Dandy, which should also fall under this CfD). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as
    WP:BLP nightmare in the making. Suppose that politician X is described by hostile commentator Y or satirist Z as "a dandy"; is this sufficient to include them in the category? Is wikipedia going to start categorising people by every derogatory label applied to them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I've never heard it called derogatory, I'd take it as a compliment. Zazaban (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of the song "Yankee Doodle"? The chorus part, that says "Yankee Doodle dandy" was originally meant derogatorily. (Americans subsequently co-opted the song, of course.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. people like oscar wilde and Charles Baudelaire were self councious dandies. i guess if someone who dresses in a boring way and loves bourgoise mass society gets called dandy because one day he put on a suit then i guess he doesnt deserve the label.--Eduen (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too subjective for a category, as the current list shows - Pater & Swinburne were timid and neat intellectuals, & Byron a romantically careless dresser. All these are mentioned in the rather dubious article, which is enough. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hopelessly POV. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2010 (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:Great Lakes Bowl

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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Great Lakes Bowl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Great Lakes Bowl champion seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added later by BrownHairedGir)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This bowl game was played once in history. Just once. Why do we need a category to hold it? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and also delete the equally pointless Category:Great Lakes Bowl champion seasons, which I have just added to the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep - the category boxes are for reference, to allow people to navigate easily among related categories. If someone wants to learn about the Sugar Bowl, Rose Bowl, etc., they can use that category. Why is it any different for a category that might have fewer items in it, but otherwise is essentially the same? Other bowls have categories that include the stadium(s), champion seasons, etc. What logic is there in deleting this one? That the game was only played once doesn't mean that the category is less useful, for those interested in the topic, than those for bowls that were played more often. The usefulness of a category isn't determined by how many items are in it. Yes, I started the category. I use those pages a lot for reference, as do others, and it is a very useful and precise way to categorize those articles.LanternLight (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A category exists to allow readers to navigate between similar articles, so a one-article category is utterly pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Neither is needed for a once-only game. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for a category with one entry, and no hope of expansion. Resolute 14:39, 5 January 2010 (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:Presidents of the Gabonese Senate

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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the Gabonese Senate to Category:Presidents of the Senate of Gabon
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per articles
List of Presidents of the Senate of Gabon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2010 (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:Australasia

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. postdlf (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Australasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This particular category could well become dumping ground of articles that do not relate to the exact context of this particular category - the main article has been extensively debated - it is potentially a contentious and misusable category like 'Asia; and should be deleted, with possible of other categories to carry the article of the same name
Suro 06:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Just because something requires effort doesn't mean it should be deleted. On that arguement, why keep any of these articles? Lugnuts (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good point - current contents of the pages that attempt to clarify what they actually mean is insufficient - but the possibility of gaining a broad consensus on what the 2 categories might function as remains an open question as well
Suro 14:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep: Australasia does mean something specific in biogeography (
    Australasia ecozone
    ), notwithstanding the debate about what Australasia might mean in other contexts. All the articles in the category relate to the biogeographic Australasia. Speculation that it "could well become a dumping ground of articles that do not relate to the exact context of this particular category" isn't sufficient reason to delete the category. Rather, let's delete the kludgy Category: Australasia (ecozone), and move the few articles in that category into this one. (unsigned)
  • Comment I do not believe either categories should be used so freely - and regardless of the keep - the criteria need to be really established otherwise it is asking for trouble to leave 2 (huh) categories open to usage without very specific criteria/scope definition -
    Suro 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: Too broad. Too vaguely defined. --Merbabu (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current contents do not need this category. The more well defined Category:Oceania is suitable replacement for any stray articles that may otherwise be placed in this category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Category:Oceania is sufficient for anything that would go in here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague. -- Avenue (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2010 (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.

postdlf (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slam Dunk images

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) 02:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Slam Dunk images to Category:Slam Dunk (manga) images
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the head article Slam Dunk (manga). The term has several other uses (list at Slam dunk (disambiguation)), most notably Slam dunk, a basketball shooting technique. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 3 January 2010 (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:Dragons on the Argonath series

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) 02:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Dragons on the Argonath series to Category:Novels by Christopher Rowley
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are interlinked through the template {{Dragons of the Argonath novels}}. However there was no general category for the works of Christopher Rowley, so I created Category:Novels by Christopher Rowley and added it as a parent to this previously unparented category.
It might appear superfluous to upmerge when there are apparently no articles on Rowley's other novels, but this solution fits better into the wider category structure of Category:Works by author. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 3 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_3&oldid=1088120614"