Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 17

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 Category:Sports scandals to Category:Sports controversies. --Xdamr^talk 15:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Sports scandals to Category:Sports controversies

Nominator's rationale: Scandals is currently a sub-cat of controversies, but unsurprisingly there seems no rhyme or reason about the distribution of sub-categories or articles, with numerous instances of duplication and inter-mixing. In short, redundant. MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as recommended in nom. The distinction between 'scandal' and 'controversy' is subtle and likely to be riddled with POV. Better to stick with the more neutral phrasing only. --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree with a merge, if there were precedent of moving or merging "scandals" to/with controversies. Is there? Debresser (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  One earlier case was in May 2008. Does this convince you, or shall I dig deeper? :) Jafeluv (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now fully support merge. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2009 (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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 15:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invader Zim task force articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Almost all of the contents of this category are long since redirected. The taskforce was kept, but is there really any reason to leave behind this detritus? Now, only four articles remain that could possibly be included in the force. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since the task force itself has been designated inactive, there does not seem to be a purpose for the category, particularly when so few actual articles remain. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be in favor of deletion, but only after the discussion on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nickelodeon.2FInvader_Zim.2Fto_do will be closed. Debresser (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2009 (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.

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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kelli Dayton albums to Category:Kelli Ali albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All albums that belong in this category have been released under the name "Kelli Ali"; she hasn't gone by Kelli Dayton since she was releasing albums with the band "Sneaker Pimps." (The name "Kelli Dayton" is now actually a redirect to "Kelli Ali".) There is one other album article (and another article that still needs to be written) that should be in this category but I didn't want to add them until the name of the category was settled, just to keep things a little simpler. Rnb (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as suggested in nom, to match naming of main article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per RL0919. Debresser (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2009 (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.

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 as empty. Otherwise I would have closed this discussion in favour of a rename to Category:Destroyed landmarks in Montreal. Having said that, there are substantial OR concerns here - described as a landmark by whom? An official body, or just randomly described as such by wikipedia editors? --Xdamr^talk 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former landmarks in Montreal to Category:Landmarks in Montreal

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Landmarks in Montreal. I know from having been down this road myself that Former categories like this one are frowned upon. I can't see other similar categories for other cities. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no merge - none of the subjects appear to have been designated landmarks under any official capacity. Their inclusion in any "landmarks" category is original research and a matter of opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711. Only two of the five articles have the word 'landmark' anywhere in the article (other than this category name) and for one of those it is only in the title of a source citation. --RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. The comments urging deletion are irrelevant to whether "landmarks in Montreal" should be subdivided into "former" and present landmarks, which is all this CFD is about. Incidentally, there was an actual referendum on the "landmarks" category scheme less than a year ago, and the result was to keep it. Postdlf (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Destroyed landmarks of Montreal , since there is a rather distinct difference between landmarks that exist and those that have been obliterated. And we do have different categories for living and dead people. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Really guys, if an article has an unjustified category, just remove it. If afterwards the category will remain empty we can always delete it. There are rules to be maintained. At the moment just merge. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- it was to the point where a goodly portion of the landmarks in the "landmarks" category were destroyed or otherwise not there any longer. When I read about landmarks in Montreal, I don't expect to come across something that burned down in the 1800s. Rename it to whatever you like, but I think it's useful. -Montréalais (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "destroyed". The landmarks category surely refers to existing ones. I know that we do not normally split into current and former, but it seems logical here. Are the Twin Towers a landmark of New York? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2009 (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.

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 Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Alan Davie Bob Botha to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Elspeth Monro. --Xdamr^talk 15:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Alan Davie Bob Botha to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Elspeth Monro

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The sockpuppet category for Botha (currently empty) was created earlier today, but according to User:Alan Davie Bob Botha, that account is itself a sockpuppet for User:Elspeth Monro, for whom there is already a well-populated sockpuppet category. RL0919 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2009 (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.

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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:We Will Rock You (musical) to Category:Queen (band)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Very small category, unlikely to grow so upmerge to Category:Queen (band). Tassedethe (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Should also merge to Category:Ben Elton. Mlaffs (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (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.

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:Watchmovement manufacturers to Category:Watch movement manufacturers. Jafeluv (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Watchmovement manufacturers to Category:Watch manufacturing companies

Nominator's rationale: Merge. It seems over-categorization to split watch movement manufacturers from watch manufacturers. Most companies in this cat also make watches, and I would argue if you make the movement you've made a watch (by metonymy). If kept the category should be moved to Category:Watch movement manufacturers. Tassedethe (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, renaming to Category:Watch movement manufacturers "Most companies in this cat also make watches"? - not according to their articles, or categorization. "Making watches" is very largely about marketing, making movements is not. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my statement is correct. Of the 5 pages, 2 are categorised as watch making companies (Valjoux and Tianjin Sea-Gull), a 3rd (ISA) states "...produces watches in Switzerland and China.", and a 4th (LIP) has a nice clear picture of one of their watches (File:Lip_005.jpg) but doesn't seem to be categorised. Tassedethe (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, on further inspecion LIP & Sea-gull do make at least some watches, but show me where I can buy a Valjoux or ISA watch? See their web-sites. You don't want to believe everything you read on Wikipedia! Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some Watch manufacturing companies don't produce their own watch movements and buy them from Watch movement manufacturers that may or may not produce watches themselves. Companies like Piaget_SA and a lot of other members of Category:Watch_manufacturing_companies_of_Switzerland) are actually making their own movements but don't sell them to others. Is "manufacturer" clear enough that the companies in the category manufacture these movement for wholesale and not retail?
• Rename as Johnbod making a watch movement is only part of making a watch. WE could also have watch case manufacturers. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (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.

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:Illinois Auto Insurance Companies. Since the only member is already in the parent, there is nothing to merge. Considering Category:Insurance companies based in Illinois, Closeapple has raised valid points in favour of keeping (and the situation has changed somewhat since arguments for its upmerging were made), and therefore I don't think there's consensus to merge it. If someone feels strongly about that one, they're free to start a separate CfD for it. Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illinois Auto Insurance Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT. Only 1 member, already in parent category Category:Insurance companies based in Illinois, which contains 5 pages. Note, currently redlinked as I have speedied Category:Illinois Insurance Companies. Tassedethe (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge all concerned to Category:Insurance companies of the United States which is not subcatted by any other state (neither is it subcatted into 'auto insurance'). Occuli (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Insurance companies of the United States per Occuli. There doesn't seem to be any reason for just one state to have a subcategory for a handful of articles. --RL0919 (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Occuli. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Insurance companies based in Illinois, which will have enough articles to exist as soon as it's renamed and populated — I see 18 Wikipedia articles so far. Insurance companies (of all kinds) based in Illinois: Allstate, Aon Corporation, Bankers Life and Casualty, CNA Financial, Country Financial (a.k.a. Country Companies), Health Care Service Corporation (4-state Blue Cross company), Old Republic International, RLI Corp., Safeway Insurance Group, State Farm Insurance, and probably most companies under Unitrin Inc#Unitrin Subsidiaries including Unitrin Direct Auto Insurance. Illinois is headquarters for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association itself. BankFinancial FSB has subsidiary Financial Assurance; several other Illinois-based banks have insurance subsidiaries now also. Insurance agents: Eagle Insurance, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., Hub International. If you count title insurance: NETCO, Old Republic International (again), and Chicago Title back in the day. There are also enough people who have been insurance agents in Illinois and have their own Wikipedia articles to possibly justify a category for that all on its own, if there were to be any category for insurance agents at all. --Closeapple (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2009 (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.

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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Washington & Jefferson football coaches to Category:Washington & Jefferson Presidents football coaches

Nominator's rationale: Merge. To match article Washington & Jefferson Presidents football. Tassedethe (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. These are pretty clearly redundant, and the target category better matches the name of the main article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2009 (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.

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. Postdlf (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crayola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous categories for the Crayola brand, and no real potential to grow (created in 2004, 10 pages after 5 years). At least it should not be a subcategory of Art Material Brands nor pencils nor companies established in 1885 as the 10 articles are not all fitting these categories. Anneyh (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Crayola products are world-renowned and there are plenty or articles and images already in the category, more that can be added, and more that can be created. Don't delete a category just because it's not fully populated yet. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because I disagree with the nominator. I think this category is not too small. Likeise I disagree with the reasoning that all articles have to fit the parent categories. If the category fits the parent, then leave the parentcategory, even if some articles realte more to the category than to the parent category. if you understand what I am trying to say. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' Thanks for forgiving a new-comer. I should probably not have proposed this category for deletion. My own argument for keeping it is that as company-related images cannot be put into Commons, it's actually a good practice to have a company category at least for that classification purpose. Anneyh (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – it seems to be of sufficient size and there might well be other articles, on Crayola people for instance. I do agree that it is miscategorised - it is the article Crayola that should be in the parents, not the whole category. Occuli (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The brand is a defining one and the category isn't small. Alansohn (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2009 (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.

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:Impact craters by geologic time scale to Category:Impact craters on Earth by geologic time scale. --Xdamr^talk 15:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Impact craters by geologic time scale to Category:Impact craters on Earth by geologic time scale

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a subcategory of Category:Impact craters on Earth. There are impact craters off the Earth, and they have been dated, and there are geologic time periods for things other than the Earth. (like... the Noachian or Eratosthenian). 76.66.196.139 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match the parent category and avoid confusion with off-Earth craters. --RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a perfectly fine rename to me. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This would be an unnecessary lengthening of the category name. It assumes that everything must be viewed from the point of view of an astronomer - on Earth the branch of science is geology. The geologic time scale is by definition about Earth. The nom says it's already a subcat of Category:Impact craters on Earth - but that does not support renaming subcats that cannot possibly have any other meaning. Ikluft (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any renaming is going to be done with this, it would be much better to synchronize between it and Category:Volcanism by geochronology. Keep the geology topics consistent. I have made both categories subcats of Category:Geochronology. Ikluft (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Geochronology includes non-Terrestrial time periods. So are you suggesting we remove this category from Category:Impact craters on Earth, since it should not be there? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's nonsense. Just try to make your point directly and speak for yourself. Trying to tell me what I'm thinking is not an effective method to reach consensus. Ikluft (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your idea that geologic time scales only apply to Earth is nonsense. Category:Lunar geologic periods belongs to Category:Geologic time scale, which is a portion of the name used for this category, and is in turn a member of Category:Geochronology. Now do you claim that Lunar geologic periods are Terretrial time periods? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative idea: Rename it to Cat:Impact craters by geochronology for consistency with the existing Category:Volcanism by geochronology. I'm suggesting this alternative to point this in a direction where consensus may be possible again. The discussion was going into a rat hole. Ikluft (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even then, it needs to have "Impact craters of Earth" in it, since geochronology is not exclusive to the Earth, as these research papers can attest to: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not need to have "of Earth" because it refers to Earth geology already. Why do you keep insisting on forcing astronomy language into geology topics? Ikluft (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does not, as evidenced by the research papers I turned up. As for forcing astronomy, geologists are doing that themselves, as they study bodies other than the Earth, and using geology terms to describe things, I am only removing the systematic bias found on Wikipedia. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Cat:Impact craters by geochronology. I'll take the "It does not" response as agreement. Let's run with this opportunity for consensus. Ikluft (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your alternative idea still requires "of Earth" , since my response is "it does not show I am forcing astronomy". (My IP seems to have rotated). So, it is not an agreement to your alternative. Your alternative would still require it to be Category:Impact craters on Earth by geochronology. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You aren't in a position to require anything when you're asking for consensus. It has to be a combination of politely convincing others and being flexible. I'm offering this alternative to synchronize with the similar Cat:Volcanism by geochronology as a way to break the impasse. If you don't agree, make a counterproposal that you think you can convince me of. Otherwise, please accept it. Ikluft (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My proposal? My proposal is at the very beginning of this section, it's part of the header paragraph. As I pointed out using reliable sources, your alternative is not Earth-only, so either you need to take it out of the Earth heirarchy, or you need to specify Earth. As I already pointed out earlier, the Geochronology tree is not Earth exclusive. And if volcanism is geocentric, then we need to counter WP:Systematic bias. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2009 (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.

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:Impact craters by region to Category:Impact craters on Earth by region. --Xdamr^talk 15:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Impact craters by region to Category:Impact craters on Earth by region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a subcategory of "Category:Impact craters on Earth", and there are regions off the Earth (like... Ishtar Terra, or Tharsis). 76.66.196.139 (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match the parent category and avoid confusion with off-Earth craters. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as craters probably need to be referenced by planet, yes. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This would be an unnecessary lengthening of the category name. It assumes that everything must be viewed from the point of view of an astronomer - on Earth the branch of science is geology. The regions are by definition on Earth. The nom says it's already a subcat of Category:Impact craters on Earth - but that does not support renaming subcats that cannot possibly have any other meaning. Ikluft (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is now also a subcat of Category:Geography by region and Category:Categories by region, which demonstrates the precedent that "by region" already implies on Earth. Ikluft (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will note that Category:Geography by region has only three members, all categories. And there is nothing to suggest that the regions categories are restricted to Earth, unlike the Craters category, which is restricted by its initial parent category. The regions heirarchy already have entries for regions that are not on Earth. Unless you mean we should remove it from Category:Impact craters on Earth... 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see such categories there. That claim appears entirely false. Cite. Ikluft (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I admit an error, I headed down the wrong parent fork. The Geography by place contains extraterrestrial material. However, there is still nothing that restricts the meaning of "region" or the region heirarchy to Earthly concerns. Since there are non-Earthly regions with impact craters, then either the category should be renamed, or it should be removed from Category:Impact craters on Earth, since it is not an Earthly category, unless it is restricted. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said, that's contrary to existing usage. Don't try to stretch a geography topic into astronomy. Ikluft (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't have to stretch it, see Geography of Mars , Lunar geography, etc. "Region" is a term that is not restricted to the Earth. People have been naming regions on the Moon since antiquity, hence the face of the Moon has had names for portions of it for a while now. Surface features on Mars have been named since 'canali' were seen on its face, or even before. Mars is subdivided into regions, such as Tharsis, or Vastitas Borealis, where craters occur, similarly, the Moon's craters can be identified by region, like the Sea of Tranquility, or the Sea of Storms, etc. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The precedents are for "by region" to mean on Earth without qualification. Ikluft (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Where are these precedent setting RfCs located? (or XfD discussions, or VP discussions, or policy pages...) ? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Precedents are set by existing usage in this case. See above. I won't repeat it. Ikluft (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Impact craters on Earth since region is really ambiguous and seems to be used for the Arctic and the Americas. The other option would be a rename to Category:Impact craters on Earth by continent and upmerge the Arctic category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2009 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: SPEEDY CLOSE. Two days later and this category has still not been tagged, nor has its subcategories been addressed. Add to that the WP:POINT issue and there is no reason for this to continue. Postdlf (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neo-Nazis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the same reason the important Category:Stalinists (a sub-category under Category:Stalinism, and that has large sub-categories like Category:Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland), was deleted. We cannot delete the Stalinist category and keep the Nazi one. Either delete both, or restore the stalinist category. Sarjow (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. This seems pointy.
2. I agree, I think, since in general we don't need political label categories. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please complete this deletion listing, or withdraw it. The category itself is not tagged with a notice of this CFD, which is a requirement. The category also has Category:Neo-Nazis by nationality as a subcategory, which in turn has 17 nationality-specific subcategories, all of which should be tagged and considered along with the parent. On the merits briefly, I don't find the Stalinist category at all a good analogy, so you might want to rethink your rationale if you complete this CFD or repost it later. Postdlf (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems pointy indeed, but he got us by the balls... Debresser (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a clear point nomination and hasn't even been properly tagged, since he's placed the tag on the parent, not this one. Does the nominator what to delete ALL Nazi categories because he didn't get his way with Stalinists? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2009 (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.

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) 23:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:Ogg files by Halibutt
• Category:Ogg files by Olessi

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inappropriate user categories. They do not group related pages together nor support collaboration. — ξ^xplicit 06:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Categories for these should be by composer/performer/subject and NOT by editor/uploader. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete asap. Occuli (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Twiceuponatime. --RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on English Wikipedia; maybe add similar categories on Commons however. Note that the categories are by performer, and may have a purpose on Commons: each category contains word pronunciations done by the same voice, rather than those merely uploaded by the same person. --Closeapple (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both User:Halibutt/ogg and User:Olessi/Ogg are users. Even if they have recorded them that doesn't make them 'performers' in the normal sense of the word. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2009 (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.