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.
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.
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]
There is a small but subtle difference in the verbage United States Army Special Forces and United States Army special forces, in that the first one is a proper noun for Special Forces (United States Army) and the second is referring to special forces in the Army. Special Forces in caps automatically excludes all non Special Forces soldiers. —dainomite07:36, 11 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.
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 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.
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 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]
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]
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]
X
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
