The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 16:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear power stations that had a significant accident ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge into Category:Civilian nuclear power accidents.
• Rationale: This category is inaptly-named and duplicates the purpose of an existing category. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't merge - Thanks for the notification. While my memory isn't 100% sharp on this, the apparent logic for having this category was because power stations were being listed in Category:Civilian nuclear power accidents. I found this misleading because the article isn't about the accident, it's about everything. I suppose it could be argued to include them, but I would say that if the accident was large enough to have its own article, then that would be among the Category:Civilian nuclear power accidents category, which would be fine, but listing the article about the power station seems like it could get out of hand because there is an entire spectrum of severity of accidents and you could easily add like 50% of the power plant articles out there too it. Anyway, it's not all that important, I'll leave the merge decision to the closing administrator. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: misleading name, not giving any context. The accidents in nuclear plant are precisely defined (not just being "significant"). The International Nuclear Event Scale is the proper place for the topic. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge'--Nukeless 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukeless (talk • contribs)
• Merge carefully per nom. "Significant" is in the eye of the beholder, also make sure that all the accidents were "nuclear" in nature, not some accident that happens at all sorts of industrial sites: steam burns, falls, car crashes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge carefully per Carlos. "Significant" is too subjective. Doczilla (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on dec 31. Kbdank71 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear compensations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator´s rationale - Overcategorization: This oddly-named category was created for the sole article it contains. I spent a goodly amount of time adding needed categories to the article, so there is no concern in that regard. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep One can add other topics, as the 1997 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program [1], the U.K. Compensation Scheme for Radiation-Linked Diseases [2], Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal [3], nuclear damage compensation law [4], Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, between others.--Mac (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Nukeless 00:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment only contains subcategories now. Not sure what the purpose of this really is, but if its current contents are indicative of its purpose, a rename to Category:Nuclean power civil liability laws to tell what this is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've been giving this some serious thought, but I've reached an impasse. On the one hand, the two articles that were added to the category pertain to civil liability for power plants, whereas the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act is about damages arising from nuclear weapons production by the government. Thats apples and oranges. Plus two of them are about US federal legislation, the other is an international accord. Apples and pears. On the other hand, it probably would be nice to have some sort of umbrella category for items like these, if only somebody could come up with the wording -- and the parent categories. This one probably should be relisted. Cgingold (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear weapon organizations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - I don't recall what was in this category when I came across it a few weeks back, but it struck me then as not having a well-defined purpose. So I'm not terribly surprised to find that it is now empty (for the last 2 days) -- apparently other editors removed what few articles were formerly in it. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per nom, cat is now completely empty (and worthless IMO). -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GPB TV stations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All of the articles contained here are already listed in both category parents. Neither parent is so large that this direct listing presents a problem. This is also the only subcategory like this and does not really serve a useful purpose. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would also support deleting sibling Category:GPB radio stations for the same reasons. - Dravecky (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People namechecked in Ramones songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category does not serve any purpose. We could have people namechecked in the songs of many, many different artists, but it would be extreme cruft and overcategorisation. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Do I need a reason? This is trivial not defining. --Lquilter (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep Being namechecked in a Ramones song is very noteworthy as well as being super interesting. 124.183.248.172 (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lquilter. LeSnail (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this trivia. Non-defining Doczilla (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Roman Catholic titular prelates by type. Kbdank71 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Prelates by type to Category:Prelates

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Category has only a single, under-populated parent and itself contains no articles, only subcategories. Upmerge to parent would eliminate an unnecessary intermediate cat. Quale (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expanding the category, and see a lot of more articles and subcategories, that would not be rightly cataloged under the category:prelates and would be too extensive (in the long run)Stijn Calle (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "types" by which you're planning to categorize? --Lquilter (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What could possibly be correct categorized under "Prelates by type" that wouldn't be rightly cataloged under "Prelates" ???? "Prelates by type" is a subcat of "Prelates" so this makes no sense. The category has existed since May... Quale (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is a strange category tree. All the sub-categories appear to be Roman Catholic ones, but several people in the other branch (by nationality) appear to Lutheran, and in one Icelandic case not Christian. Bishops (and such like) will normally appear as such. "Prelates" seems to be a home for prominent abbots and other senior clergy. The subject needs to be more clearly defined. There may be a case for up-merging bith the Natioanlity and Type categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and relocate to Category:Roman Catholic titular prelates by type and as sub-cat of Category:Roman Catholic Prelatures respectively. Then it has a use. The creator has a tendency to over-create useless categories (they did all the apparitions, visionaries without approval etc etc a while back), but this one is salvageable. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and relocate per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and relocate per Johnbod. Having looked at what is in this cat, it has a legit purpose. Hmains (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and relocate per Johnbod. I would expect Category:Prelates by type to contain only subcats (like for instance any category by nationality) and I would expect to find only Roman Catholic articles as Prelate is a subcat of various RC ones (acc to the category inclusion). Does Category:Prelates get renamed to Category:Roman Catholic titular prelates as well? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FSF/UNESCO to Category:Free Software Foundation and UNESCO

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation for "FSF" per parent category Category:Free Software Foundation and main article Free Software Foundation. Don't expand UNESCO as parent category is Category:UNESCO and main article is UNESCO. Snocrates 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; if not deleted, rename per nom - The category is an intersection that is apparently intended to capture free software (such as GIMP and Mozilla Firefox) that are or have been supported or recognized by UNESCO (the so-called "Free Software Directory, formerly named "FSF/UNESCO Directory"). As such, it is overcategorization by membership in a published list, basically -- UNESCO sponsorship or recognition is certainly not a defining element of the nine pieces of software included in the category. (Eclipse, GIMP, Gnuzilla, K3b, K9copy, Firefox, MySQL, OpenOffice, and OpenSSL are the 9 pieces of software categorized here. The tenth article in the category is the Free Software Directory which is sort of the head article, but it's lame.) Their position as part of the debate about various governmental/international entities sponsorship or promotion of free software is not a useful categorizing scheme. An article should be written that discusses this issue and links to relevant software -- there isn't such an article now. People who visit the category will note that it lists as main articles "FSF/UNESCO Directory", FSF and UNESCO. FSF/UNESCO Directory is a redirect to Free Software Directory, but that article is minimal and doesn't really address the significant aspects of this issue. (All that said, if somehow this category is kept, it should at least be spelled out.) --Lquilter (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lquilter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete and close. I started looking at the included articles. For the ones I looked at UNESCO is not mentioned and where FSE is, it is either a reference or a passing comment so the category should not apply to those articles. I could have continued to update manually, but simply delete and let the bot do the work. As used, from what I saw this category, this category is ambiguous not completely not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 16:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lake Worth, Florida ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category has two mainspace members, Lake Worth, Florida and Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church (Lake Worth). The latter is currently nominated for AfD as a WP:COATRACK. (See below) -- Donald Albury 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Brand new category. Large city in Palm Beach county. See the big picture here. This is a no-brainer despite the possibility of a disappearing church. No city in Palm Beach county has it's own category for reasons that are not known. As a result, all article defined have categories that are too far-reaching, such as "schools in Florida" or "Baptist churches in the south." Need local collectors to narrow these selections down early so they won't have to be changed later. Having said that, it's defining category may need to be changed to "Cities in Palm Beach County." Student7 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Lake Worth, Florida. Being brand new is not in and of itself a reason to delete. However, a near empty category that does not have obvious articles that can be added is. I did some digging and found additional articles that could be included. Based on that I think a rename is the better choice. The radio station can be upmerged to the county cat and everything else should be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough there to support a cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there is no fixed number of articles needed for a category, 910 seems to be sufficient. Especially when my suggested rename would make it part of a series. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the nominator here, I now support keeping this category. Ten articles is a lot better than the two (one of which has since been deleted) that were in the category when I nominated it. -- Donald Albury 17:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to drag this out. I created the structure sub cat so no need to consider a rename making this a keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will also add that if you still think there are too few entries, consider adding the Category:People from Lake Worth, Florida category. When I was doing the structure cat I believe I saw a ton of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for sufficient content. Doczilla (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Tata to Category:Tata Group

Nominator's rationale: Merge. To match the main article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Sting_au Talk 23:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom at is makes more sense to have it with the appropriate/amtching name--JForget 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merging is ok, but not everything in Category:Tata belongs in Category:Tata Group. Tata Group is a company (or group of affiliated companies) and is not appropriate for current Tata subgroups Category:Tata institutions and Category:Tata family, and maybe not Category:Tata vehicles and Category:Taj Hotels, Resorts and Palaces. That doesn't leave much to merge. Appropriate handling for those needs to be determined. Also, Category:Tata Group currently belongs only to Category:Tata so Cat:Group needs a new parent. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Category:Tata Group has a new parent so a deletion of Category:Tata will not create an orphan. Category:Tata vehicles and Category:Taj Hotels, Resorts and Palaces have main articles that list the owner as Tata Group so moving them under Category:Tata Group seems to clearly be a correct move. Category:Tata institutions and Category:Tata family may not have belonged in Category:Tata and I have updated those categories. In the case of the former, it looks like someone included this since one entry in the child category had something to do with Tata. As for the latter, it is for the name only and the other existing categories better cover the family. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is now is which is rather different from before as I got so confused looking at them I have rearranged. The Taj hotels are a 100% subsidiary so should be under the group as they now are, also the vehicles. The whole thing should be linked & if we have a category called Tata it should include the family and the institutions, of wehich I think there are many more. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually after dropping articles that were included in other categories, Category:Tata is now a container for things with the Tata name. I'm not sure if this is, or is not needed. Also Category:Tata now lists the parent cat as Category:Categories named after companies and it is not a company so if kept, a new parent would need to be found. I wonder now if deleting Category:Tata would be appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is needed, though new categories should be found. I'll see what I can add —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 10:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. After moving the people who work for the group into that category, Category:Tata now has three subcats that have the name in common. Is this sufficient reason to keep the category? While a merge may still be OK, maybe a delete is now the better choice? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category has developed since originally nominated. The members of the Tata family own the group (of companies). They are not part of it. Similarly institutions, presumably endowed by the family, are not part of the group. This category should remain as a category of categories, probably without articels of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WelcomeBotResearch to Category:WelcomeResearch

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As discussed here this category name gives the false impression to users (me included)that welcome messages are being left by bots. In fact, the category is only being "used" (is it being used??) for research about welcoming, some of which could conceivably be bot-operated in the future. A consensus was evolving at the category talk page as I've just linked to rename, but no further action was taken hence my bringing it here. kingboyk (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I see your reasoning, but I don't like the proposed name either, because I don't think it is accurate either. I cannot think of any better ones right now though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as user talk pages shouldn't be polluted with this; any name is bound to be confusing. Unclear that this is being used or is useful at all, considering the need to taken into account users who aren't welcomed. –Pomte 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This looks like a wikiproject masquerading as a category. In any case it does not belong in the main category space. Vegaswikian (talk)
• Strong Delete. I suspect I would have left if I had gotten one of those on my page one of my first days here. This seems like some Gestapo - thing. Stop this, please! If you do want this research, don't tell the users, at least... ;-) Greswik (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space Prophets albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Album category for a non-notable band. Only one entry in category, and unlikely to be expanded. Lankiveil (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until the AFDs close - if the article is retained the category is required per Category:Albums by artist. If it's deleted then just tag the category as empty. Otto4711 (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete underpopulated category regardless of the nn issue. Doczilla (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Album Oriented Rock radio stations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This sub-cat of Category:Rock radio stations was, after much work, up to four whole articles. As below, per some discussion at WT:WPRS, those articles have been relocated to the more useful Category:Rock radio stations in the United States (since all four were about US stations). 08:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete awkwardly named, probably subjective, and incorrectly capitalized category. Doczilla (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete radio stations' repetoires change over time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alternative radio stations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This sub-cat of Category:Rock radio stations was, after much work, up to three whole articles. Per some discussion at WT:WPRS, those articles have been relocated to the more useful Category:Rock radio stations in the United States (since all three were about US stations). 08:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; and alternative to what? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bisexual American actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'd like to rename this to Category:Bisexual actors from the United States. Currently almost all the occupation categories under the Category:LGBT people by occupation hierarchy are "LGBT widget makers from the United States", so this one stands out :) SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bands with gay/bisexual members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary intersection, likely WP:BLP nightmare. Existence of such categories is precluded by Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Sexuality. MER-C 04:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but not for the nominator's reason. Intersections like this aren't forbidden, it just has to be notable. We already have Category:LGBT musicians, so this category is somewhat redundant. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for non-notable intersection. Doczilla (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 19:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Dakota State Treasurers should be renamed Category:State treasurers of North Dakota to conform with the standard used in all other similarily-named categories. See Category:State treasurers of the United States for examples of what I am talking about. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency. Snocrates 05:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Doczilla (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if the official title is "State Treasurer" then the name should be capitalized in the cat, i.e.: Category:State Treasurers of North Dakota. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, In response to User:Carlossuarez46's comment, the reason the the first letter in "treasurer" is not capitalized in my renaming proposal is because I followed the standard established in the naming of all other similarly-named categories. If he wants to rename this category with the first letter in "treasurer" capitalized, then we would have to rename all other similarly-named categories which can be found in Category:State treasurers of the United States, which is wiki-linked in my previous comments on this discussion. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response which would be appropriate in cases where the state's office is "State Treasurer" (I note for North Dakota, the article list has a capitalized "T", which again could be a mistake, but it seems consistent with the state government's own web site: here). Some "State treasurers" actually have some title other than state treasurer, if I recall from some prior discussion on this or a similar cat, so lower case is appropriate for them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Mathematical and Computational Biology articles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete apparently not an official WikiProject, until it is, if ever, categorization shouldn't occur. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 4 people have signed onto User:Hendrik Fuß/WikiProject Mathematical and Computational Biology. If those people are interested in running it, it should probably become a task force of say WikiProject Biology, in which case a rename is in order. –Pomte 07:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, until this exists as an official WikiProject or Task Force. Terraxos (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:West German sopranos ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for the one article so categorized, it's also in the Category:German sopranos. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom.--Jerrch 19:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Web 3.0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for the one article so categorized, and a bit subjective at this juncture. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vice Presidents of the Russian Federation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete The Russian federation only had one veep, there is currently no such office so this is a classic small category with limited potential for growth. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - This is an orphan category. I would suggest that the "acting presidents" category should also go, both being merged to some subcategory of Russian politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and make it a subcategory of Category:Vice presidents, where it could then be kept per WP:OCAT#SMALL. It is clearly defining for the included individual. Snocrates 12:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge orphaned category. Doczilla (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unsraw video releases ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed for one video. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.