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 all. — ξ^xplicit 06:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

2-article categories

• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1932 to Category:United States presidential election, 1932
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1936 to Category:United States presidential election, 1936
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1940 to Category:United States presidential election, 1940
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1944 to Category:United States presidential election, 1944
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1948 to Category:United States presidential election, 1948
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1952 to Category:United States presidential election, 1952
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1956 to Category:United States presidential election, 1956
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1960 to Category:United States presidential election, 1960
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1964 to Category:United States presidential election, 1964
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1972 to Category:United States presidential election, 1972
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1976 to Category:United States presidential election, 1976
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1980 to Category:United States presidential election, 1980
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1984 to Category:United States presidential election, 1984
• Category:United States presidential conventions, 1988 to Category:United States presidential election, 1988
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1992 to Category:United States presidential election, 1992
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1996 to Category:United States presidential election, 1996

4-article categories

• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 1968 to Category:United States presidential election, 1968
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 2000 to Category:United States presidential election, 2000

Categories with sub-cats

• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 2004 to Category:United States presidential election, 2004
• Category:United States presidential nominating conventions, 2008 to Category:United States presidential election, 2008

Nominator's rationale:: Merge per WP:OC#SMALL: small categories with little or no scope for expansion. Most of these categories will never contain more than two article: one each on the Democratic and Republican conventions.
I have separated the categories into labelled groups according to size, so that editors participating in the discussion can more easily refer to a group of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you finish listing all these, these should just be upmerged to Category:United States presidential election, 1976, etc. They are already grouped in Category:United States presidential nominating conventions by political party, and so also dumping them in the base conventions category would just create an unnecessary mess. Feel free to remove this note either way when you complete your nom and I'll comment on the finished work. postdlf (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I had goofed the first one, but have done all the others as you suggest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, and delete the then-empty Category:United States presidential nominating conventions by year. This is as clear a case of "avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members" as you can get. And thanks to the nominator for doing the CfD grunt work on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominated. Having them in the by-year elections categories and the by-party conventions categories makes sense; this—not so much. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 4 or more, but merge less than that.--Levineps (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merges to more productively group such articles around those of the election itself. Alansohn (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. The convention categories are otherwise well organized, and the election categories are far from overpopulated. Which leaves this as unnecessary and a navigational hindrance. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per postdlf. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- These are small categories that will hardly be out of place in the (broader) target. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:12, 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.

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) 11:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American fashion photographers to Category:Fashion photographers and Category:American photographers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, as overly-specific subcategory, currently the only nationality-specific subcategory of Category:Fashion photographers, and the only specialization-specific subcategory of Category:American photographers (except for the arguably different erotic photographers category). As Richard Avedon, the one article currently in this category illustrates, many (if not most) notable photographers do not work in only one genre or industry. Linking nationality with specialization then wrongly implies that people like Avedon are only photographers in fashion, or other such discrete fields, because there is no way to properly categorize every subject matter or field in which they worked. And it hinders navigation by removing a vertical structure; photographers presently can be found through either a selection of global genre/industry subcategories, or through nationality subcategories. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nominator. As well as sharing Postdlf's concerns, I would also add that the fashion business is international, and it is very common for those involved in it to work in different countries from wherever they are based, and also to move from country to country as their careers progress. Intersections do not always make good categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom and BHG. Essentially a triple intersection, which is often a warning bell if nothing else—this is slicing the salami too thinly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per all above. Debresser (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate. A useful way of reducing the clutter in the two parent categories. By and large notable fashion photographers are not notable for anything else (Avedon being an exception). Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irving Penn. I'm sure we can find others if we really try. postdlf (talk) 08:17, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at CfD 2010-01-07. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Zeebo games to Category:Zeebo-only games

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Xbox 360-only games and Category:PlayStation 3-only games –xeno^talk 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Category:Xbox 360-only games is a subcat of Category:Xbox 360 games, so Category:Zeebo games seems to me to be an equivalent of Category:Xbox 360 games. I don't see anything to indicate that Category:Zeebo games consists only of games solely for the Zeebo. --BrownHairedGirl (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.

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 into Category:American sportswriters and Category:American columnists. Jafeluv (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American sports columnists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Whatever is done with Category:American political columnists, the same should be done with this one. I can't say anything here that Good Olfactory didn't say on the other nom. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:American sportswriters and Category:American columnists, for most of the reasons discussed at the debate below on American political columnists. Very few people get to be columnists without also doing other writing (usually reporting), so this intersection category creates an unhelpful split in the American sportswriters category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to categories mentioned by BHG per comments here and comments in the political one. Same sort of situation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 29 December 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's only editors endorse deletion. postdlf (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Physics redirect to Category:Physics redirects

Nominator's rationale: At the very least, this ought to be plural; also it seems like almost all categories containing redirects start with "Redirects...", so there might be a better title than that. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, this category might not ought to exist at all, which is why I listed it here and not as a speedy. I can't see many times we've categorized redirects by subject matter. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Renaming makes sense. I am all for renaming this category. Also, there a number of redirects, which are physics topics and physics related that I can add this to this category, not just new redirects. Thanks for your interest. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Redirect-Class physics articles 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There we go! I was looking under the "Redirects from..." tree, which is why I couldn't find any good places to put this. However, that category is put on talk pages, and this one was put on articles, so maybe just deleting this one would be better? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. I see no benefit to readers of categorising redirects in this way. Why would a reader want to find a redirect?
  Category:Redirect-Class physics articles allows the Physics wikiproject to track redirects for maintenance purposes, which is fine ... but as Bradjamesbrown notes, it is applied to talk pages, so mergeing the two will have undesirable results. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was supposed to be a way of categorizing physics redirects in a quick fashion. There was no intent for a reader to look up a redirect page. However, I also use the redirect template on the talk page for Category:Redirect-Class physics articles. So what I have attempted to do is apparently duplication. This category, as it stands, and any similar category reallly does not work and does not fit with Wikiproject physics. So I, as the author of this category, also reccomend delete. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 14:03, 1 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.

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 into Category:Rajya Sabha members. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Rajya Sabha members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge into Category:Rajya Sabha members. We don't differentiate between current and former parliamentarians, once a parliamentarian always a parliamentarian. Soman (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator and numerous precedent. Debresser (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all three as unhelpful to users, and per continuing discussion at Former Members of Parliament of Sri Lanka. It is very likely that a user will wish to use the category tree to identify current members of this or any other legislature. --Sussexonian (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per nom. Categories should be timeless, and there's a boatload of precedent for not categorizing current/past politicians in this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has quoted any policy to this effect. To remove a useful distinction by merging two categories is unhelpful to users and only theoretically helpful to editors. --Sussexonian (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be "policy". Longstanding consensus and practice has virtually the same effect. It is certainly helpful to users who expect categories to be timeless, as they typically are. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Olfactory for the link to a long list of previous former/current discussions. Although mostly they are somewhat different to the parliamentarian case, I can see that most of the time the decision has been to merge. An unhelpful practice but seemingly a regular one in these parts. Sussexonian (talk) 00:08, 6 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Members of Parliament from Tamil Nadu ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge into Category:Members of Parliament from Tamil Nadu. We don't differentiate between current and former parliamentarians, once a parliamentarian always a parliamentarian. Soman (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator and numerous precedent. Debresser (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per nom. Categories should be timeless, and there's a boatload of precedent for not categorizing current/past politicians in this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging per some unquoted precedent, and instead create "Current members" as a subcat of "Members". "Once a politician always a politician" (or actor, businessman etc) is a good rule of thumb, but in this case the list of members is precisely known, so there should be no difficulty in defining the category of current members, which is what users are likely to want and expect from the present title. --Sussexonian (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- We never categorise "current" and "former". The best solution for curretn members is a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Members of Parliament from Maharashtra ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge into Category:Members of Parliament from Maharashtra. We don't differentiate between current and former parliamentarians, once a parliamentarian always a parliamentarian. Soman (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator and numerous precedent. Debresser (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per nom. Categories should be timeless, and there's a boatload of precedent for not categorizing current/past politicians in this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging per some unquoted precedent, and instead create "Current members" as a subcat of "Members". "Once a politician always a politician" (or actor, businessman etc) is a good rule of thumb, but in this case the list of members is precisely known, so there should be no difficulty in defining the category of current members, which is what users are likely to want and expect from the present title. --Sussexonian (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- By long precedent, we never categorise "current" and "former". The best solution for current members is a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 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.

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: Speedied Debresser (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sabaothic Cherubim albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The band's AfD discussion was closed with "delete." None of the albums are independently notable, so all have been PRODed. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 07:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That was generous. After that AFD, all the songs and album articles should be A9 speedied, since the artist's page no longer exists, and there's no significance to the albums. A9 the articles, and then let's C1 this category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I sent all the articles in this category up for A9, and all have been deleted. This category can be C1'ed in four days time. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:06, 29 December 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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American political columnists to Category:American political writers and Category:American columnists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, many columnists are political columnists, but most political writers do not only write columns. As is clear from how this category has been applied, this unnecessary merger of the two ignores (or is unaware) that the individuals included are (regrettably) political writers in other ways. It's not always a good idea to make categories more and more specific. postdlf (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom. I tried to explain this to User:Levineps a little while back, that just because B is a subcategory of A doesn't necessarily mean that C is overcategorized if it is in both B and A. This is one of those instances where combining A and B into D just doesn't work if we remove C from A and B and put it in D. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and WP:OC#NARROW, and per Good Ol’factory's v clear explanation of the wider problem with overly-specific intersections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if we remove the the political writers one? If your a columnists, your still a columnist.--Levineps (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, you can be a political columnist and still be a political writer of non-column material (books, blogs, etc.). Thus, it's not necessarily correct to remove a person from the political writers category and place them in a political columnists subcategory, as was done here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you can write a political column in one place and a non-political column elsewhere (I can think of several examples in the UK), or you can write a more wide-ranging column which is sometimes political and sometimes literary/cultural (see e.g. Fintan O'Toole). Not all people can be fitted neatly into a single square box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maureen Dowd is also a good example of that; while she primarily writes about politics and politicians, her columns also often focus on broader social/cultural commentary and pop culture figures. She's also published several books (e.g., Bushworld), so she is not just a political writer in columns. Incidentally, I don't see a good reason why she was removed from Category:American journalists by the category creator in a separate edit, unless he also thought her political columns were the sum total of her journalism, which her article makes clear is not the case as early as its intro paragraph. If you don't know anything about the article's subject matter, then you shouldn't be changing its categorization. postdlf (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note also that there is no Category:Political columnists. The only subject-area divisions of Category:Columnists are for gossip, advice, and sex columnists. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 1 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 06:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:New York City lawyers to Category:New York lawyers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT by overly-specific location. American lawyers are licensed at the state level. Currently only one article in this sole lawyers-by-city category. postdlf (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom. American lawyers should absolutely be categorized by level of licensing, and not more specific. Am I the only one thinking many of User:Levineps's category creations are ill-considered? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. It makes sense to categorise lawyers by the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice law, but sub-dividing by location within a state splits the categories by a characteristic not relevant to the practice of law.
  An I agree with Good Olfactory: the list of category edits by Levineps seems to me to consist overwhelmingly of categories which would be deleted at CFD. This is almost like Pastorwaynery. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge It's WP:OCAT to have a separate category for five counties in New York State with no distinction whatsoever in the practice and licensing of lawyers. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will also be unclear with a category such as this whether it is for lawyers who live in NYC, or lawyers who practice law there. No doubt there are many lawyers whose practices are not in the same county as their residence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or whose practice and residence might even be on different sides of the Hudson River ;) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, now. No need to be Jerseyist. ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 30 December 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. — ξ^xplicit 06:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Treen to Category:Treen (wooden)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Treen (wooden). Treen is ambiguous, and is the name of several places. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match head article Treen (wooden) and avoid ambiguity in category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match full title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REname per nom. Treen or Treenware is an obsolete term, and hence obscure. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 06:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wars Named After How Long They Lasted ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of unrelated subjects by shared naming feature. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. It's interesting, though; would it be any use as a list? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as categorisation by name. It might be acceptable as a list, though even a list would cause concerns about trivia (see e.g. the essay Overlistification). However, if you can find suitable scholarly sources discussing the naming of wars by duration, and could thereby demonstrate that it was not just trivia, I reckon it would survive an AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See Years' War, now updated. It works as a disambiguation page, or maybe as a pair of them. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 13:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure that it makes a valid dab page, but if to be a dab, then it needs to be tidied up per WP:MOSDAB. Disambiguation pages need to follow a very precisely-defined format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'm not sure about that as a DAB page either. Would anyone ever type in or otherwise end up at Years' War? It's not quite a typical DAB page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what standards there are for a disambiguation page, but since someone already created it, it seems the issue can be brought up on some other type of deletion page. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it's obviously beyond the scope of what we can achieve here, but it's worth noting for maybe some future action. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the category. I'm not sure about the disamb page, but that's AfD, not here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category, support the disam page, which is I expect very useful for the numerically amnestiac. It would be better if it added the main participants. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is hardly useful as a search tool. If there are two "Nine Years War"s, there will be a dab page to sort them out. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:19, 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.

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. No sense in continuing the pile-on, when the creator has already apologized. postdlf (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guys who used to have long hair ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Male athletes who used to have long hair ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. (I want these to be a joke.) This is categorization by trivial and transitory feature of physical appearance; not to mention that the length of hair to qualify as "long" would be either subjectively determined or arbitrarily set. Can I add Samson? He's missing and hell, he should be the main article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category creator did add Samson; he was reverted very quickly. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samson's hair grew back before he died (in fact, its return enabled the manner of his death).- choster (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both for all the reasons set out by the nominator. This is trivial per WP:OC#TRIVIA, and it has to be either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE or WP:OC#ARBITRARY. If it's a joke, it's not exactly side-splitting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I clicked on the second one intending to send it here myself. BrownHairedGirl lays out three reasons to delete this- all valid. If this is a joke, it's the kind only the teller thinks is funny. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would have been funny if back hair were taken into consideration.- choster (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am sorry for my unfunny actions.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as joke categories. --John (talk) 22:04, 29 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Nuclear power operators in the United States to Category:Nuclear power companies in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate, unless someone can detect some distinction between these two categories which is worth preserving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I can see a possible use. Nuclear power operators may be private companies or public (government) utilities and public utilities are not considered companies and do not fit into 'company' category trees. Reverse the parent/category structure so Category:Nuclear power operators in the United States is the parent (with public utilities directly in it) and Category:Nuclear power companies in the United States child (with private companies in it). Each category can then fit into its proper category tree. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would mean that a public corporation like Nebraska Public Power District is not a company. I think we need to understand the terminology being used in that article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • public corporation redirects to Public company, which Nebraska Public Power District is not. Nebraska Public Power District is an arm of the Nebraska state government--it is not investor owned. The langauge in the Nebraska Public Power District that says it is a 'public corporation' (not wikified) must surely be wrong and and it is misleading. Hmains (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. Difference between "operators" and "companies" notwithstanding. Debresser (talk) 06:55, 1 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.

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 (was still empty at close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ronin Warriors characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete The category is no longer populated due to all characters being merged into List of Ronin Warriors characters. None of the characters appear to meet the notibility Notability guidelines. Therefore, this category is obsolete. ~ Hibana 03:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cat no more in use. I also concur with the needed articles mere into a characters list. --KrebMarkt 07:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a category of non-notable, or Speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why not let WP:CSD#C1 take it's natural course? —Farix (t | c) 18:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (t | c) 18:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper nominator. Debresser (talk) 06:54, 1 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.

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 to Category:Products by manufacturer. — ξ^xplicit 06:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Categories by manufacturer to Category:Items by manufacturer

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not sure what best to call this category, any suggestions? Further, is this a helpful addition to the category tree, or just redundant? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Products by manufacturer, as products is what manufacturers surely create. Hmains (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Hmains. Debresser (talk) 06:54, 1 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.

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) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electricity finance experts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename or Merge to something. We do not have a Category:Experts.
If kept, it needs some parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hopelessly POV who is "expert". Debresser (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Electricity Finance? What the heck? Delete as hopelessly POV. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mischievous idle thought: maybe it could be merged to Category:Enron ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oooh, evil! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The presetn content is two Indian academics, apparently engaged in research into financing the electricity industry. This is too narrow a field to warrant a category. Already appropriately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 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.

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 all. — ξ^xplicit 06:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters created by Al Milgrom ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Characters created by Bill Mantlo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Characters created by Sal Buscema ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. There are many ways of categorising fictional characters under Category:Fictional characters, and I see no need for another. If desired, a list could readily be created in the article on each of the creators, but I think that there is a conceptual flaw in the category. Whilst characters in novels will usually have a single creator, these characters all seem to be from comic books, where there is commonly more than one artist involved, and others may develop on a start by someone else. An example of this is Rocket Raccoon, which is included in Category:Characters created by Al Milgrom even though Rocket_Raccoon#Publication_history says that Milgrom did not draw the character until the third issue. Similar problems occur with characters in television or film, where the writing is often a collaborative process.
When I found these categories, they were unparented, so I placed them in Category:Fictional characters. If kept, a more appropriate category structure will be needed, possibly separating out characters by creator in different mediums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these three singled out when there are many other similar categories?--Marcus Brute (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply because I found these three categories in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, since their creator had neglected to add parent categories for them. It would have helped if they had been categorised correctly in the first place, but I am pleased to see that you have now categorised them in Category:Comics_characters_by_creator. However, the I am still concerned that the problem I identified with these categories still stand, so treat this as a sample nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as part of a established category structure (pattern). Grouping fictional characters by their creator seems reasonable and of encyclopedic interest. Hmains (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As both Hmains and Marcus point out, this is part of a wider categorization scheme. And it is one that is in line with normal comics attribution - characters creation is ascribed to the the writer and penciller, at the least, of the story where the character is introduced. That others have used the character, even if those stories "stick", is irrelevant. As for the the Rocket Raccoon example... that seems more a case of miscategorization. - J Greb (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to group such articles by their defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have flagged a number of "comics characters created by.." problems with Marcus Brute before [1] and would recommend these not be created until there are at least a dozen articles that could fit in there as in this specific area we have had uncategorised categories, nearly empty categories and a lot of redlinked categories getting created, which is unwise. Clearly Jack Kirby, Stan Lee's characters are legion and worthy of categorisation but there does seem to be rapidly diminishing returns to spread this idea too far as it leads to weak and only vaguely relevant categories. (Emperor (talk) 03:31, 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.

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) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Capestang ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Two-article category with for a commune in rural France, with no sign of any possibilities for expansion. Both articles are already adequately categorised, so no need for merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. There's no need for categorization since these two articles are the only ones that come up when you write "Capestang" in the search field. - Duribald (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as already interlinked. Also, we don't need categories for every inhabited place with ~3,000 residents! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. It seems to me that the issue is not the number of inhabitants, but the number of articles on notable things therein which need to be categorised. If Capestang had a few notable buildings, an article on a historic battle, a notable sport team or two, and a few notable citizens, then a category would well-justified even if it only had had only 300 inhabitants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but this appears to be a fairly unremarkable small town. The places that small that would have more than one of the things on your list are very rare indeed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, Brad. Sorry for being a snippy pedant. --22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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.