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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy merge C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Albums produced by Frank Wilson to Category:Albums produced by Frank Wilson (musician)

Nominator's rationale: Per Frank Wilson/Frank Wilson (musician) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2011 (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/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Foreign-language newspapers published in Moldova to Category:Newspapers published in Moldova and to Category:Moldovan culture by ethnicity

Propose deleting Category:Foreign-language media in Moldova

Propose deleting Category:Ethnic press in Moldova

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The intermediate categories are otherwise unpopulated and unnecessary, as they do not form part of any alternative hierarchies. Fayenatic (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It appears that the nominated categories were set up as a Moldovan copy of the structure seen at Category:Foreign-language media in the United States and Category:Ethnic press in the United States, but the whole structure is not needed as there are fewer child categories in the Moldovan press. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish film producers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete I have no particular axe to grind; in fact, I'd be happy to see this kept. But we have virtually unpopulated category that would seem to fly in the face of the deletion of Category:Jewish directors here, and I would just like to see some consistency, either way. The directors cat, by the way, had been recreated a short while ago and I'd spent/wasted quite a bit of time adding it to bio articles before it was speedily deleted as a repost. This is why I raise this nom, now, so someone else doesn't invest time populating the category only to see it summarily deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely no rational reason to delete category. Whoever deleted "Jewish directors" had no reason to do it either. They claimed it was because it was a religious category, but "Jewish" in this case means ethnic descent. The categories are necessary because Jews have been a stateless people for a long time, so most of them will not fit under the "Israeli" categories. There are a lot of Jewish categories on Wikipedia, some of which have hundreds of people in them. If you are going to delete this one, then you can use the same argument to delete the rest of them. Here are some examples:

• Jewish activists
• Jewish actors
• Jewish architects
• Jewish artists
• Jewish astronauts
• Jewish chess players
• Jewish comedians
• Jewish composers and songwriters
• Jewish educators
• Jewish entertainers
• Jewish explorers
• Jewish fashion designers
• Jewish historians
• Jewish inventors
• Jewish models
• Jewish musicians
• Jewish orientalists
• Jewish philanthropists
• Jewish philosophers
• Jewish physicians
• Jewish poets
• Jewish politicians
• Jewish psychiatrists
• Jewish scholars
• Jewish scientists
• Jewish singers
• Jewish sportspeople
• Jewish writers

--Sanya3 (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC) *— Note to closing admin: Sanya3 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the film directors category was deleted, I can't see a good justification to keep one for film producers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the reasons offered. This is really a trivial intersection. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Neo-Venetian Gothic buildings to Category:Venetian Gothic buildings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the main article, Venetian Gothic architecture. Not sure about the subcategory, Category:Neo-Venetian Gothic buildings in the United States But based on the talk page for the main article, it might be better renamed to Category:High Victorian Gothic buildings in the United States if this rename happens. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Denver Area Choruses to Category:Choirs in Colorado

Nominator's rationale: Rename There are a couple of problems with the current name. The first is that it should use the term choir in order to match Category:Choirs and Category:American choirs. The second is that the category contains a chorus based in Boulder which is not in the Denver metropolitan area. The Colorado-wide scope seems like a good alternative since it would still contain only four articles. Pichpich (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volcanoes of Zimbabwe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are no volcanoes in Zimbabwe. There was vulcanism back in the Mesozoic and before, but no landforms exist that are volcanoes Babakathy (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unused category. Note to Babakathy: given that the category is empty you can use the {{db-empty}} template to skip the deletion process for categories such as this one. jonkerz♠ 11:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Not empty anylonger. jonkerz♠ 20:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Restored Murowa diamond mine to the category. All kimberlite pipes (from which most diamonds are mined) are long-extinct diatremes, which are a form of volcano. As long as the pipe still exists as a structure, it remains classified a volcano even if it has been extinct for billions of years. This is a basic concept of volcanology. If this category is removed, it will be restored. I have brought this matter to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Kimberlite pipes are volcanoes. Volcanoguy 16:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mine is not a volcano. If these kimberlite pipes are correctly classified as a volcano, then that article should be written or a redirect created at say Murowa kimberlite pipes unless a formal name for the pipes or diatreme exists. The category can then be moved to the redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said a mine is a volcano. According to The Atlas of Canada "kimberlites are emplaced by a gaseous explosion. Within the magma, a large amount of dissolved gas is present under great pressure. A few kilometers below the surface, these gases expand as they approach the surface, causing explosions. Those explosions generate a very rapid acent of the magma through the mantle. The speed increases near the surface and can reach several hundred kilometres per hour. As the magma penetrates crustal rock, the pipe widens to a conical shape, and becomes a kimberlite pipe." Furthermore, "as the kimberlite magma approches the earth's surface, an explosive reaction takes place between groundwater, the molten kimberlite, and dissolved gases in the kimberlite. An explosive volcanic eruption follows, resulting in the formation of a kimberlite pipe or vent." It isn't always necessary to create separate articles. Volcanoguy 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be that as it may, part of the problem here is that this article probably does not belong in that category and that leaves the category empty and it should then be deleted. However if a redirect for the structure is created, then the category can be placed there and there would be no reason to then delete the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are interested in the consensus process, you can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes. Thus far, there has been solid consensus to classify kimberlite mines among diatremes out of sufficient geological interest for each including one or more kimberlite pipes. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's a well-established precedent for classifying mines as diatremes (when relevant of course). Examples include Sullivan Mine, Diavik Diamond Mine, Victor Diamond Mine, Kelsey Lake Diamond Mine, Mir mine, Jagersfontein Mine. The fact that, say, Murowa kimberlite pipes is not sufficiently in use to warrant a redirect does not change the fact that it's natural to classify a place with this well-known geological structure as a volcano. Callander Bay is another example where the categorization of a bay as a volcano is superficially odd but in fact makes perfect sense in terms of carrying relevant information for Wikipedia readers. Pichpich (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Yes, mines are not volcanoes, but categorisation doesn't have to be that literal. --Avenue (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or alternatively rename it Category:Volcanism of Zimbabwe. That's arguably more correct, but I don't have a strong preference either way. --Avenue (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see the need of creating or renaming this to Category:Volcanism of Zimbabwe. It is quite obvious that kimberlite pipes form the subterranean part of kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes. Volcanoguy 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if consensus at WP:volcanoes is all product of volcanism are classified as volcanoes, then Murowa stays in the category and the category is not empty. Babakathy (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion over at WP:volcanoes, I have also added another page to the cat. Babakathy (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2011 (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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 11#Category:20th century in Boston, Massachusetts. — ξ^xplicit 00:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th century in Boston, Massachusetts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category appears to have been created to match one on commons. Basically this category is so broad as to be useless. It can include anything that happened in the city over that 100 years. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is not the only category like this, there are several others, so this will test the waters and see where consensus is on this category structure. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Don't see such a category tree as necessary Mayumashu (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep contains 36 articles so the nominator's concerns seem rather weak. Tim! (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All-American City Award ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to be unnecessary, since all it includes is the article, the template, and an image. If kept, needs to be renamed to Category:All-America City Award to match the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The category contains only one mainspace page and can't be expanded further. jonkerz♠ 07:00, 2 September 2011 (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.