Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 5

< March 4	March 6 >

March 5

Category:1972 in international law

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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1972 in international law to Category:1972 in law

Nominator's rationale: Merge. One off category not part of a larger scheme and as there is now a Category:Treaties by year it would not seem to have potential for growth. Tim! (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. There definitely aren't enough articles at present to justify it, so right now it just fragments an already small category, particularly given that treaties already have a -by year category scheme. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; the "YEAR in law" categories have not usually been broken down this way. Eventually, Category:1972 in international relations may be appropriate as a subcategory of Category:20th century in international relations, but the articles would also appear in Category:1972 in law. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 6 March 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.

Category:Images with wrong extensions

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 delete by request of category creator WP:CSD#G7. (self-close by nominator). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to be is intended as a form of maintenance category, and in principle it seems like a good idea ... although I have no idea how practical it is to expect editors to tag images in this way. That's probably a job for a bot, but is any such bot at work or being developed?
In any case this category is currently empty except for the unused template {{Wrongmime}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by userreq. Well, theres no bot for it, but a toolserver script which finds such images [(script here)]. The script has obsoleted it, so you can delete it by userreq. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 15:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Manishearth, for the prompt response and explanation. I'll self-close this discussion and speedy-delete the category per WP:CSD#G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 5 March 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.

Category:Shades of silver

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It seems a bit pointless to have a category which could contain only one article (i.e. pale silver). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 2 articles, Silver and Pale silver + a template (with the same 2). (Silver describes itself as gray, so everything could be subsumed into Category:Shades of gray.) Occuli (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There is only one article: Silver (color). The other is a redirect. Support merger to Category:Shades of gray. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't really aid navigation if there's only one article. I've nominated the template for deletion as well, since it suffers from the same problem. There isn't really anything to merge since silver (color) is already included in Category:Shades of gray. Jafeluv (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not perturbed by a category populated by only one member, where there is a family of categories of the same type. A reader familiar with the color categorization may be reading Silver and want to know if there are any other articles in that category, to read them if they exist. Having the category imparts information, that there is only one such article on Wikipedia. (I agree the corresponding navigational template should go, because that provides no navigational value and imparts no information beyond that already in the article.)TJRC (talk) 22:15, 12 March 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.

Category:Ebook sources

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Ebook sources to Category:Ebook suppliers. --Xdamr^talk 15:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ebook sources to Category:Ebook retailers

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify the category's purposes. When I found this in uncategorized categories, I thought that it probably referred to the use of ebooks for references in wikipedia articles. Note that I added Category:Bookstores as a parent category, but I think it may also need to be categorised under some sort of electronic-data-retailers category, if anyone knows of an appropriate one. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against: I agree that the existing category name is a bit ugly and that a nicer name would be an improvement, but many places that people and businesses can get ebooks from aren't retailers. Google Books isn't a retailer, and neither are notable sources like Wikibooks and the Gutenberg project – they don't retail, they give the things away. And I'm not sure how you'd categorise Scribd. Another entry is Lightning Source: LS are a notable print-on-demand distributor that have a retailing system that allows vendor sites to sell protected PDF books, but LS themselves aren't a retailer. They're a notable supplier and distributor with a retail solution (and if you're a university press, they can provide the "back end" for your site), but they don't actually front a retail site themselves.

As well as ebook suppliers that aren't retailers because they aren't involved in commerce, there are also ebook suppliers that aren't (currently) retailers, because their business is aggregating content from many small publishers and then making it available to ebook stores. The larger ebook stores tend not to be interested in dealing with small non-US publishers, so if you're a UK publisher and you want to sell through the Sony Reader store, you probably need to be dealing with an aggregator like Smashwords instead. There's also a Scandinavian company (whose name I forget) that supplies free ebook textbooks supported by advertising - they're "notable" ebook suppliers because of the unusual business model, but they aren't technically doing retail.

And, in a little while, we expect a number of library projects to be coming online that'll implement ebook lending systems, and those're going to need to be included in an umbrella category for "notable places that people and businesses can get ebooks from", but they're not technically "free book" download sites, or distributors, or publishers, or retailers, or aggregators.

So I think that we need some sort of sufficiently-vague Wikipedia category that might fit any organisations that are notable sources of ebook content, not just retailers. ErkDemon (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How about taking a phrase you used above, and renaming to Category:Ebook suppliers? I think that it is sufficiently inclusive, and it removes any confusion with "sources as in reliable sources". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 7 March 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.

Category:Pyrazolodiazepine

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:Pyrazolodiazepine to Category:Pyrazolodiazepines. --Xdamr^talk 16:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The two drugs in this category are already in Category:Benzodiazepines, and since there is no head article pyrazolodiazepine it doesn't seem to me to need a category. However, I know little about phamacology, so I will notify WikiProject Pharmacology ... and will happily change my !vote if the good people there tell me that this is an appropriate grouping. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications. WikiProject Pharmacology has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against I made this category in order to categorize all the drugs without respect to the pharmacological use. Thanks for your opinion but please donot delete it. --حسن علي البط 14:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what would be achieved classifying drugs without respect to the pharmacological use, but hopefully you can explain. However, isn't Pyrazolodiazepine a pharmacological term? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Pyrazolodiazepines. حسن علي البط is referring to the fact that these two drugs are not benzodiazepines (and so this category shouln't be a subcat of Category:Benzodiazepines, by the way). I removed the benzodiazepine category from the drug articles. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge to Category:Pyrazolodiazepines sounds like a good solution. I wasn't aware of that category, but this one is an obvious duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peace on who follows the right. I am so sorry, I didnot distinguish between the category:Pyrazolodiazepine and category:Pyrazolodiazepines. You are right the first one should be merged into the second. Thanks alot.--حسن علي البط 06:30, 7 March 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.

Category:Wikipedians for IAR

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Wikipedian categories exist only to facilitate collaboration between editors, but the purpose of this one is the opposite: to create factions. There are numerous precedents for the deletion of factionalising categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All "Wikipedians For" and "Wikipedians Against" categories are factional and lend themselves to the potential of organized POV editing. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. category only serves to polarise editors. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a category which groups users on the basis of advocacy of a position and which is divisive. As noted by the nom, there is ample precedent against categorizing Wikipedians by support for or opposition to an issue, even when that issue is related to Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a response to this petition. I will not vote because I have a COI in this. If the consensus for this is delete, ok, I won't recreate this. _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 12:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)_{Stop Brown Haired Girl, you are in violation of WP:TOC.}[reply]
Delete per nom. --John (talk) 14:19, 10 March 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.

Category:Effects of foreign body entering through natural orifice

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Effects of foreign body entering through natural orifice

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category currently contains only foreign bodies and not the effects of said foreign bodies. Gobonobo ^T ^C 10:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is something to include in the category which actually relates to the scope of the category title. There's probably quite a lot of material which could be included in relation to the effects of penetrative sex (e.g. pregnancy is an effect of a foreign body entering through a natural orifice, except for one case), and the whole of the human digestive system is rather useless it has some foreign body to digest ... but those things are already adequately categorised, so I don't suggest adding them to this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete together with Category:Effects of receiving a hammer on your head. I hope my argument is clear. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to the nominator, who apart from providing another good argument also evoked a good laugh. Debresser (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BHG, and eww. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:09, 12 March 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.

Category:The Good Wife

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only the main article and Category:The Good Wife episodes. Eponymous category is not useful for navigation at the present time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:30, 5 March 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.

Category:Drama CDs

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Drama CDs to Category:Drama audio recordings. --Xdamr^talk 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Drama CDs to Category:Drama Compact Discs

Nominator's rationale: Per Compact Disc, not CD. Alternatively, delete, as main article is a redirect to an unsourced article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would leave some articles uncategorized, such as Venus Versus Virus drama CD, and this category seems to aim for the genre of recording that defines such articles. Notwithstanding the current lack of sourcing for Radio drama in Japan (to which Drama CD redirects), it seems to be about something valid and I suspect the lack of sourcing might be partly due to language issues. Further, if "Drama CD" is what such things are called, then that's what the category name should be. So I guess that's an oppose rename or deletion pending further information from someone more knowledgeable, because both proposals don't seem to be improvements on the current situation. I'll drop a note to the anime WP. postdlf (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just merged Venus Versus Virus drama CD into the main article, as it was long overdue for a merger, and I created it back when I didn't know any better. Considering the category has so few articles, I would propose for its deletion.--十八 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Drama audio recordings so we don't have to do this again the next time a new format comes out. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Drama audio recordings since some of these, in real life, were not released on CD. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drama CDs are real stuff and selling well in Japan some even making it into Japanese Oricon charts. The issue is that i don't think drama CDs are individually notable to warrant an article per Drama CDs. They should be inside related-franchise article or within a list but not a stand-alone article. --KrebMarkt 08:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If they chart, then they are notable per our own guidelines and policies. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I doubt that the editors who made those guidelines ever thought that Drama CDs existed at all and evermore could be eligible by inclusions criterion. I would have preferred to have them handled the same way as list of XYZ chapters or ABC episodes.
    Note there are Drama CDs that were partially fansubbed so drama CD tracks can be summarized like a manga chapter or anime episode. --KrebMarkt 07:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that most drama CDs/albums are not likely to be notable independently of the related series. However, there are some which have charted on a national sales chart (Oricon, etc.), and those ones are likely to be independently notable and have reviews and such which will allow a reasonable article to be written. I think we actually agree on this point, but may be approaching the issue from different positions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Audio recordings of anime and manga (or some variant thereof), because all 5 articles in the category are about anime and manga recordings. The parent categories include Category:Anime industry and Category:Manga, so that appears to be its intended purpose. (Alternatively, I'd support a rename to Category:Drama audio recordings, as proposed above; not as good, but it's improvement on the current title). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 12 March 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.

Category:Exclusive release albums

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --Xdamr^talk 16:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Exclusive release albums to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: I don't have a good proposal for what to name this (at the very least, rename it "exclusive-release albums" for grammar's sake), but the current name seems confusing. On the other hand, this might be worthy of deletion, as the fact of an album being (initially) released through a particular retailer may not be noteworthy enough to categorize all of these albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this category might be worthy of deletion. An increasing number of albums have been released exclusively through a particular big-box retailer over the past several years now. Only one exclusive release album that I know of, The Eagles Long Road out of Eden, was initially released through a particular retailer then allowed to be sold by other retailers. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OC#TRIVIA per numerous precedents against categorising albums, films, etc by their distribution methods. The distribution methods may vary in different markets, and may change over the years, so they are not a defining characteristic. We already categorise albums by record label, by producer, by artist, by nationality, and in numerous other ways which you can see in the sub-cats of Category:Albums, and adding lots of categories for distribution techniques will just create category-clutter on articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this category gets deleted, then the categories [[Category:iTunes-exclusive releases]] and [[Category:Internet albums]] need to get deleted as well as they fall under the same definitions as defined in WP:OC#TRIVIA. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think we'll need a separte nomination for them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and BHG. One entry, Chinese Democracy, notes that it was exclusively distributed by Best Buy only in the U.S. So there's that issue too. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 5 March 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.

Category:Groundlings

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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Groundlings to Category:The Groundlings

Nominator's rationale: Per main article; name is a proper noun, e.g. Category:The Beatles and Category:The Three Stooges. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above & also b/c of some potential for confusion with other meanings of groundling. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Obviously requires renaming. I'm surprised no article yet exists regarding "groundlings" from Shakespearean theater, which is the source of this group's name. 161.49.249.254 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 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.

Category:Mining museums in Zimbabwe

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.

Per WP:OC#SMALL - "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country."

This category indisputably forms part of a wider scheme of categorisation - namely Category:Mining museums. The question is what degree of development this wider category must have in order to be considered to be "...a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"'. There is no objective measure to determine this; it is a question of degree that will vary from time to time and according to subject matter. In this case my judgement is that, while not yet comprehensive, there are sufficient grounds to consider this to be a valid attempt at creating such a wider scheme. Following on from that, in this situation my view is that it would counter-productive to demolish work already done by deletion or merger of this particular sub-category.

--Xdamr^talk 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category that is just a very small subset of Museums in Zimbabwe. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a part of Category:Mining museums which is a by country category scheme. Of course if someone wants to consider an upmerge of all of these... Vegaswikian (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are never going to be sufficient museums in that part of the world to justify a category for every country. Category:Mining museums is very small (at the moment) and it causes no problem to have Zimbabwe there. Or, there could be a new category Category:Mining museums in Africa. I have not looked at any of the other countries. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Mining museums and Category:Museums in Zimbabwe. This category contains only one article, and does not seem to have any prospect of expansion, so per WP:OC#SMALL it should be kept only if it is part of a series. However, there are only 7 other subcats of Category:Mining museums, and no Category:Mining museums by country, so I don't think there's enough to count it as a series. I have no objection to creating a Category:Mining museums in Africa if it can be populated with at least 5 articles, but so far there seems to be only one article on a mining museum in Africa. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of a broader structure organized by country. Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one if 8 national sub-cats of Category:Mining museums, out of 200 or so categories in the world. Doesn't sound to me like a broad structure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per WP:OC#SMALL, it is highly unlikely there will ever be enough mining museums in this particular country to justify having this category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good example of a useful category. Carrite (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- creating Category:Mining Museums in Africa would in practice merely involve a rename, but are there mining museums in South Africa, Zambia, etc, with which to populate that? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested creating Category:Mining Museums in Africa, mainly as a container to keep Zimbabwe separate from the main category. I see no reason why it should not exist, for the moment, with just the one entry. It is realistic that there will be, in time, more entries from South Africa etc. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that a Category:Mining Museums in Africa would serve any useful purpose, and Category:Museums in Africa has no other museums-by-type subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 8 March 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.

Category:Rastafari

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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 13. Jafeluv (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rastafari to Category:Rastafari movement

Nominator's rationale: To match main article and because this appears to be a category named as an adjective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not an adjective. Rastafari combines a noun, Ras with a personal name, Tafari. Guettarda (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The word is an adjective in addition to being a noun. The problem I was highlighting is that it appears to be an adjective by itself as a name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Appears" to whom? "Movement" seems a little insulting, don't you think? Calling a religion a 'movement' strikes me a as a little denigrating. Guettarda (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The convention is that the category name follows the article name. If you want to rename Rastafari movement, then open a WP:RM discussion for the article ... but this discussion cannot rename the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Rastafari movement per nominator and to match main article Rastafari movement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my !vote, since it seems that the name of main article may need reconsideration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose re Guettarda. I think we would be better off changing the article name to Rastafari and we should certainly consider this as an alternative. I am not sure how one would use the word Rastafari as an adjective, it would for instance be a Rastafarian chalice not a Rastafari chalice. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to be a case where the article is incorrectly named, and should be brought into line with this, rather than the other way around. It's certainly not a "movement", as Guettarda correctly highlights - it seems to be a combined culture and belief from what I can gather. Have heard the BBC refer to "a Rastafari" or "the Rastafari", so it's clearly not a non-standard usage. Orderinchaos 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Suggest a WP:RM discussion on the article, and holding this CFD until that discussion reaches a conclusion one way or the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 9 March 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.

Category:TED Conference Attendees

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. Conference attendance is not a defining attribute of people, and categorising notable people by the conferences they have attended is a quick route to massive category clutter. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even the category description is a bit suspect, imo, stating rather peacockishly that it is for attendees of "the well-known TED Conference." No one's going to be notable simply for attending these conferences, and conversely, any notables at these conferences will not be defined by having attended, I should think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not defining. In the unlikely event this is kept, rename Category:TED conference attendees. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear cate of overcategoirisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:41, 7 March 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.

Category:Laminitis Survivors

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. I can find no other horses-by-ailment categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kip Deville seems to be the only horse (with an article) that has even had the disease. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:20, 5 March 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.

Category:Geronimo Stilton

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as unnecessary. Eponymous category for a single article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 5 March 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.

Category:Hispanic astronauts

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) 08:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Hispanic astronauts to Category:Astronauts by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a pointless grouping of categories: I can find no other categories of Hispanic people by occupation, or even a Category:Hispanic people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are other "Hispanic X" categories, but due to the rationale given above as well as the arbitrary and problematic definition of "Hispanic", I am in favor of deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It would seem to be easier to send people into space than to create a post-racial society. Gobonobo ^T ^C 10:38, 5 March 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.

Category:Wikipedians for Israel

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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and numerous precedents. Wikipedian categories exist to promote collaboration, not to group editors by their stance on any issue, whether that issue is for or against Israel, the clubbing of baby seals, the dangers of bleached tampons, whaling in North Dakota, or any other issue you care to think of. WP:NPOV, please. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has no encyclopedic value. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between defining himself as a Christian, or atheist, or someone who supports Israel? Is it a question of antisemitism want to delete the category? Jgarpal (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I doubt very much that antisemitism is behind this nomination. I do love how "AGF" always seems to become "AAS". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was a cheap and nasty slur, Jgarpal, as well as a very silly one. I made it clear in the nomination that the problem is with categories which group editors by their stance on any issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Brown haired girl, I think we should not be attacking Jgarpal this way. He has made fewer than 100 edits to date and his command of English may not be perfect--his Userboxes say he comes from Spain. As a WikiOtter, I've offered to mentor Jgarpal. --AFriedman (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did not "attack" Jgarpal, I criticised his comment. Jgarpal clearly knows enough English to make a rather nasty slur, but I'm sure that your generous offer of mentorship is the right way forward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - BrownHairedGirl: First, I apologize for having used the word antisemitism; that was a big mistake on my part. Second, objectively I think it was a mistake to create the category; and defend the permanence of the category another mistake. For my part I conclude the matter and I devote myself to other subjects. For me you can delete the category when you want. Many greetings and again: I apologize. Jgarpal (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Category does not follow the general pattern of others, at least as I see it. It is one of the few categories that begins with "Wikipedians for..." The other category like this is for people with a particular position on a Wikipedia policy. The same is true with categories that begin with "Wikipedians against..." WP:Soapbox seems to be why so few existing Categories relate to Wikipedians with specific political positions, as per Brown Haired Girl. The current precedent is to allow Userboxes, but not categories, to allow Users to describe their political positions. See User:Tiamut and User:Zsero, whose Userpages have Userboxes that reflect opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that are not associated with Categories. See also User:Abbatai, whose Userpage has a number of Userboxes (but not Categories) that describe his views on a variety of political issues. It's easy enough to find the people who use a particular Userbox anyway--just go to the Userbox template and click on "What links here." Although I've seen more than one incident of antisemitism on Wikipedia, I think that in this case, it's more plausible the support for deletion of this category is in good faith. Brown Haired Girl's most recent edits were mostly to Categories on a variety of subjects and as far as I could tell, she doesn't seem to have a pattern of creating bias about Jewish issues. As an aside, she's made a LOT of edits to the encyclopedia...her edit counter is really something else. Jgarpal, religion (or the lack thereof) is many other things besides belief--I would describe religious affiliation as a person associating himself or herself wih a particular tradition, as it relates to a specific backstory of how the world operates. It's not necessarily the same as believing the entire story in a factual sense, and because of this, I consider it somewhat different from taking a political viewpoint. Anyway, those are my two cents about the matter. --AFriedman (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Wikipedians interested in Israel. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a terrible precedent for a category, soapboxing at its worst and a potential for the organizing of POV editing. Carrite (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Malik.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree merge per Malik. Davshul (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge (support for Israel does not necessarily equal interest in improving content related to Israel) as a category which groups users on the basis of advocacy of a position and which is divisive. As noted by the nom, there is ample precedent against categorizing Wikipedians by support for or opposition to an issue or entity. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Jgarpal (the category creator and its only member) has consented to deletion (see above), this discussion can be speedily closed. Of course, Jgarpal has the option of categorizing himself as a Wikipedian interested in Israel if he so chooses. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge, per nominator. Debresser (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge- as much as I am for Israel, I don't think wikipedia's really the place for this.--30daysinAK (talk) 22:53, 9 March 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.

Category:Colubridae

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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Colubridae to Category:Colubrids

Nominator's rationale: Merge, redundant categories. The parent article on this snake family is at Colubrid rather than the scientific name Colubridae (which is a redirect). The literature I've seen commonly refers to members of the family as colubrids, so I don't see a problem with that. postdlf (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:10, 5 March 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.