Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 19

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. If someone wants to start a deletion discussion, feel free. Courcelles (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Popular English names invented by authors of fiction to Category:English given names invented by authors of fiction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. If kept, we need to drop the "popular", since that is subjective or arbitrary. I also thought to use "English given names" or match the parent Category:English given names (which in and of itself is problematic, but whatever). But do we want this category at all? I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For some reason I was expecting to find half a dozen names listed -- how disappointing that there are only two. I wonder if there are others out there? (The only thing that even comes to mind at the moment is Gargantua by Rabelais, but that's neither English nor especially popular.) If this is all there are, I'm not sure it's worthy of a category. Cgingold (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too—I actually thought Wendy was invented by J. M. Barrie—that's a claim that I've often read, but the WP article states that he merely popularised it (citing the Straight Dope, so it must be true). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added Fiona, but as far as I remember only these few & Wendy have come up in discussions on name pages. No objection to rename for now, but perhaps this category should be reviewed again if it fails to grow. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:48, 22 July 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: Upmerge and delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Electric power distribution systems or doing something

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Another hair puller. The listed main article, electricity distribution is about the delivery portion of the network. These articles seem to be more focused on the transmission aspects of electricity transportation. So a rename is an option along with a better focus which would likely drop most or all of the contents and result in deletion. And the consensus is? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment maybe the articles all belong in Category:Electric power transmission system operators, a well established category? Hmains (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be a workable option. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission and distribution are different things. Probably the best solution would be upmerging to category:electricity distribution. Beagel (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• merge and delete Yes, distribution and transmission are two different concepts. Roughly speaking, transmission has to do with inter-city, inter-state high voltage systems, while distribution is about low-voltage (120/240/480V) and mid-voltage (24KV) intra-city systems and the home/small-business endpoints. Back when I created this category, it was filled with several dozen articles relating to distribution, such as articles about metering, stepdown transformers, municipality governance, etc. The category has been completely gutted already, with only four questionable entries at this point. Obviously, the right thing to do would be to remove the four misc remaining articles to somewhere else (oh well). This does not even require a vote or discussion. Just do it already, instead of leaving a crippled stub around. linas (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and delete per Linas. Beagel (talk) 18:08, 28 July 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. A touch early in closing this, but this is a speedy. Courcelles (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Animal born bombs to Category:Animal-borne bombs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I assume "borne" is meant here, rather than "born". Technically this is a speedy rename to fix a spelling error, but I brought it here in case anyone had any other thoughts or suggestions on the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. How appalling that we actually have enough articles on this subject to justify a category (even after I removed Wall Street bombing, which merely involved a horse-drawn wagon). I suspect there's also an article out there about those porpoises that were trained by the US Navy. Cgingold (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please rename I created the category, the explosions are appalling. But this is an simple error that truly needs no further discussion.AMuseo (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename seems to be just a typo. Creator says it's no biggie.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per consensus, WP:SNOWBALL. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per consensus.Autarch (talk) 20:37, 23 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venues of The Canadian Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of venue by event (guideline linked to). Since this golf tournament moves from golf course to golf course, we shouldn't categorize individual courses because they once were the site of the tournament. This information may be included in the main article about the tournament (and what do you know, it is already). Cf. Category:PBR venues, Category:Super Bowl venues, Category:MLB All-Star Game venues, and several others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 19 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deja Voodoo (Canada) albums to Category:Deja Voodoo (Canadian band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Per artist name —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:39, 19 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:No Fun Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 19 July 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New World Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: redlink repaired DISEman (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 20 July 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. Courcelles 04:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Coal power companies of the United States to Category:Power companies of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This seems to be a POV splinter to isolate companies that use coal for the production of electricity. In at least one case, coal is only one of three fuel sources and it is not even the source for the majority of the power produced. If this passes, we need to reconsider some of the other subcategories in the target category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This is a perfectly normal and expected subcategory of its parents Category:Power companies of the United States and Category:Coal power in the United States. It does not matter, and is not stated in the category description to matter, what the coal producing percentages are. The fact is, these companies produce power from coal. There is no reason to assume bad faith on the part of the category creator and maintainers for this category or its siblings in Category:Power companies of the United States. There is reason enough see that these help reader navigation to similar articles, the purpose of categories. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, it needs precise guidelines which companies belongs to this category and which not. How many electricity should be produced from coal? 100%, 66%, 50% or some other number. Otherwise, we are facing problems described by East of Borschov. Beagel (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery slope warning!. How do you deal with power from a dual fuel plant? There are coal/oil plants. If they only use oil for a year do they get delisted? What if they never use oil? Would they be included in oil plants? Now take this up to the companies. Who is going to be keeping the books to keep all of this straight? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• merge. I doubt that this and similar categories have a chance of being properly populated; industries aren't as popular among wikipedians as porn "stars". Energy companies trade assets, merge and split regularly, and keeping categorization up to date is practically impossible. "Practically" means that I don't see volunteers for the job. Another concern is mostly cosmetic: cluttered categories. I checked the category at random (honestly), and the first "coal power" pick, Georgia Power, produces 67% of its output from coal ([1]). They also run oil-burning (10%) nuclear (21%) and hydro (2%) plants. Is it fair to list it in "coal power" alone but not in nuke or oil-burning categories? Why? And if it belongs to all of these categories (as many big networks do), wouldn't four or five categories be an overkill? East of Borschov 13:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. It does matter what the coal percentages are: the fact that there are percentages less than 100% mean that we are opening the door to an unworkable clutter of splinter categories for every type of technology used by power companies, as suggested above in the case of Georgia Power. The statement "There is no reason to assume bad faith on the part of the category creator" left me slack jawed: this is a banned used who serially abused the category tree for years in a disruptive and highly POV way, explicitly stated by him to be part of an avowed anti-fossil fuel and anti-fission agenda. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Who does the edits should have little impact in a WP evaluation on the merits of the category, article. etc. If the merits cannot prevail, then maybe the merits are lacking. When the merits are lacking, always attack the person, right? Not right. Hmains (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment There's some funny business going on with these categories -- once upon a time, there were zillions (ok, maybe dozens?) of articles in this cat. First, someone moved all the articles out, and then, with only a handful remaining, the cat gets proposed for merge/deletion. This seems wrong and under-handed to me. If the goal is to have discussions & a vote, then please do not present a fait-accompli of an empty category. If the goal is to clean up a stub category with only 5 misc articles in it, then just clean up the stub category, and don't create a pointless time-waster discussion! linas (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment now with 38 articles from a few minutes work reading articles (not all WP editors are uninterested), this is a properly populated category. Since the category includes companies that build, run or operate coal power plants, now or in the past (there is no 'former' category), there is no fear of slippery slopes, slippery bananas, or anything else such. Hmains (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so now there are 50 articles. With the abundant, cheap, and heavily used coal in the US, one should expect no less. Hmains (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Including at least one holding company that does not directly own coal plants. Being able to populate a category does not mean it needs to be kept. As shown by the current entries, the inclusion criteria is subjective as in starts at 0%. I wonder how many power companies don't use coal? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I find it highly likely that almost every major power utility in the US uses some coal in their generation/distribution mix. There is no real way to define a limit for the amount of coal that would have to be in the mix, because most utilities import and export power. For instance, my state (Virginia) is the second largest importer of power in the U.S., and there is no real way to balance that into the equation with the production capacity of slightly less than 50% Coal. Agree that this category is POV and has no real use. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for merging per nom as there is no clear guidelines for inclusion. If we are able to agree which companies should be included it would be seems an useful subcategory. Otherwise, no use to keep. Beagel (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East of Borschov has the problem pegged: virtually any energy company in the USA can be put in most of the "source" categories. For example, on Constellation Energy's website I find the following: "Our balanced portfolio includes, nuclear, coal, natural gas, oil and renewable and alternative fuels that include solar, geothermal, hydro and biomass." Their only categorization, however, is in Category:Nuclear power companies of the United States, because that's probably the only category anyone bothered to verify. I'm guessing that all the big players in the generation field in the USA are going to fall into the same bucket. So I would suggest that all of the "by source" be deleted:

• Category:Coal power companies of the United States
• Category:Hydroelectric power companies of the United States
• Category:Nuclear power companies of the United States
• Category:Solar electricity companies of the United States
• Category:Wind power companies of the United States

Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I am in UK, but I think the issue is clear: many power companies will have power from multiple sources, and so multiple categories. It might be useful to have a list article tabulating companies against energy sources used, givngin the info at a glance. Mangoe has raised this very late in the CFD process. Accordingly, Close and Relist to discuss Mangoe's suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:37, 27 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ethanol fuel crops to Category:Energy crops

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Of the 3 articles at least one can be used to generate other fuels. So either we are going to categorize a crop by all fuels it can be used to manufacture or we should avoid this level of classification. I vote to not overly segment Category:Energy crops. The articles can and should be the place where possibilities or practical applications should be discussed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Especially since -- and I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong -- a great many of the crops in the target cat could be used to produce ethanol. Through fermentation and distillation, just about any crop containing sugars can be used produce ethanol, as proven by the myriad of alcoholic spirits produced around the world from different sources. The nominated category was created by banned user Mac, with typically little regard for the pre-existing and better established category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 22 July 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 all. — ξ^xplicit 05:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:JYP Entertainment songs to Category:JYP Entertainment singles

Propose renaming Category:Lantis songs to Category:Lantis singles

Propose renaming Category:Motown songs to Category:Motown singles

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Singles by record label and a lack of Category:Songs by record label under Category:Songs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 19 July 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 28#Category:Professional titles. — ξ^xplicit 05:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Professional titles to Category:Professional certification

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't understand the distinction that was intended, and can't see a use for it. The few entries that are clearly titles (e.g. Doctor (title), Esquire) can be separately added to category:Titles. After the proposed merger these I intend to do further tidying-up and will probably separately nominate the target to be renamed as Professional qualifications. Fayenatic (talk) 17:13, 19 July 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 05:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Engineers titles to Category:Engineering qualifications

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clearer and consistent with other disciplines in Category:Qualifications. Fayenatic (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After looking at the contents, I don't really see what is being covered here. I saw one article that applies to engineers, that is Professional Engineer. That rest are not engineers in the sense of the this one. So it is in effect a category that happens to group in all jobs that include engineer in the name. I wonder why sanitation engineer is not included? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also Chartered Engineer (UK) and European Engineer. Professional Traffic Operations Engineer also states that PTOEs must first be Professional Engineers. Others should probably be added e.g. Chemical Engineer, Civil Engineer. However, given the mismatch between proper and present members, I'd be content to see this category deleted, then create a new one from scratch. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:26, 22 July 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: No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 12:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Professional certification in finance to Category:Professional certification in financial services

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most of the contents relate to banking, insurance or investment. There are other categories e.g. for accountancy, so rename this one to match its contents. I have just renamed the lead article in the same way. Fayenatic (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatives: rename as Category:Professional qualifications in financial services or Category:Financial services qualifications to match the head category:Qualifications. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Certification in finance, or membership in a professional corporation related to finance is not necessarily a license for providing financial services. Although the three notions (certification, membership, license) frequently go hand in hand, inclusion of services may be misleading. There are too many professional corporations (each making its own $$$) for the very limited amount of services that require certification as a licensing pre-requisite. Association of Corporate Treasurers provides certification in its field, but any in-house job, by definition, is not subject to the the same strict licensing and certification rules as services offered to the public (e.g. those of a Certified Financial Planner or a chartered accountant). East of Borschov 18:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that matters to this proposal. I think certification is equivalent to qualification (the nomination does not mention license), and nearly all the current members of the category relate to financial services. I'm proposing the rename as one step in a process of rationalising the categories within category:qualifications. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few reputable professional corporations whose certification is a proof of qualification. And there are many more institutions, down to worthless diploma mills, who sell certification that doesn't prove anything except that someone paid for it. "Certified in-house XYZ" variety, in particular, are certifications related to finance, but not to services: there's no external client involved. East of Borschov 14:29, 26 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muswell hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. London categories use the 32 London boroughs as the lowest level geographic divisions. Comprehensive sub-categorisation is by feature. MRSC (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom. Occuli (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Should be "Hill" anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 24 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music Maniac Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:47, 19 July 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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Categories by federal subject of Russia to Category:Federal subjects of Russia

Nominator's rationale: A completely redundant category, the only purpose of which is to group the subcategories of Category:Federal subjects of Russia into a separate subcategory of its own. I am not sure why it is necessary or what useful purpose such a separation would serve, nor have I ever seen any other category separated in that way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2010; 15:51 (UTC)

• Comment – this should not be a subcat of Category:Federal subjects of Russia at all. It is a legitimate subcat of Category:Categories by first-level administrative country subdivision. (Many editors do not understand the difference between article X and Category:X.) Upmerge doesn't work: the subcats of Category:Categories by federal subject of Russia are not subcats of Category:Federal subjects of Russia. Occuli (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Why, for example, Category:Legislatures of the federal subjects of Russia should not be a subcat of Category:Federal subjects of Russia? The distinction seems to be artificial at best.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2010; 19:38 (UTC)
• Oppose. I disagree that this is a duplicate category. Category:Federal subjects of Russia is a category for, well, the federal subjects of Russia. The other category is a container category for other categories that divide things by federal subject. It's the same basic set-up as is found with Category:States of the United States and Category:Categories by state of the United States, and numerous others. I do think it makes sense to have them linked, however, either through one being a subcategory of the other or by Template:CatRel. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Could someone please coherently explain the difference between the categories included under Category:Federal subjects of Russia and the categories included under Category:Categories by federal subject of Russia? I guess I don't see the major distinction between them, and the minor one seems to be superfluous.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2010; 19:08 (UTC)
  • Category:Federal subjects of Russia includes things that are the actual federal subjects of Russia—the autonomous oblasts, the autonomous okrugs, the federal cities, etc. It is about the federal subjects themselves. The other category contains categories that happen to divide the topic it deals with by federal subject—Education in Russia, divided by federal subject for convenience; People divided by federal subject; etc. They are closely related, but not duplicates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize they are not duplicates, but in my opinion they are so closely related, that creating a separate category (and named "categories by..." at that) seems rather silly. With hundreds of articles to sort out I could maybe see the appeal, but with a handful we currently have it seems rather redundant and a hassle. Anyway, whatever the outcome of this CfD is, so be it—it's not that big of a deal. Thanks for taking time to explain, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 26, 2010; 15:28 (UTC)
• Comment. Category:Legislatures of the federal subjects of Russia, Category:Heads of the federal subjects of Russia, Category:Flags of the federal subjects of Russia, Category:Federal subjects of Russia-related lists are wrongly classified under the Category:Categories by federal subject of Russia, which is only for categories named like "XXX in Russia by federal subject". They should be moved to Category:Federal subjects of Russia. Ruslik_Zero 12:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What entry for Russia (none at present) should appear in the root category Category:Categories by country subdivision ? And re Category:Categories by federal subject of Russia (first-level), shouldn’t the subcategories include only those related to the eight federal districts, with categories related to oblasts, republics etc included in a subcategory of Category:Categories by second-level administrative country subdivision  ? The Oblasts etc are too small to have many articles about them so have few subcategories. Compare the states or provinces of Australia/America/Canada where every state or province has all basic subcategories eg Education, Economy, Geography, People, Transport (though as these countries are predominantly English-speaking, there would be more articles written about them anyway). Hugo999 (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Federal districts are not a level one step above the federal subjects (which themselves are not "first-level administrative divisions"; they are constituent units of the Federation); it is a concept independent of the political structure of the country (federal subjects) and its administrative and municipal division (the administrative/municipal divisions start at each individual federal subject level). Federal districts are simply a convenience measure (not even mentioned in the Constitution, by the way) by the means of which the federal government groups the federal subjects in a way that makes its easier to monitor the compliance with the federal laws. If you are looking for an all-encompassing category/parent article, your best bet will be subdivisions of Russia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2010; 13:57 (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.

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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Dublin with the Category call "County Dublin" - Category:County Dublin. I'm finding it impossible to justify the continuing existance of the two categories called "Category: Dublin" and "Category:County Dublin". I've come to the conclusion that there's not a hair's breath of difference between the two. Each has the same sub-categories. Most article pages are listed in the sub-categories of each Category. This is excessive duplication and bothersome maintenance. I know that some will say that the former mainly refers to the city while the latter refers to the wider county; I just don't buy it. There's not a Irish: tráthnín of difference in practical terms. The two overlap to a ridiculous degree. If there was a large hinterland behind the city, like County Cork, then I'd understand; but Dublin? Please. Let's merge the two and put befuddled Wikipedians out of their misery. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Dublin into Category:County Dublin, given the overlap described by the nominator. (I favour keeping Category:People from Dublin (city) a sub-cat of Category:People from County Dublin however, as they are both part of category trees for people, one by county, and one by city. Mayumashu (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. They should remain separate categories. To distinguish them better I suggest Category:Dublin be changed to Category:Dublin (city) which would then match Category:People from Dublin (city). The two County Dublin categories would remain the same - Category:County Dublin matches with Category:People from County Dublin. There is already a precedence to distinguish with other similar named categories. Category:Cork (city) and Category:County Cork which match Category:People from Cork (city) and Category:People from County Cork. There is also Category:New York & Category:New York City, and Category:Inverness & Category:Inverness-shire. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I support the proposal merge so long there are sub-categories for each of the four administrative areas. Category:Fingal has already been created. I'm sure no-one sees any problem with the names Category:Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and Category:South Dublin. All that leaves with the category for the actual city. Should it be Category:Dublin City, Category:Dublin (city) or Category:City of Dublin? -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment are you saying that throughout history, the entire existence of County Dublin and Dublin, there is not a whit of difference between the two? If there has been differences, then they should remain separate, as this is suffering from WP:BIAS towards the current date, missing historical usages. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge, but somebody with the time and the inclination should remove [[Category:County Dublin]] from all Dublin City-specific articles, since they are already in the sub-cat. Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the comments above. New York and Cork: I had already mentioned that those cities with a large hinterland would be justified in having separate categoris for their cities and counties/states. So I don't think that the New York/cork reason is good enough on its own to oppose the merger. "the entire existence of County Dublin": do I have to defend a point that I never made? Where did I write or say such a thing? Of course there was a difference: the city existed for many centuries before the Norman shire. That's not the point. The point is that their varied histories can easily be accommodated by having two sub-categories within the master category. Would that upset historians? Would they wonder where to find the Dublin city History sub-category if they accidentally wandered into the Dublin county sub-category? I doubt it. Lastly, I see no reason why a sub-category of "People from Dublin (city)" could not be created alongside sub-category of "People from Dublin (county)" with both comfortably residing in the master category of Category:County Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you are then conflating the county with the city, even though they existed as separate, non-coinciding entities for part of their histories, where one existed in the other. That is a problem. If a person is from X-village inside the county, they are not from the city, because at that time, the city hadn't absorbed X-village yet. Wikipedia does not deal with only the current reality, it also deals with the past. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge No one has come up with any convincing argument for retaining two similarly-named articles covering, by-and-large, the same geographical area. Wiki does not have, for example, separate categories for Greater London and London, where there might be even more justification. Davshul (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.. There is a Category:City of London, so perhaps there should be a Category:City of Dublin or Category:Dublin (city). -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is also a "City of Westminster" in the greater London area. The pont is that London has the population, the hinterland and the distinctive history to support such fine sub-divisions. Dublin does not. The history of Lusk could be written on a postage stamp. After the creation of the Barony of Balrothery East, nothing much happened in that barony. Certainly not enough to merit a distinctive category that was exclusive of the city. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Perhaps we should follow Category:London which has sub-categories for its two cities and thirty-one London boroughs. County Dublin is divided into four administrative areas, the city of Dublin and the counties of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin, and so each should have their own category. If that were acceptable, I would then support the proposal to merge Category:Dublin into Category:County Dublin. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support Although I would not like the job of attributing the Category:Architecture in County Dublin between the 3 modern counties. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. There isn't a Category:Architecture in County Dublin. The architecture in County Dublin comes under sub-Category:Buildings and structures in County Dublin. That sub-category could possibly remain, but its pages would also come under a sub-category of each administrative area. Many Wikipedia pages come under different categories. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've just realised is this proposal necessary? Category:Dublin in a sub-category of Category:County Dublin, so they are already merged. All it needs is Category:Dublin to be renamed and used for the administrative area. Category:Fingal has already been created, leaving Category:Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and Category:South Dublin to be created. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom but this should primarily be a parent only category with the city and three new counties as subcategories to which as much of the content as possible should be manually split. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Groan Have you any idea how much work would be involved in this scheme? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As per Scolaire.Autarch (talk) 12:37, 9 August 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 all. Courcelles (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming the following (category pages listed under Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin):

Nominator's rationale: The word "descent" denotes ethnicity. The Israeli people in question were not ethnic Bulgarian, Poles, Turks, etc. There were generally Jews whose origins were in Bulgaria, Poland, Turkey, etc. Furthermore, the proposed name is also more consistent with principal parent category (which uses the term "origin” and not “descent”). Whilst it is noted that similar categories for other people tend to use the term “descent, the word “origin” is far more suitable in this instance and we should not sacrifice greater accuracy merely for the sake of consistency. Davshul (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. For me the word descent connotes rather than denotes ethnic lineage, and those listed were typically of both Jewish ethnicity and the ethnicity of the place (to varying degrees depending on the person, family, the other ethnicity in question, etc.) where their family lived for centuries, but either way, 'origin' is a better choice. Mayumashu (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although I think the nomination is premised on the false assumption that "Israeli people" is synonymous with "Jews", origin is more appropriate in the case of Jews than descent and most Israeli people are Jews, so I'll bite. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In my rationale, I stated that the people in question (those currently listed in the categories) were "generally" Jews (as is the case), but I was certainly not making any assumption that "Israeli people" is synonomous with "Jews", and this was one of the reasons I used the word "generally". Davshul (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per Malik Shabazz's point about 'Israeli people' != 'Jews', maybe add a 'Jewish Israeli of XXXX origin' cat to the appropriate articles? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposed name is as applicable for non-Jews as it is for Jews. Davshul (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• RELATED OBSERVATION: There was some debate recently when similar proposals were thrown about at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 16#Category:American Jews by national origin where the suggestion to rename to "XYZ Jews of ABC origin" went nowhere, and leaving the older and more basic category names such as Category:Mexican American Jews and Category:Iraqi American Jews etc etc etc and the rest intact. The best solution would be to propose to rename this CFD to read Propose renaming the following (category pages listed under Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin): Category:Israeli people of American descent to Category:Israeli American Jews; Category:Israeli people of Argentine descent to Category:Israeli Argentinian Jews etc etc etc for all. This way it's clear what the subject is, Israeli Jews and not Israeli non-Jews such as Arab citizens of Israel aka as Israeli Arabs for which there could be categories like Category:Israeli Egyptian Arabs meaning those who are descendants of Arabs who came from Egypt etc etc etc for all non-Jewish groups in Israel. This would create real accuracy and not what is suggested here which is just the same furniture being moved from one side of the room to the other, because the words "Israeli people" means all Israelis and that includes both Jews and non-Jews who are Israeli citizens. Of course to Jews, the word "Israeli/s" generally or colloquially means "Jewish Israeli/s" but the fact of the matter is that as far as Israeli law and the State of Israel is concerned its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens are all "Israelis" therefore this CFD rename is pointless and equals "six of one and half a dozen of the other" and makes no difference at all. IZAK (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• IZAK. I'm sorry to say that I disagree with you totally on this one, and think you may have misunderstood the point. As mentioned above, these categories are about "Israelis”, not exclusively "Israeli Jews". The object is to find a name suitable for both Israeli Jews and Israeli non-Jews, the latter including not just the Arab Muslim, Christian and Druze populations, but others, such as some 300,000 non-Jewish former citizens of the former Soviet Union, as well as other non-Jews, who have made Israel their home in recent years. One or two of the categories, for example, Category:Israeli people of Nigerian descent, actually contain only non-Jews. The present name, for the reasons stated, is not suitable for the majority of Israeli Jews. However, my proposed name (unlike the one suggested by you) could apply equally to both Jews and non-Jews alike. Furthermore, the parallels with the US categories do not exist. I do not know of a single Israeli that would consider himself, for example, an Israeli Iraqi Jew or an Israeli Mexican Jew, he is an Israeli (or Israeli Jew) of Iraqi or Mexican origin. (I, personally, am an Israeli Jew, born in the UK with one set of grandparents born in Lithuania/Belarus. This certainly does not make me an Israeli British Jew, Israeli Lithuanian Jew or an Israeli Belarusian Jew, although I am an Israeli of British/Lithuanian/Belarusian origin.) Should we wish to provide further detailed categorization, this could be done at a later stage by way of sub-categories of the category names suggested by me. For example, under Category:Israeli people of Polish origin, we could add Category:Israeli people of Polish Jewish descent (note, “descent” would be appropriate in these circumstances), and individulas would appear in the subcategory rather than the parent. Davshul (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Davshul: There is no escaping that while Israel has non-Jewish citizens, Israel is the Jewish state and the state for and of the Jews, that was and remains its historic origin and purpose. Over-generalizing categories should be avoided to bar confusion, especially about the Jews i.e. the Israeli Jews who define the Jewish state of Israel and accuracy and precision must be the priority in categorizing the people in that state, otherwise it loses its identity, full stop (or period.) Your last suggestion is where you should be working from i.e. "we could add Category:Israeli people of Polish Jewish descent (note, “descent” would be appropriate in these circumstances), and individulas would appear in the subcategory rather than the parent" since in this case the so-called "sub-category" is more important than the "parent". By the way, in Israel no one uses the English-language terms or labels "Israeli people of American descent" nor "Israeli people of American origin" since these are terms for classification purposes only used on and now being manufactured on Wikipedia, so that using "Israeli Argentinian Jews" or "Israeli Egyptian Arabs" is just as legitimate on Wikipedia, especially since American Jews and people are classified that way. Wikipedia is not bound by any one system of labeling but Wikipedia is obligated to be as accurate and precise as humanly possible befitting an encyclopedia. IZAK (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominated. I find Davshul's arguments convincing, and that they also appear to cover the concerns of Malik Shabazz and Mayumashu. As regards the comments of IZAK, surely the principal category should cover the complete population and, thereafter, subcategories can cover specific sections of the population, even if one of those sections (in this case, Israeli Jews) form the overwhelming majority. This is a category tree dealing with the origins of the people concerned and surely that should be the focus of the category name. I also note that in all the articles relating to Israelis that I viewed, there appeared, in any case, a category "Isreali Jews", "Arab citizens of Israel" or such other category indicating the ethnicity and/or religion of the individual. (Also, personally, I find suggested categories such as "Israeli Egyptian Arabs" confusing. I do not know whether it refers to Israeli Arabs whose origins were in Egypt or Egyptian Arabs whose origins were in Israel.) JackJud (talk) 14:12, 26 July 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 28#Category:Professional titles. — ξ^xplicit 05:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emissions reduction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Can someone give me a new head of hair so I can continue my hair pulling over these? First off emissions reduction is not really identified. There is no main article but we have a redirect to Air pollution#Reduction efforts. So that could argue that we need a rename and not a delete. Then we can look at the contents. Vehicle inspection which can cover only safety inspections. Cycling? Demand Responsive Transit Exchange? Or even reforestation which is more biosequestration then emission control. So while this might be useful in some way, it either needs a rename or a major overhaul and some objective inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just want to mention that there's also a lot of cross-over with Category:Emission standards. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 19 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Businesspeople in coal mining to Category:Businesspeople in coal

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Another to ponder over. Both the target and source are not well populated. So why do we need two categories to contain, magnates, merchants, colliery foundation, transportation and other aspects of coal and its mining. I think readers would be better served by only one category in this area. One wonders if this is a POV splinter from the parent since one of these has a negative view in the eyes of our favorite green category creator? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 19 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayhem Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 19 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magnetic Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 19 July 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Live-action/animation to Category:Media with live action and animation

Propose renaming Category:Live-action/animated films to Category:Films with live action and animation

Propose renaming Category:Live-action/animated television series to Category:Television series with live action and animation

Nominator's rationale: WP:SLASH. Note that the main article is at Live-action/animated film and should probably be renamed as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, I have no objections to this as the creator of one of those categories (which I named based upon the pre-existing ones). Support. DWaterson (talk) 20:22, 19 July 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 26. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Zionsville, Indiana to Category:People from Boone County, Indiana

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC too small a place with too few notable people for a category to be necessary Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 19 July 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unprintworthy redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I found myself wondering what the point of this category was. It seems several others have asked this question on the talk page over the years and the answer is always "it will help with making a paper Wikipedia." This answer conveniently ignores the fact that there is no such thing as a paper version of Wikipedia and as far as I am aware no plans to make one. Since there is no paper Wikipedia and this category does nothing to aid anyone on the real online Wikipedia, I don't see any purpose in retaining it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and comments Per Help:Printable and Help:Books, part of what Wikipedia is includes a printable version of this data. Furthermore, there have been printed versions of the English and German Wikipedias. Consequently, this is useful. For what it's worth, if you're going to nominate this, it only makes sense to nominate Category:Printworthy redirects as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I'd like to see what a printed version of Wikipedia looks like. How many volumes is it? In any event I still don't see how this category is actually useful. Since most redirects are not in any categories, anyone doing a print version would still have to look at them one by one to decide if they were useful in printed form or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nobody is making a paper Wikipedia. Nobody will ever make one. This category is useless and silly. Propaniac (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Recommend this gets posted at WP:CENT for more comments, esp. as the category has over 600,000 articles in it. Lugnuts (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Beeblebrox (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – these are redirects which contain a mistake of some sort, as opposed to redirects which would be valid article names. Eg An American Werewolf In London is incorrectly capitalised. Occuli (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. All you have done is provide a description of what is in the category without explaining why it is useful or needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep considering that there are printed versions of Wikipedia out there (see PediaPress, Wikis Go Printable) as well as other projects related to the WP1.0 initiative that produce printed volumes, this category is useful, even if not understood. Imzadi 1979 → 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, people have created printed collections of Wikipedia articles. Those projects have nothing to do with this category, because humans are deciding which material to include and do not need to inform an automated system which redirects should be included and which should not. Propaniac (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is sorting those redirects which are essentially misformed titles from those which are valid alternative names. This appears useful for anyone wanting to make a print version of Wikipedia, and may have other uses. The category is essentially a hidden one, and has no impact on readers or editors. I am removing from CENT as this discusion does not meet WP:CENTNOT, and the decision can be decided here by people who have an interest in and some knowledge of categories. SilkTork *^YES! 08:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If I were making a print version of Wikipedia for whatever reason, even if only of a limited scope, a category that would allow my software to automatically recognize and disregard any of over 600,000 undesirable articles would indeed be useful and time-saving. Suggest someone add further detail to the note at the top of the category page clarifying its purpose. Also I believe the {{tracking category}} template would apply and should be added as well. -- œ^™ 05:54, 25 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polycrystals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This underpopulated category is probably not needed. The articles are in other categories that may suffice. The problem here is if we populated it, it would include a broad range of articles since the article states 'Almost all common metals, and many ceramics are polycrystalline'. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'd looked at the category but hadn't noticed the telling line in the main article. Yes, delete on that basis alone: this is yet another ill-advised effort by Mac/Nopetro to set up a parallel category structure based on some aspect of a compound or substance (usually because it relates, however remotely, to materials used in solar cells). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Poly-want-a-crystal?? Nahhh... I don't think so! Delete per preceding remarks. Cgingold (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to category:Crystals. Beagel (talk) 18:38, 22 July 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.