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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_8#Category:Yes_.28band.29, it is not necessary to have categories for bands unless there is a significant amount of uneasy to find material from the band's article. The subcategories can be kept. However, if editors think that the Yes (band) category was a useful navigation hub, then I would support restoring that, and withdrawing this nomination. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This is a useful navigational hub where you can find everything about the band in one place, that is the purpose of categorisation, both here and in general. Ease of access is the key. Ardfern (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, I would agree. In fact, it might be worth restoring the category for Yes (band) for this purpose since I thought that dubious in the first place.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - consensus and precedent are loud and clear. If the material on a band is limited to members, albums and songs subcats and the band's article, it's overcategorization. Hundreds of such categories have been deleted over the last year because they are unnecessary. This category is unnecessary, because the article on the band serves as a perfect navigational hub for this material. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessary eponymous category. --Lquilter (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Category:Fictional locations. There was only one article left in the category as of this close. Kbdank71 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional wetlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in it, soon to be fewer. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Fictional wetlands need to be kept separate from real wetlands. If the articles are deleted, the cat can be speedy deleted as empty. Until then, we need it. LeSnail (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we already have a category for fictional locations. Deb (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 24. Kbdank71 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Abandoned stations to Category:Disused stations or Category:Defunct stations

Nominator's rationale: The term "abandoned" implies a total neglect. And while that may hold true for some stations (e.g. Lilbourne, which is pictured), it doesn't hold true for all. Key to this category is their status: the relevant railway companies have stopped using them as railway stations. For these reasons, I think the term "disused" covers this category much better than "abandoned". Another option would be "defunct", which appears to be used for most daughters of Category:Former buildings and structures by building type. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment from the nom: I have requested the input of the WikiProject Transport and the WikiProject Trains. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to what? The current name is ambiguous since there are abandoned police stations, fire stations and other types of stations. Likewise this should not be a child of Category:Former buildings and structures by building type since being abandoned does not mean it is a former building meaning it no longer exists. Something like Category:Disused rail stations might be a reasonable alternative with Category:Defunct rail stations or Category:Former rail stations for those that no longer exist. So we probably want to split into two new categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term used for those is railway station, so the category names would be Category:Disused railway stations, Category:Defunct railway stations and/or Category:Former railway stations. But the category also appears to include rapid transit stations, so I'm not sure confining it to railway stations is appropriate. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we in agreement that it needs to be split into multiple categories? I have no objection to the use of railway as opposed to rail. However what is the correct name for rapid transit stations? So do we also need Category:Disused rapid transit stations, Category:Defunct rapid transit stations and/or Category:Former rapid transit stations? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we are in agreement, yes. I think we need to separate the railway stations that no longer physically exist from the railway stations that are no longer being used as such. I also think that the focus of the category currently under discussion should be railway stations that are no longer being used as such. For such railway stations, I think the term disused or defunct would be most appropriate. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as the rapid transit stations categories are concerned, Category:Rapid transit stations is currently a daughter of Category:Railway stations. We could maintain that division here as well, by creating Category:Disused/Defunct/Former railway stations as a parent for i.a. Category:Disused/Defunct/Former rapid transit stations. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. So there is an agreement to split into 4 categories. Defunct or former remains from this part of the discussion as the only question. I lean to former. This is a better term in my mind when they no longer exist and it matches Category:Former buildings and structures by building type. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is that many of these stations still exist physically. See for instance Toyasaki Station and Kurikoma Station. Only a number of railway stations have been torn down, others have been turned into for instance houses and office space. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought Category:Disused foo was for the ones that still existed and were converted to another use. Former or defunct is was proposed for those that no longer exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This issue has certainly been discussed fully here before - re Australia I think. I think I favour "former", but would like to see the last debate. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, if you wish, but please avoid 'defunct'. Here in the UK I have NEVER heard of a 'defunct' station of any kind. Disused, former, abandoned, redundant, closed even, but never 'defunct'. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - We have a precedent in its subcategory Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom. I would suggest that this be followed. This may produce a complaint from the US where they would be "railroad stations", but that can be dealt with by moving the US items into a subcategory "Disused railway stations in the US". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Modern American semi-automatic pistols to Category:American semi-automatic pistols

Nominator's rationale: There is no NPOV definition of a "modern" semi-automatic pistol. Mieciu K (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• support rename, if it's not a duplicate cat. "modern" is somewhat problematic in firearms, since by definition I'd call all semi-automatic pistols 'modern' (originating in the modern era, IE 20th century or later) and to further complicate things, some very old gun designs (IE the Colt 1911) are still in production and some guns that are out-of-production are still widely circulated on the trader market. I would, however, support the split of the category into subcategories for guns still in production, and guns that have ceased production. Or failing that guns by design year decade. 69.210.45.157 (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Goodnight Burbank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no need to listify sicne the main article has a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disability-related rulings to Category:Disability case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per standard naming conventions in Category:Case law by topic. Snocrates 08:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - much better per snocrates. --Lquilter (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to follow convention of parent cat. Maralia (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:P2P charities to Category:Peer-to-peer charities

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Snocrates 08:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand abbreviation per nom but expressing no opinion on whether this category should exist. Earlier discussion suggested upmerging and that may be the ultimately preferred choice. --Lquilter (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Israeli mass murderers to Category:Israeli terrorists

Nominator's rationale: redundant, no? brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No. Category:Mass murderers by nationality and Category:Terrorists by nationality have quite different scopes, although it is possible a person could be listed in both trees.-choster (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are they different? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All mass murders are not terrorists. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They are different in the same way they are different for every nationality. Just because a mass murderer is Israeli doesn't immediately also make them a terrorist. Sure, all mass murderers inspire "terror" in others, but often it's the underlying intent that makes something "terrorism". Snocrates 05:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, I see. This discussion can be closed; let me see if I can do it myself......--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sydney highways to Category:Highways in Sydney

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform to current naming conventions as per other entries within Category:Australian highways. Longhair\^talk 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tasmanian highways to Category:Highways in Tasmania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform to current naming conventions as per other entries within Category:Australian highways. Longhair\^talk 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Football League uniforms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper image gallery. Otto4711 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - I can only find reference to images being uploaded to "articles" so unless someone can tell me otherwise these images shouldn't be on Category pages? It would be nice if this was explained at WP:IUP though. Unless I've missed it? Sting au Buzz Me... 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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