< November 21	November 23 >

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. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:People from Manteo, North Carolina to Category:People from Dare County, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 1 entry. ...William 21:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, and recreate as a ((category redirect)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 17 December 2013 (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. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Censorship of science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Hopelessly POV category. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it doesn't have to be hopeless (in a perfect world). However, it's obvious that its use here is POV pushing favoring fraudulent and fringe science. Rklawton (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Delete - I do agree that, as currently used, the category is a POV pusher's dream. However, I think there is a viable category in there somewhere. There is no question that some forms of science have been censored through the years (the Catholic Church's censorship of Galileo comes immediately to mind). Would this be more acceptable if renamed "Category:Historical censorship of science" (or something similar)? Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This topic might make an interesting article, but we currently have no article censorship of science. A category would be a useful way of grouping any articles on the concept of censoring science, but the problem lies with alleged instances.
  For every clearcut case such as Gallileo, there are many more instances of scientific research unpublished for plausible reasons which may or may not be genuine. Decisions about what to include in this category woukd commonly be subjective, unless WP:OC#ARBITRARY criteria were used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 22 November 2013‎
• Delete Lacking scholarly work that specifically discusses censorship of science from a historical perspective, deciding what would go in the proposed cat would be highly subjective. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it is possible to imagine some authorities/regimes (The Taliban or Kmer Rouge maybe) "censoring" science, it would still not be an essential defining characteristic of the topic - and the POV/OR/controversy dangers around this topic are manifold. Maybe a list article "Instances of censored science" (or something) could fly, if there were sources ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; seems to be mostly used as a label for articles where the science was not censored. There's a good reason why we don't all have perpetual motion machines, and that reason does not involve men in black silencing the inventors. bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- We may be able to create a valid category for cases where there has been an attempt to suppress legitimate scientific results, such as the views of Galileo and the Scropes Trial, but as currently constructed the category is liable to pick up a load of fringe and conspiracy stuff, that is not accepted by serious science, because it cannot pass peer-review. Start again, if at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Easily abused by POV pushers like free energy crackpots. It's used to promote fringe theories, not genuine censorship of science. --Rurik the Varangian (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't seem like a useful form of categorization, and the design of this category makes it nearly impossible that it can or will be used in a neutral way. Little or no encyclopedic benefit, and will create lots of "policing" work due to high potential for abuse... therefore should be deleted. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 11 December 2013 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Wuppertaler SV Borussia to Category:Wuppertaler SV
• Propose renaming Category:Wuppertaler SV Borussia managers to Category:Wuppertaler SV managers
• Propose renaming Category:Wuppertaler SV Borussia players to Category:Wuppertaler SV players

Nominator's rationale: The club has reverted to the name Wuppertaler SV, which it has used for most of its existence. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom, to match the parent category. GiantSnowman 18:15, 24 November 2013 (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. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Successfully sued plagiarizing songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#OVERLAPPING All articles in this category already appear in a similar category Category:Plagiarism controversies. WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE Category includes cases that were settled out of court undisclosed with those that did go through the public court process - so how "successfully sued" is not well defined. BluesFan38 (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Successfully sued" is an impossibly vague concept. It could cover everything from an out-of-court settlement with no admission of liability to a court judgment awarding trivial damages and no costs, to one where a judge awarded huge damages and full costs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Musical plagiarism controversies and repopulate as a subcat of Category:Plagiarism controversies. I see the overlapping issue but it seems to me that the controversies category could use some subdivision by genre. Seyasirt (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Would make possibly a good subject for a list but fairly trivial and vague for a category. Oppose rename as I don't believe articles on specific things like songs should be in a broad "controversies" category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Musical plagiarism controversies per Seyasirt. It would make sense to diffuse the plagiarism controversies category and by removing "successfully sued" from the title gives a chance to widen the scope of the contents to those examples where a lawsuit was lost. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivial and vague category topic. Also the Plagiarism category isn't that big, so I don't think splitting it up is really that necessary. SteamboatBilly (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2013 (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 Category:Horse burials to Category:Horses in culture and religion. - jc37 19:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose deleting Category:Burial place unknown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging

• Category:Horse burials to Category:Horses in culture and religion

Nominator's rationale: Delete Merge. Per WP:OC#SMALLCAT. This is actually a well defined practice; I'm most familiar with horses in Viking funerals but there were a number of cultures who practiced it at least with aristocratic burials. The category only has two legitimate articles though with little chance for growth . There is a third article on a cemetary that includes a few horses but I don't think it's appropriately included. (Alternatively, we could rename/expand the category to Category:Burials sites with horses and populate it with dozens of articles. I think that broadened category would too watered down to be defining though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified the creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Archaeology. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Upmerge as some of these articles should be under a horse category. If upmerged, the Horse burial and Wulfsen horse burial articles should go to Category:Horses in culture and religion. I would oppose "Category:Burials sites with horses" as too inclusive. DexDor (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DexDor, I agree with the upmerge suggestion. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but perhaps rename). The present name is too inclusive, as it would include burials of a gentleman's favourite horse, that he did not want to send to the knacker to be dealt with like fallen stock. The main article is about human burials with a horse in the same grave. This provides the basis for a valid category, relating to a class of archaeological sites. Possibly, Category:Burials of people with horses. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is never going to attract enough articles to be anything but a small category. Manually add Horse burial to the horse in culture and religion category, add Wulfsen horse burial there too if you really want (I don't know that I would but I haven't devoted much thought to it) and leave Sutton Hoo out of it since the horse burial was incidental to the event. I've manually added the former two to Category:Animal death as well. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2013 (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 as nominated. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose merging

• Category:2005 in Malaysia and Singapore to Category:2005 in Malaysia and Category:2005 in Singapore
• Category:2006 in Malaysia and Singapore to Category:2006 in Malaysia and Category:2006 in Singapore

Nominator's rationale: There is no Category:Malaysia and Singapore or Category:Years in Malaysia and Singapore, so both these categories are misplaced children of the relevant Singapore category and Malaysia category. That's pointless, when the articles (4 from 2006, and 9 from 2005) can easily be accommodated in the standard country-by-year categories.
The articles concerned appear to be a series which was abandoned some time in 2006, in favour of the more common year-country format such as 2009 in Singapore and 2009 in Malaysia. There may be a case for splitting these articles, but that's not a CFD issue, and even if they remain combined they don't need these non-standard categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Malaysia has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SGpedians' notice board has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It doesn't make much sense to have joint "Malaysia and Singapore" categories since Singapore has been independent from Malaysia since 1965. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per JackLee....William 11:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per nom (this is not a merge nom). Also any other years, since Singapore became independent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron:, this actually a merge nom. The target categories already exist, and the articles to be recategorised (April 2005 in Malaysia and Singapore etc) belong in both target categories.
    As noted in the nom, splitting the articles may be appropriate, but it is not a CFD issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 30 November 2013 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional polyamorous characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Polyamory isn't a topic which is explored in fiction very much. When it is, as best I can recall, it's usually in a one-off episode of a longrunning series where the main characters have their boundaries tested by being introduced to a wacky polyamorous newcomer (cf The Beast with a Billion Backs). Perhaps this could be replaced with a Polyamory in fiction article, which could use sources to discuss the concept and list Heinlein and Piercy novels? TL;DR: I basically don't think this is this is notable as a topic when applied to specific fictional characters and their individual tastes, and might be too specific.Zythe (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is being misused to add any promiscuous character, whether or not they profess "polyamory". Yworo (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2013 (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.