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: NOT MERGED, but RENAME Category:Diesel locomotives of the USA --> Category:American diesel locomotives, to conform to the standard form in Category:Diesel locomotives by country. Some comments urged renaming all subcategories to "Diesel locomotives of Foo", but none of the other categories were tagged and listed here, so this CFD could not accomplish that. Please start a new one if you want to change the standard for the whole scheme. Postdlf (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Canadian diesel locomotives and Category:Diesel locomotives of the USA to new Category:Diesel locomotives of North America

Nominator's rationale: Merge to new category. Due to the conjoined nature of the US, Canadian, and Mexican rail system, differentiating any single model of locomotive as belonging to one of these categories is a sure way to "overcategorize" the articles in question. WuhWuzDat 20:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• do not merge but do rename Category:Diesel locomotives of the USA to Category:American diesel locomotives, which will then match the naming pattern used in all but one sibling category of Category:Diesel locomotives by country. This is a country parent category, not a continent category. Hmains (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment perhaps this needs to be changed in this particular example, as North American Rail equipment often crosses borders in service. WuhWuzDat 01:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This set of categories is based on where the locomotives are made, not used. The argument for merge has no basis in fact Hmains (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, that is all the clarification I need to fix this situation. WuhWuzDat 13:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Hmains: I'm not sure that such an assertion reflects current usage. In fact I have strong feeling that such a statement may in fact be completely contradictory to current usage of the various country-specific locomotive categories. —Sladen (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose we have a schema here, Category:Diesel locomotives by country. Instead rename all categories to Diesel locomotives of x like the US category. As for conjoined nature, you could say that all of Western Europe is conjoined, much more so than North America. If it makes you happy, feel free to create Category:Diesel locomotives of Europe etc as parental categories in a by continent schema. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment, how then would you categorize a EMD F9 or EMD SD40-2 (owned by RR's in all 3 North American countries), or any locomotive currently owned by Canadian National or Canadian Pacific (which cross borders regularly). Your European example falls flat on it's face, as most European RR's trackage is limited to a single country. Trying to classify the North American rail system by country will lead to nothing but frustration. WuhWuzDat 01:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Continental Europe, historically the infrastructure and locomotives have formed a "network", partitioned at the country borders, whilst the rolling stock (carriages and wagons) have moved freely across borders—perhaps dozens of times per day, each with an accompanying locomotive change to cope with the voltage, centenary and signalling system change encountered. The recent EU-backed deregulation and interoperability mandates have meant that multi-system locomotives (Taurus, Prima, Class 66) and multiple units (TGV, ICE3M) have started to cross borders more often—perhaps forming a single train across up to three to four countries—it's not as simple as "a single RR" ...there is normally an infrastructure provider (track access, train paths, electricity), a rolling stock owner (locos, wagons, carriages), then a train operating company that leases services from both. A locomotive can probably thought of "belonging" to the specific countries that it is certified (homologation) to operate in. —Sladen (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose – I don't see the problem here (other than 'Fooian' v 'of Foo'). An American crossing into Canada remains American and surely the same is true of a locomotive. (Train do cross borders in Europe, quite often several in one day. Some even tunnel under borders.) Occuli (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose – The category tree is “Locomotives by country”, not “Locomotives by continent”. If article needs to be in two or three country categories, so what? Besides, some of them were sold outside of North America. Propose: renaming Category:Diesel locomotives of the USA to Category:Diesel locomotives of the United States as per my original speedy request. Iain Bell (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I Oppose this specific rename since it does not follow the form of almost every other category in Category:Diesel locomotives by country. If you want to propose changing the standard, you are free to do so. But it is not reasonable to argue for one country to be an exception to this convention. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Merge as part of parent category organized by country. Note that the parent is organized as Fooian diesel locomotives, which may well argue for renaming of the US category. Alansohn (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per Occuli.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- Iain Bell to bring it in line with other USA categories. American means north and south America, not USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can you point to a standard that uses USA? Categories are either Category:American foo or Category:Foo of the United States. In either case, we follow the form of the other sister categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename Category:Diesel locomotives of the USA to Category:American diesel locomotives to match the form in Category:Diesel locomotives by country. If someone wants to change the standard they need to propose that. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. Postdlf (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:All-electric cars to Category:All-electric vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need for further categorisation. Category:Cars is ambiguous also. Tassedethe (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support and comment. In addition, it's not entirely clear what the difference is between Category:All-electric cars/Category:All-electric vehicles and Category:Battery electric vehicles - some vehicles (Dodge EV, BYD e6, Bontino) are in both of the latter two. Dethroned Buoy (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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/2009 October 31#Category:Engineering vehicles. postdlf (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Engineering vehicles to Category:Heavy equipment (construction) vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Main article was renamed so the category should follow. The dab is needed on the article since heavy equipment is ambiguous. However, we could consider a rename to Heavy equipment vehicles which I believe is not ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename, per nom. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to Category:Heavy equipment (construction) or merge into Category:Heavy equipment. "Vehicles" is not part of the Heavy equipment (construction) article title for good reason and is going to cause problems if we throw it into the category title. --Rogerhc (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The problem, as pointed out in the article rename discussion, is that Heavy equipment is ambiguous. Any suggestion on how to deal with that issue? I have no problem with Category:Heavy equipment (construction) as a parent, but the category also has Category:Vehicles as a parent so the name should reflect that. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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/2009 October 27#Category:Intercollegiate athletics in the United States, sub-cats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: following up on recent rename to Category:Intercollegiate athletics in the United States and some of its sub-cats. Listed at 'student athletes' (as they are called in the States) of only universities in the United States. 'intercollegiate' is a more formal American term for 'college' (ie. university or college) Mayumashu (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename these nine categories for the players, etc., per nom.

• Comment: Why are we not using Category:American intercollegiate basketball, etc., instead of the longer Category:Intercollegiate basketball in the United States, etc., for most of these categories? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We could use the shorter ones. The longer one however more closely resemble Category:Basketball in the United States etc. Mayumashu (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose The shorter name is the more used one. And the more intelligible one. Guys, keep it simple! Debresser (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the name as it stands isn t wholly clear. There are colleges in different countries but these are for 'American colleges'. Then how about Category:American intercollegiate basketball etc. as per User:Carlaude? It s shorter and less ambiguous Mayumashu (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment- my first instinct is to support, but what about the fact that Simon Fraser University, located in Canada, participates in American college sports? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment – My first reaction would be to oppose renaming to "Intercollegiate..." per Debresser. However, what about the current category names appended with "in the United States"? Football vs. soccer is not an issue because most of the world considers "soccer" to be an Americanism despite its British origin, and "in the United States" would mitigate the American-Canadian football dichotomy (though SFU might be a conundrum per Kevtar, especially since SFU is now in the process of joining NCAA Division II). — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. With the exception of football/soccer, which I agree deserves a greater debate, I think these names are precise enough. "College" is a better-known word than "intercollegiate", and I see no reason Canadian or French basketball teams can't have rivalries or trophies or whatever in these categories. I say leave it alone, but please, let's fix the capital S in Category:College Sports in California.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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/2009 October 27. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Super Star to Category:SuperStar

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article SuperStar. Tassedethe (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose every instance in the article, except the title uses "Super Star". Even then, this naming is highly ambiguous, especially considering it's not even an English language title, but a translation of an Arabic title, so will not represent a concept well known in the English language world. It should be renamed Categotry:Super Star (Lebanese Idol) or something. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to either with "(Lebanese remake)" or like disambiguator. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. Postdlf (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ski areas and resorts in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Tennessee

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The single page in this category is stated to be in Tennessee. Tassedethe (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nom. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Grouping three states more or less randomply is not a serious way of categorisation. Or per state, or per region (like "in the Rocky Mountains). Debresser (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. Postdlf (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Serbian cembalists to Category:Serbian harpsichordists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard per Category:Harpsichordists by nationality. Cembalist redirects to List of harpsichordists. Tassedethe (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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/merge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings in Cluj-Napoca to Category:Buildings and structures in Cluj-Napoca

Propose renaming Category:Buildings in Dubai Media City to Category:Buildings and structures in Dubai Media City

Propose renaming Category:Buildings in Fall River, Massachusetts to Category:Buildings and structures in Fall River, Massachusetts

Propose merging Category:Buildings in Istanbul to Category:Buildings and structures in Istanbul

Propose renaming Category:Buildings in Newport, Shropshire to Category:Buildings and structures in Newport, Shropshire

Propose renaming Category:Buildings in Notting Hill to Category:Buildings and structures in Notting Hill

Propose renaming Category:Buildings in Sandbach to Category:Buildings and structures in Sandbach

Propose merging Category:Buildings in Satu Mare to Category:Buildings and structures in Satu Mare

Propose merging Category:Buildings in Shenzhen to Category:Buildings and structures in Shenzhen

Propose merging Category:Buildings in Sremski Karlovci to Category:Buildings and structures in Sremski Karlovci

Propose renaming Category:Buildings in Thurrock to Category:Buildings and structures in Thurrock

Nominator's rationale: Merge or rename Category:Buildings redirects to Category:Buildings and structures, so merge or rename to standard naming. Tassedethe (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge or rename all to Category:Buildings and structures in Foo, per nom. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge/rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. --Xdamr^talk 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Business Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Superfluous to Category:Types of companies. Tassedethe (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Pakistani celebrities to Category:Pakistani people

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No clear inclusion criteria. The category contains a random collection of people; actors, journalists, VJs etc. Previous discussions have recommended deletion of such categories (see here). Tassedethe (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. Vague. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge Having a look at Category:Celebrities shows that there are no other celbrities by country categories. It also says there "Individuals should only be included in this category if they do not fit into another occupational category". Debresser (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What does that even mean? (The definition, not what you said.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. --Xdamr^talk 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Boston Men's Baseball League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very limited scope; primary article, Boston Men's Baseball League connected was deleted as NN; contains only two articles with very little expectancy of expansion. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 06:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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: split as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Blazin' Squad to Category:Blazin' Squad albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename and create Category:Blazin' Squad songs. All articles in this category are songs or albums. KathrynLybarger (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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: NOT RENAMED. Postdlf (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional planets to Category:Planets in science fiction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article's name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The article Fictional planets of the Solar System, included in this category, mentions several fictional planets that don't have much to do with science fiction. Ucucha 02:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And the introduction clearly states that it is for planets in science fiction. So maybe the solution is to rename to match the lead and allow recreation for other fictional planets? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I say keep it the same, the proposed name implies that fictional planets only exist in science fiction, which isn't true. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose As mentioned above, there are fictional planets outside of straight-up science fiction and the title change would imply that fictional planets only exist in sci-fi. Kuralyov (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. It is not shown that "Planets in science fiction is the main article's name-- just a related article name. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Did you miss the first line of the introduction which says The main article for this category is Planets in science fiction.? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No, not at all. Is this better?^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - Category:Fictional planets outside of science fiction (or something) would have to be created, would serve little purpose and would lead to subjective categorisation as to what does and does not constitute sci-fi. Declan Clam (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So are we proposing that the introduction be changed and the category repurposed? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have changed the category introduction a bit.
  The category is for "fictional planets" not just "fictional planets of science fiction." No one but you is proposing that the category be repurposed. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well, changing the introduction repurposed the category. Based on the comments, the change seems to match the comments here. So if someone wants to close the discussion feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose fictional planets exist outside of science fiction, and some of the members of the category have nothing to do with science fiction. Fictional planets occur in fantasy, contemporary fiction and alternate history, in legends, and myths, etc. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. Postdlf (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African shrews to Category:Myosoricinae

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Myosoricinae. This is consistent with the title of the main article. Although "African shrews" is occasionally used as a common name for this taxon (fide Google), it is in probably in more common use for, well, African shrews in general (in addition to members of the subfamily Myosoricinae, to which this subfamily refers, Africa also harbors many more species of shrew in the subfamily of white-toothed shrews, Crocidurinae, which is also found in Eurasia). Using the scientific name in this case is clearer and less ambiguous; it will only be a matter of time before someone starts adding all the African Crocidurinae into this category. Ucucha 01:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. --Xdamr^talk 23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Bat genera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is the only instance where a category of mammals is based on taxonomic rank. This category was created two years ago, but apparently never contained more than one page until another was added today. That it stayed for so long cannot be ascribed to any other cause than pure inertia.

I fail to see where this category is useful: a genus is only an arbitrary rank, after all, and I fail to see why we need to list all bat genera when all taxa can already be found via Category:Bats without having to worry about rank. Ucucha 01:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A genus, unlike a species, is arbitrary, but it is none the less scientific. It indicates organisms that are very closely evolutionary connected, comparatively more so than higher groups--what is arbitrary is only where one chooses to draw the line. It is none the less an extremely established scientific convention that not only often corresponds very closely to what people have in mind by closely related animals. I think we should be using it much more widely DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm unclear on what organization of Category:Bats you are endorsing. All species, genus, and family articles placed directly in Category:Bats without subdivision, or only subdivide Category:Bats by family categories, within which are placed directly all species and genera within that family? Postdlf (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Subdivide it into family categories, and subdivide very large families (such as Vespertilionidae) further into subfamily and/or genus categories. Very small families such as Craseonycteridae can also do without their own categories. Ucucha 19:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• So why not do that first, and then delete Category:Bat genera? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It's mostly how it's done right now, though not all pages have been categorized correctly yet). The two genera in Category:Bat genera are also classified according to this categorization. Ucucha 21:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 (already deleted prior to this closing). Postdlf (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Stars that has eight planets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Nominator's rationale: Delete

The label "planet" is already controversial and speculative enough, but it's even moreso when we start adding other stars into the mix. We don't even know of all of the bodies that orbit our Sun and only have been able to find a couple of planets around other stars (many stars granted, thanks to better telescopes and improving techniques, but still I don't even think I've heard of another star where we've found more than five "planets," so it's probably too soon to start speculating on what is how many "planets" a star should be expected to have, or will we have to make new category for planets with seven planets? Fifteen?).

I've been trying to find the deletion policy for categories but was unlucky (because all of the deletion information is so disorganized!) Anyway it should be "Stars that have eight planets". --IdLoveOne (talk 00:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is apparently about Category:Stars that has eight planets. I just added the CfD notice to that cat. I prefer to delete this, as the number of planets doesn't seem to be such an important character, but I would believe a category for stars with planets in general would be good and I would happily defer to the opinion of someone more versed in taxonomy than I am. At the very least, the grammatical error in this category should be amended.
• I note that Category:Planetary systems contains several similar categories. Should those also be nominated for deletion? Ucucha 01:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This is already under discussion at cfd so this one should be closed (and the tag needs to be changed; and the others are not all tagged). Occuli (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see, I would've just posted my opinion there if there'd been a link on this 8-star version, and you must admit it doesn't seem very practical to make new category for each number of planets, if we tried this with asteroids we could kiss WP goodbye! As this is still up for possible deletion I'm not sure this section should be closed (the template I mean). --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it will be a considerable time before we find anything more than the one and two digit integers--when we start knowing of ones that conceivably have thousands our successors can reconsider the matter--but I think the more we know, the more we will need categories. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, if only for the God-awful grammar. Beyond that, too little is known about exo-planets to begin categorizing stars by the number of planets they have. Heck, I think a category simply listing stars with known exo-planets is a bit marginal. oknazevad (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete per above; no reason to break these down by number of planets yet; only contains Sun. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment -- This should be closed to conform to the outcome of the recent discussion on other numbers of planets. My preference is to upmerge to stars with planets. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• See my opinion at the recent discussion on other numbers of planets, to upmerge to Category:Stars with planets. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[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.