< February 9	February 11 >

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. Please double-check my repopulation efforts. postdlf (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish State Railways steam locomotives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Retain and repopulate. This category was emptied, probably into Category:Electric locomotives of Poland. Either the category should be repopulated or, if poorly named, to another category for the railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I do not think we need both. I assume that since WWII, PKP has been the only Polish railway. Category:Polish State Railways diesel locomotives is also useless as it contains one item that would probably be better moved the the parent, not that I know much of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both and repopulate Category:Polish State Railways electric locomotives to ensure that the locomotives are properly categorised both by country and by company. By placing the locos solely in Category:Electric locomotives of Poland removes them from Category:Polish State Railways. The intermediate category Category:Electric locomotives of Poland may appear superfluous from a Polish perspective, but it should stay per WP:OC#SMALL as part of a series, in this case the series Category:Electric locomotives by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Retain and Repopulate as category serves as a navigation aid for this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 18:17, 12 February 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. I will repopulate from the parent noted below; please check if there are articles elsewhere that should also go in this one. postdlf (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish State Railways steam locomotives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Retain and repopulate. This category was emptied, probably into Category:Steam locomotives of Poland. Either the category should be repopulated or, if poorly named, to another category for the railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I do not think we need both. I assume that since WWII, PKP has been the only Polish railway. See also preceding item, which is similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both and repopulate Category:Polish State Railways steam locomotives to ensure that the locomotives are properly categorised both by country and by company. By placing the locos solely in Category:Steam locomotives of Poland, they are removed them from Category:Polish State Railways. -The intermediate category Category:Steam locomotives of Poland may appear superfluous from a Polish perspective, but it should stay per WP:OC#SMALL as part of a series, in this case the series Category:Steam locomotives by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Retain and Repopulate as category serves as a navigation aid for this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 18:17, 12 February 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: castrate all, by removing the "The". (This reference to castration is a somewhat elaborate joke, which I shall now explain and thereby demonstrate how not to by very funny. The Bee Gees—sorry, "Bee Gees"—was composed of the three Gibb brothers. A gib is a castrated cat or ferret. Add this fact to the band's falsetto singing style, and this reference thus becomes doubly hilarious. That is all. (I'm straining in my efforts to resist tying in "diktats". You guys make this way too easy.)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:The Bee Gees to Category:Bee Gees
• Category:The Bee Gees albums to Category:Bee Gees albums
• Category:The Bee Gees songs to Category:Bee Gees songs
• Category:The Bee Gees members to Category:Bee Gees members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article, Bee Gees (not The Bee Gees) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. I dunno, I can't imagine saying "I'm going to Bee Gees' concert tonight." Rename. After posting my initial comment, I looked at File:Best_of_bee_gees.jpg which settles it for me. If this was named "Best of the Bee Gees," then I'd go the other way, but it's not, so I won't. (Any reason these aren't one nomination, Justin?)--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just merged them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging Thanks. I didn't merge them simply because it was easier for me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe, but not merging saves you a little work (it only took me 2 minutes to do the merge) and makes a lot more work for each of the other editors trying to participate bin the discussion. Consensus is not best formed whilst the discussion is split under four headings. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This question must have come up before with Category:The Beatles, no? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment If these are kept, I will nominate Bee Gees for moving. There is no reason why the article and category should have two different names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. The name of the band is Bee Gees: see eg File:Bgs68a1.jpg (whereas it is The Beatles). One does put in a 'the' under some circumstances, but that is beside the point. Occuli (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per WP:COMMONNAME. They are known as "the Bee Gees", even if the definite article is not formally part of their title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is counter to the thrust of cfd renames over the last 2 or 3 years, for the category to match the article. There are plenty of similar instances, eg Spice Girls, Category:Spice Girls; United States of America, Category:United States of America; United Kingdom, Category:United Kingdom. We will be very busy if this rather bizarre interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME is adopted. I would say that the convention is to omit the 'the' unless it is formally part of the name. (Which reminds me of The The. Did one go to see the 'The The', or just give up and stay at home in semantic confusion?) Occuli (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If the "correct" common name for the group contains the word "the", the place to make the change is at the article, not at CfD. Fostering an environment where CfD, the flea at the tip of the tail of the dog, is wagging to dictate the proper titles of articles, only makes Wikipedia harder to use. Why would we deliberately create conflicts between article and category titles by CfD diktat? Alansohn (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alansohn, I don't know what purpose you think is served by your characterisation of a CfD decision as a "diktat", but apart from the fact that decisions are made by consensus rather than "diktat", that sort of inflammatory language does not help build consensus.
  If you read my !vote above, you'll see that I didn't say "rename", I said "keep". The discrepancy exists already, and I am suggesting that CfD should leave it e rather than create it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Per the guideline, we don't start the article title with the definite article unless it's part of the official name or a title of a work. Here it's not. Categories should generally follow article naming conventions, and there's no need to make an exception here. Jafeluv (talk) 07:29, 14 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:United States Coast and Geodetic Survey ship names to Category:Ships of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate content, the proposed merge destination is the more completely filled and has more parent and child categories. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge to use the better populated and categorized of the two competing choices. Alansohn (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 13 February 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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:City Districts of Aalborg to Category:Neighbourhoods in Aalborg

Nominator's rationale: Aalborg has no City districts (They have no administrative power!), but more like some neighbourhoods. --Patchfinder (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 13 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gurjar villages

Nominator's rationale: POV category with ill-defined inclusion criterion. See earlier discussion on Category:Places named after Gujjars that ended in deletion and the Category:Gurjar era nominated below. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, there's really nothing more to add to that statement. —SpacemanSpiff 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very subjective.It was last in 1931 when the census staff asked Indians to name their caste. There was no caste question in any subsequent census. 1931 cesus results are now outdated . No means to confirm which villages have majority of people of Gurjar caste.We have to trust the personal first hand of the editor only and that is not desirable.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:25, 11 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gurjar era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: On-wiki reification of an "era" and coining of a neologism. Not a single reliable source outside wikipedia and its mirrors seems to be aware of this period of Indian history. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Abecedare (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename-Hi, I coined the category only based on the idea that the era in which Gurjara clans ruled must have been Gurjar era.If it seems neologism, as you pointed out, raname it as Gurjar empire [Here] or Gurjar rulers .For reference check out Some Problems of Ancient Indian History. No. II: The Gurjara Empire A. F. Rudolf Hoernle Here Regards Chhora (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category as-is. The term is a Wikipedia creation, the articles are linked by the master category of Category:Gurjar and not due to any empire or emperor notation that this subcategory tries to suggest.—SpacemanSpiff 21:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I kept only rulers in this category and removed clan names from it, so there would be no problem to rename it as Gurjar rulers i think.RegardsChhora (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The wikipedia should not be used to coin new term. No outside source at all. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but be carefull that the articles should be otherwise categorised to related categories. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 13 February 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 to Category:Environmental issues. (Oh how I wanted to just pluralize this to "Ecological crises".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecological crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category does not lend itself easily towards being populated. "Ecological crisis" is a little emotive and is more of a broad phrase that has no clear definition. Also, the contents are adequately covered by Category:Environmental issues -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 15:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Environmental issues. This adequately covers the content in a WP:NPOV manner. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An environmental crisis is much more than an environmental issue. An example of environmental crisis is the climate crisis. --Nopetro (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Environmental issues per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Environmental issues. I agree that many ecological issues are at crisis point, but deciding which issues have become a crisis is a POV nightmare. This sort of subjective distinction just sets up editors for disputes, because honest NPOV editors will legitimately take different views of what constitutes a crisis, and POV-pushers can have a field-day arguing their take on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I'm not sure about any of the Crisis categories, but this one, being "politically correct", is particularly problematic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 17 February 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 to Category:Amis family. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prpose deleting

• Category:Kingsley Amis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Martin Amis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added later)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, eponymous categories for people should usually be created only to group a series of sub-articles on people whose coverage on Wikipedia has become too big fit in one article, and I see no sign of the article on Kingsley Amis growing soon to the point where it needs to be split in that way. The category text says that it is "for articles related to Kingsley Amis and his works", but his works are already categorised in Category:Novels by Kingsley Amis. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it should certainly contain Category:Novels by Kingsley Amis (and now does). There are also non-novels by Amis (see Kingsley Amis: eg criticism and letters) which should be in some KA category (eg Works by KA) and are there not biographies? (If everything does fit in eg Category:Works by Kingsley Amis then I agree that the eponymous category can go.) Occuli (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: we could consider Category:Martin Amis at the same time. Occuli (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea. I have added Category:Martin Amis to the nomination. I don't see anything for either of them which wouldn't fit neatly in a (Works by) category. However, since there are at least three notable members of this family plus a few subcats, I wonder if it might be appropriate to merge these two categs to a new Category:Amis family? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My intention in creating these was to add all their works, people and institutions associated with them etc. Having a works-only category means there's nowhere to add non-works material, which is why I created the umbrella categories. I can't see any problem with retaining them, but I wouldn't object to an Amis family category. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The convention is not to categorise by association with people, so the categories for the individuals have limited scope. But the family category could join a lot of the core stuff together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:Amis family. We have two major writers who are father and son. They could each be the main artilce in a "works by" category, but Sally Amis would not fit. Since notability is not inherited, I am not clear why she needs an article, but if she does, she will best fit in a family category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both have enough works and connections to justify eponymous categories. Alansohn (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of keeping the two categories? Wikipdia categories are a device to assist navigation, not some sort of honour, and I can see no benefit to readers or editors in having two categories which both contain the same three people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Amis family. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• These categories include basically the same 2/3 articles. Merging them to a family-related category has no rationale. All that is worth keeping in these categories are their subcategories, which leads me to agree with the nominator to delete these unnecessary eponymous categories. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- It makes sense to put the works and the writers together. Maurreen (talk) 05:38, 19 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:X (U.S. band) albums to Category:X (American band) albums

Nominator's rationale: per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and all the similar ones below to match the band name (including any disamb). I think we have established that if the band is 'XXX YYY' then its category (if any) should be Cat:XXX YYY and the subcategories should all follow suit. Occuli (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:19, 11 February 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 (reasons for deletion are presumably moot; category has two articles and the spelling matches the main article). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WC and the Maad Circle albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty, possible misspelling. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – and re-populate (there are 2 articles which have been removed, unaccountably). See WC and the Maad Circle. (There is also Category:WC albums but the 2 are different.) Occuli (talk) 10:09, 10 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Radiators (US) albums to Category:The Radiators (American band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:20, 11 February 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. No consensus to rename. postdlf (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Ranch albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only consists of a single redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this is a useful redirect to a substantial subsection of the band article. See WP:Categorizing redirects, Subtopic categorization. Occuli (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The group only had one album which does not have its own article. There will never be any articles to add to this cat. Sussexonian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if kept to match parent article The Ranch (band) as Category:The Ranch (band) albums ; DELETE as a perma-empty category of one resident. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a perma-empty category (or to be more pecise, a category permanently containing only a redirect to the band). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as an aid to navigation for this group's albums. Eric444 (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albums? Plural??
    They only made one album before they broke up 12 years ago, and it doesn't have a separate article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 16 February 2010
• Keep It's acceptable for a category to contain only redirects. I don't think it needs a qualifier, since there is no reason to think that "the Ranch" could refer to anything other than a band in this sense. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects? as in plural? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per perma-empty status. One redirect does not a category make. --Kbdank71 14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category for every artist is overkill and to now add single entry categories that are for a redirect is simply insane! Allow recreation if the article is ever created. If kept, rename to Category:The Ranch (band) albums. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 24 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PF Project albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Albums by a redlink band. Marking articles as db-band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – could there be a notable album by a non-notable band? I would say not, so delete. Occuli (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Empty, redlinked parent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deletion declined, but delete anyway. This is not what G8 is for, but the category is empty, and considering that this is already in a deletion discussion and is probably going to get deleted for being empty, I see no reason to nominate it under C1. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:58, 10 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:The Number 12 Looks Like You albums to Category:The Number Twelve Looks Like You albums

Nominator's rationale: Obvious mistake. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:21, 11 February 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 (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The New Sound Quartet albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redlink band. Marking two articles for db-band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I looked at the two articles, and this band is not listed as the artist in the infobox. Can someone else figure out what's going on here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty category without a parent. Alansohn (talk) 01:22, 11 February 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 to Category:Minutemen (band) albums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Minutemen albums to Category:Minutemen albums

Nominator's rationale: Or possible Minutemen (band) albums, per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I did this silliness?!? I even have Double Nickels on the Dime on my freaking hard drive, and I did this? Bearcat (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but to Category:Minutemen (band) albums. Occuli (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Occuli Category:Minutemen (band) albums to match head article Minutemen (band) (and of course to avoid any ambiguity with the extensive discography of the Minuteman missile). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Minutemen (band) albums to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 10 February 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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Fifth Dimension songs[edit]

Propose renaming Category:The Fifth Dimension songs to Category:The 5th Dimension songs

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator and to match head article The 5th Dimension. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Fifth Dimension albums[edit]

Propose renaming Category:The Fifth Dimension albums to Category:The 5th Dimension albums

Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator and to match head article The 5th Dimension. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 10 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LBC albums to Category:Lucky Boys Confusion albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to expand abbreviation per head article Lucky Boys Confusion, and to avoid ambiguity (see LBC (disambiguation)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 10 February 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 to Category:Ian Campbell (artist) albums. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICE MC albums to Category:Ian Campbell albums

Nominator's rationale: Or possibly Ian Campbell (artist) albums, per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – the advantage with adding (artist) is that one doesn't need to go through all other Ian Campbells to see if they might have produced albums. (I'm not sure that this has arisen before, unlike 'band' of which we have had plenty.) Occuli (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ian Campbell (artist) albums to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Adding '(artist)' is no help at all. Looking at Ian Campbell (disambiguation) there are 2 or 3 other Ian Campbells who are also musicians, the tag '(artist)' on the current one is not specific enough to distinguish him from the others. Ian Campbell should be renamed to something like Ian Campbell (rap artist) but failing that the cat rename is a waste of time. Sussexonian (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ian Campbell (rapper) albums or similar per Sussexonian. Article should probably be moved too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something more specific per Sussexonian. --Kbdank71 14:54, 19 February 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 09:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:News-Press & Gazette Company brands to Category:News-Press & Gazette Company

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The use of subcategories is extraneous as the parent category, News Press and Gazette Company, only has one entry (for the company), and two subcategories for its properties and people. This is prcatically needless overcategorisation. azumanga (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is the well-developed Category:Brands in which this sits. Occuli (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Occuli. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an aid to navigation for the company's divisions. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 10 February 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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DJ Horn albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redlink artist. Only two articles are various artist compilations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 10 February 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 (empty once miscategorization issue is resolved). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DJ Seduction albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redlink artist, only article is a various artists compilation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Compilation albums of various artists don't belong in the albums-by-artist category tree (because hey are not actually albums-by-artist), so this category should be empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 10 February 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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Clark Family Experience albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only article is a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – valid use. See above. Occuli (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's acceptable for a category to contain only redirects. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an aid to navigation for this group's albums. Alansohn (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The group only had one album which does not have its own article. There will never be any articles to add to this cat. Sussexonian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sussexonian. --Kbdank71 14:52, 19 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Buffalo Club albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Alligators category below was kept through a CFD before even though it contained only redirects. Apparently this is an acceptable way to categorize. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - valid use. Occuli (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an aid to navigation for this group's albums. Alansohn (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The group only had one album which does not have its own article. There will never be any articles to add to this cat. Sussexonian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sussexonian. Not helpful. --Kbdank71 14:47, 19 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Balham Alligators albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only redirects —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Alligators category was kept through a CFD before even though it contained only redirects. Apparently this is an acceptable way to categorize. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment How can this be meaningful; categorizing redirects as albums? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Archive For anyone who wants to see the rationale given before: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_3#Category:The_Balham_Alligators_albums. I'm still a bit skeptical, but it's something worth taking into account. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a good example of categorising redirects. Occuli (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an aid to navigation for this group's albums. Alansohn (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The group's albums are all described in the main article. There will never be any articles to add to this cat. There is no navigation needed for this group's albums, as they are all in one place. The existence of the category falsely implies there are some articles to be found by clicking the entries. A user starting from the category page would be constantly revisiting the same page so this cat is positively unhelpful. Sussexonian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so - the existence of the category implies correctly that there is information on each album to be found by clicking the entries. (This is the whole point of categorising redirects, which appear in italics to make it clear that there is not a separate article.) Occuli (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In addition to Sussexonian's comment, it doesn't appear rational that a redirect from album A by artist X, redirecting to X, being in category X albums, serves any useful purpose, or any purpose under WP:CAT-R, as claimed in the previous "keep". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The aid to navigation for this group's albums is the group's article, which is the only place they are all listed. --Kbdank71 14:50, 19 February 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 (has remained empty; presumably contents were deleted at AFD). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Beds albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Main article is a redlink and only article in the category is AfD (by me.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's acceptable for a category to contain only redirects. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an aid to navigation for this group's albums. Alansohn (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The group has no article on Wikipedia and if any albums exist they have no article. The existence of this category misleads. There will never be any articles to add to this cat. Sussexonian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sussexonian. Category is now empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 15 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer12345's Stuff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Falls short of WP:USERCAT as user categories should be created to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users. — ξ^xplicit 04:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator as useless for collaboration, and because such categories are un-needed even for the one editor who might make sue of them. Any editor can handily track their own subpages by using the very simplebut under-advertised Special:Prefixindex (in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Computer12345&namespace=2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Computer12345&namespace=3 ). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Pcap ping 13:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as category does not aid navigation or collaboration. Alansohn (talk) 23:14, 10 February 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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Faint songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No actual articles, just a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is Agenda Suicide + a few others; but the redirect in this case is not useful and should be ditched (as there is nothing much about the song in the band article). Occuli (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as aid to navigation for this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There should rarely be a "songs" category because very few songs have their own article. A List of XXX songs can contain redlinks (and such a list likely already exists in the band's article), whereas a category can only contain a song that has been found notable. The category misleads by suggesting very few songs exist. Sussexonian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ELP songs to Category:Emerson, Lake & Palmer songs

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: It sounds reasonable to me! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per head article and to expand abbreviation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. However, should we get an article about an Emerson, Lake & Powell song, that will need to go in a different category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per nominator, per unanimous agreement, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 13 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Descendents songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – it's at Category:Descendents songs. Occuli (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per db-c1. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as existing category serves this purpose. Alansohn (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as empty. The main article is also at Descendents. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 13 February 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 to Category:Burials at the Cemetery of the Evergreens. Not a strong enough consensus below to delete, particularly given the many other similar categories (e.g., in Category:Burials in the United States and its subcategories) and CFD precedents retaining them. For those who believe deletion is proper, perhaps a centralized discussion should happen somewhere to weigh the pros and cons of categorization by place of burial in general (if this hasn't already been done ad nauseum) and to develop a greater consensus and interest in the issue. postdlf (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Burials at The Cemetery of the Evergreens (Brooklyn) to Category:Burials at Cemetery of the Evergreens

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary dab. I recently moved Cemetery of the Evergreens, Brooklyn to Cemetery of the Evergreens, since my search didn't bring up any other cemetery with the same name. — ξ^xplicit 03:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Burials at the Cemetery of the Evergreens per usual English. (Do not delete, per previous similar burials discussions, often feisty.) Occuli (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, then Rename to Category:Burials at the Cemetery of the Evergreens, to fix capitalisation and remove an un-needed disambiguator I'll take the nominator's word on the lack of ambiguity in good faith, though I am surprised that such a clichéd name has not been used elsewhere, since trite and inane clichés seem to be the stock-in-trade of the dead-people business.
  As noted below, I'm not really sure that categorisation-of-biographies-by-any-regulated-place-of-burial is a great idea, but I'll leave that for a day when I feel a bit more feisty. ;) --BrownHairedNotReallyAllThatStroppyTodayGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since some of the comments below favour deletion, I thought I'd just clarify that I have no objection to that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Agnostic on need of the word "the". I'm feisty enough to ensure that these defining categories remain. Alansohn (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convince me that this is defining for the individual and I'll vote to rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. A place of burial is not notable (even if the obituary will usually mention it). If kept, rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable or defining. --Kbdank71 14:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, most of the time place of burial is not defining, especially not in a garden variety (evergreen variety) cemetery. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 20 February 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 to Category:A Touch of Class (band) songs. Kbdank71 14:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:ATC songs to Category:A Touch of Class songs

Nominator's rationale: Or possibly A Touch of Class (band) songs. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator to either Category:A Touch of Class songs or Category:A Touch of Class (band) songs per head article A Touch of Class (band). Either is better than using an obscure and ambiguous abbreviation (see ATC (disambiguation)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:A Touch of Class (band) songs to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 13 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Burials at Ferncliff Cemetery and Mausoleum (Westchester) to Category:Burials at Ferncliff Cemetery

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Ferncliff Cemetery. — ξ^xplicit 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. But I'm not really sure that categorisation-by-place-of-burial is a great idea except in the case of highly-notable burial places, but that's another day's work, since life is too short to open cans of worms when they can more easily be splattered with why-oh-why clichés. --BrownHairedGrumpyOldCrone (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. A place of burial is not notable (even if the obituary will usually mention it). If kept, rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 13 February 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: Speedy as G7. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fairleigh Dickinson Knights football coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete per CSD G7. I accidentally made this category when it should have read "Fairleigh Dickinson Devils football coaches" because that is the nickname of the Division III Fairleigh Dickinson (Florham campus) football team. The main campus located in Madison, NJ are known as the Knights, and the football coach navbox I created earlier is actually for the D-III campus. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So be it, I was going to suggest renaming this, but since we can't actually re-name categories, an admin might as well throw this into the aether. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:18, 10 February 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of major league baseball Opening Day starting baseball pitchers to Category:Lists of Major League Baseball Opening Day starting pitchers

Nominator's rationale: "Major League Baseball" is an organization, and should therefore be capitalized. Mm40 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And... it doesn't need to say baseball twice. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That it does not. Strike the second "baseball", and rename. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesus wept. Do we really have no less than 36 such lists on some arcane trivia of a ballgame? Is there anything that has ever happened to a round ball which is not copiously documented, categorised, and listed on wikipedia? I know that CFD's purpose is to discuss categorisation of content rather than the content itself, but the existence of this category compared with the sparse coverage of so many aspects of real life makes me shudder.
  Anyway, rename to Category:Lists of Major League Baseball Opening Day starting pitchers to fix capitalisation and to avoid the duplicate use of "baseball" noted by Killervogel5. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename MLB should be in initial caps and the second word "baseball" is not needed. Have we come to the point in the navel gazing world of CfD where a deity must be invoked to kvetch about content we just don't like? I shudder at the thought. Alansohn (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problem is not so much with the content itself as with the systemic bias. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Systemic bias against what? Why not devote time to creating the "missing" articles and solve the bias rather than lamenting it here, where we spend our days as omphaloskeptics, renaming and deleting categories back and forth. Besides, we would work better here if questions of titles and deletion were addressed based on judgments of how the category aids navigation rather than perceptions of how Jesus would react. Alansohn (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go .... I suggest this issue be dropped as it's not particularly germane to the issue at hand in this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here we go again .... Jesus weeping about baseball pitchers is germane? Alansohn (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said it's not particularly germane. Is not—opposite of is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, Jesus wasn't German. He was Judean, or something like that. Maybe Judean People's Front. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you sure? What about John 12:48—"Ich bin ein Messiah" and all that? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought everybody knew that John was a propagandist of the People's Front of Judea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've been misinformed. I was under the impression that he was three different persons. But at the same time, just one person—three in one, just like Jesus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Splitter! --Kbdank71 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. And then delete all articles and anything else connected to stupid games. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Have we come to the point in the bizarro world of CfD where even though we all agree on the outcome, we still find a reason to kvetch about content we just don't like? I shudder at the thought. --Kbdank71 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. This discussion is so awesome—lots of "weeping", "shuddering", references to "stupid games", etc. I'm taking this opportunity to say, "I just crapped myself!", just so we can add another bodily process to the mix. And that the nom proposes a sensible change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:21, 20 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sultan Abu Bakar School (SABS), Kuantan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: 'Delete. Superfluous category for one school, and no prospect of any possibility of expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Sultan Abu Bakar School (SABS), Kuantan is adequately categorised without its eponymous parent. Occuli (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, can't see any potential for expansion in this one's future. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Very few schools will ever need their own category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and Peterkingiron. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 13 February 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.