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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I don't think there is a need to categorize by the state an album was recorded in anymore than categorizing by city (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 7#Albums by city of recording location). The venue itself is what makes where an album was recorded somewhat defining, not the location of the venue. Plus it encourages editors to put any album recorded anywhere in the state of California in this category, which is not defining to the album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how an artist recording an album in California would mean it qualifies as or represents the music of California. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:31, 21 December 2012 (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.
Category:Mahala
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 delete. – FayenaticLondon 22:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of this category? The sole page that it contains is a user page with nothing on it. SuperMarioMan 22:03, 19 December 2012 (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.
Category:Customary units in India
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 to rename. delldot∇. 08:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If needed new category for a region can be created but it is not appropriate to change the country speci category's name.Shyamsunder (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Object to speedy rename. Changes scope of the category, so requires discussion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If needed new category for a region can be created but it is not appropriate to change the country specific category's name.Shyamsunder (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The units are those that have been historically used in various parts of India. To the extent that we have categories for systems of units they are by country categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2012 (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.
Category:Fictional clones
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 to rename. I'm not going to purge this, any editor is invited to remove an article from this category that they feel doesn't belong there. delldot∇. 08:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match the content, the category also contains characters that were cloned and as it stands is somewhat misleading. Brandmeistertalk 09:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems more apt.146.90.110.75 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perge. I do not think that having been cloned is really worth merging with being a clone. I think it makes sense to limit this category to just clones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting would require an interested user and some scrutiny. Brandmeistertalk 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just cleanup/purge. adding evert character who has ever been cloned is a bad idea. And futher, I would support suggesting listify/delete, because I have a feeling that most of these clones likely will not have their own article, and so will merely be included in the "clonee"s articles (if such exists). This is a common plot device in fiction. Oh and also due to the overlapping vagueness of the terms "clone", "duplicate", and "replicant" in sci-fi. Oh and also because of the Silver Age Bizarro World : ) - jc37 05:24, 20 December 2012 (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.
Category:Permanent Representatives of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Nairobi
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:speedily deleted per G7: creator emptied it and immediately replaced it with Category:Permanent Representatives of Colombia to the United Nations at Nairobi.Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Permanent Representatives of Colombia to the United Nations Office at Nairobi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:mijotoba (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2012 (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.
Category:Ezhava People
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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. My understanding is that there has been a fairly long-standing consensus that we do not categorize people by Indian caste. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete:Please explain I've struck the !vote here because Kadinjool also !votes below. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly point to the discussion, rather than giving reference to "your understanding". Categorization based on ethnicity
is pretty common. What's special about Indian caste? Kadinjool (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it—I don't know where the discussions are found. I have been told this in the past by members of the India WikiProject. You could ask that WikiProject for more details. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete caste is OCAT; as would be class in Western culture: Category:Land owning people, Category:Rich people, Category:Proletarian people, please, no! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If people are similar in a well-defined way, what is wrong with the category? (As opposed to rich people, which is not well-defined enough). -- YPNYPN 21:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely not WP:OCAT. Please read WP:OC#EGRS. Ezhava itself is a unique and distinct cultural topic. And hence not over categorization. Kadinjool (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The long-standing precedent is to not categorize people by caste. Notifying the India wikipedia project might be useful in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedent referred to by others above and, indeed, recent similar discussions concerning that precedent here. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous precedent, and because such categorisations violate core WP:BLP policy. 'Caste' is as much an economic/political/religious category as an 'ethnic' one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ireland mountains and hills navigational boxes
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 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.
Books by publisher
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Two opposed speedies. The convention for the subcategories of Category:Books by publisher is "NAME-OF-PUBLISHER books", where "NAME-OF-PUBLISHER" is formatted in the same manner as the WP article about that publisher. Here, the NAME-OF-PUBLISHER is Abrams Books; Golden Books is not an article, but it redirects to Western Publishing. (Upon investigation, I have learned that the publisher is not "Golden Book", it is "Golden Books".)
This is also similar to the formatting used for the subcategories of Category:Films by studio, which results in some "XXXX Films films" category names, but we have accepted this as implementation of a standard, and I see no reason to depart from it here in the context of a different medium.
Anyway, "Abrams books" is ambiguous; "Abrams Books books" is not. For the Golden Books one, there is no reason to use "publications" when they are all books and they are categorized in the Category:Books tree. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename - per GO & MS. "Golden Books" is the publisher (or imprint in this case), not "Golden". So the current categories are misnamed. Period. - jc37 06:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Being wrong because "it doesn't look as awkward as being right" is still being wrong. - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:11, 23 December 2012 (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.