Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 12



Category:Featured in the Super Robot Wars Series

 * 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 on delete; rename to to Category:Anime featured in the Super Robot Wars series for clarity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * featured in the super robot wars series


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a useless category. The single games can easily cover any relevant series, so there is no need to categorize them at all. TTN (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Do you have any idea how many games that is? If nothing else, it keeps a person from having to search through multiple sources just to find out the one question this category answers. 98.199.35.106 (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Anime featured in the Super Robot Wars series. If the category survives, it should at least have a noun at the front.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Culinary Heritage of Switzerland

 * 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:  at 2008 DEC 21. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

culinary heritage of switzerland
 * nn encyclopedia website spamming category. article not like this website. --Wingfilee (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete needless category for 1 article. [Premature] Occuli (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The category now has 20 articles again. It was temporarily empty because of its removal from articles by the nominator,, who is now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. For the merits, compare Articles for deletion/Culinary Heritage of Switzerland and Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 12.  Sandstein   20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify The list is quasi-official, but a list at the article Culinary Heritage of Switzerland is enough - there isn't one yet. Who knew Ovaltine was Swiss! Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The category has the advantage of being accessible through the articles themselves. Also, categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. If a list is created, it should be a standalone list, because the encyclopedia has some 400 entries.  Sandstein   09:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes if the list reaches 400. At the moment we only seem to have 20 articles, and given the database is online there seems little point in adding hundreds of redlinks. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A list of Swiss food specialities in general might be useful, but its scope would go beyond this database (including e.g. wines) and certainly have many redlinks. But having a list, either in the article or standalone, does not make this category superfluous.  Sandstein   13:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have Category:Swiss cuisine. My problem with the category as a category is expressed below. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is a legitimate category. Lists are useful in this context only to identify missing articles that need to be written.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that while it may be defining for say Tilsit cheese (not that Tilsit is anywhere near Switzerland), I doubt if it is for meringue etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Vishakapatnam

 * 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; retain redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

vishakapatnam
 * Merge to . Two spellings of the same city. --Soman (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom (and convert to a category redirect?). The main article is at Visakhapatnam. Cgingold (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge (but retain redirect). I suspect we have rival spellings for the same place because of different transliteration from another language.  We should use the currently accepted version, but keep the other as a redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Canadian football players

 * 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:Players of Canadian football; disambig page created. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

canadian football players
 * Rename to Category:Players of Canadian football. The current name is quite ambiguous: does it refer to "Canadian football" or to "Canadian players"? The proposed name mirrors the name now used for this category's American counterpart, Category:Players of American football, which was formerly named Category:American football players (now a redirect dab category).  Cgingold (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, this category should be retained as a non-used disambiguation category (as Mayumashu suggests), with the real category at the new name. Cgingold (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename - Cgingold makes, as usual, complete sense. Occuli (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. or tag 'category ambiguous'  Mayumashu (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, and create the DAB placeholder as required. Neier (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Double Blue  (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

African American football players

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

african american american football players african american canadian football players
 * Rename to and, respectively. The current names are malformed and a bit confusing; the proposed names are consistent with the parent cats,  and .   Cgingold (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename - Cgingold makes, as we have come to expect, an eloquent and convincing case. Occuli (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is Category:Canadian football players which is equally confusing. Occuli (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point -- it's nommed above. PS - your check is in the mail... :) Cgingold (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as per nom, Mayumashu (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The standard in the much-abused Category:African American sportspeople is generally "African American foo players" and I enjoy the repetition of the word American in "African American American football players". Alansohn (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I bet you wouldn't be quite so amused if we were talking about a category for "New New Jersey Jersey barriers"! :) (Or would you??) Cgingold (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a proud resident of the state that invented the traffic device (or at least is assigned blame for it) and seeing the age of many of these concrete dividers here in the Garden State, seeing a whole bunch of "New New Jersey Jersey barriers" would make my day. Seeing a category by that name -- especially one that survived CfD -- would be a remarkable event for all involved, both for New Jersey drivers and Wikipedia editors. Alansohn (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Alansohn will have to treasure his memories :)  Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support despite inconsistency. The succession of three national adjectives is highly undesirable.  The alternative may be African-American American-football players, but we do not usually hyphenate like that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Neier (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. It just makes a lot more sense.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Major gay pornographic studios

 * 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) 21:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Major gay pornographic studios to Category:Gay pornographic film studios
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - both to match the parent category and because there is no objective definition of "major". This seems similar to using the word "notable" in a category name, which we don't do. Otto4711 (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support rename per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any other categories for film studios by the type of film they make&mdash;do these specialize, and is specializing typical of the porn industry? Postdlf (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this entirely answers your question, but I'm surprised this isn't a sub-cat of (or would that be West Hollywood?). :) Cgingold (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to this category, there is its parent Category:Pornographic film studios and Category:Animation studios. And yes, the studios categorized here all specialize in gay male porn. Otto4711 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. In contrast to, in this case there's no problem with ambiguity, since studios can't be gay... Then again -- I could be wrong about that... Cgingold (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Cruise missiles by operator

 * 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 --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * cruise missiles by operator


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - makes little sense as an organizational structure. Otto4711 (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I'm still scratching my head -- even if it were fully populated, this category wouldn't aid navigation as well as already does.   Cgingold (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unclear what purpose this category is supposed to serve or why it would add anything not offered by Category:Cruise missiles by country. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Category:Cruise missiles by country.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.