Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 28



Category:X-Men comics

 * 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 Category:X-Men comics to Category:X-Men titles. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:X-Men comics to Category:X-Men titles
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category is used to collect the articles on comic book magazines focusing on characters that comprise Marvel Comics X-Men franchise. This would make the category a child Category:Marvel Comics titles (under Category:Comic book titles). Similar franchise groupings use "Franchise titles" (examples Category:Spider-Man titles and Category:Superman titles), renaming this cat would bring it in line with the others. J Greb (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 12:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename ironically I was just thinking this needed renaming and checked to find it was already nominated. (Emperor (talk) 18:01, 2 July 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:Cradel and Ijanderson977

 * 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. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * cradel and ijanderson977


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - "This is a list of all userboxes created by User:Cradel and User:Ijanderson977." Not useful to categorize userboxes by who created them. Additionally, users are showing up in the categoy improperly. The name of the category also gives no clue as to its actual intended purpose until you read the description, and would set precedent for any 2-user combination category to be created if kept. Users can use the prefix index to find userboxes created by them. VegaDark (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - we don't categorize articles, images, or userpages by who wrote or uploaded them, and the same goes for userboxes too. Either keep a list, use "what links here" or the prefix index. BencherliteTalk 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this is better off as a subpage or a list. There are also various lists in Userboxes which may be used to house these userboxes.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 12:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * subpage better off as a subpage. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 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.

United States radio templates

 * 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. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * united states radio market templates


 * Nominator's rationale: Confusing to keep this category. PageRadio1000 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 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.

Northern Exposure

 * 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. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * northern exposure


 * northern exposure cast members


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete both - the cast subcat is improper performer by performance overcategorization. The category for the series is eponymous overcategorization per hundreds of precedents and is also a small category with no growth potential. The show's article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete the main category as recreation of deleted material. Delete the cast members category per multiple precedents as overcat. BencherliteTalk 20:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; though maybe a speedy should be avoided due to the paucity of input in the former CfD, but I certainly wouldn't oppose a speedy delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 1 July 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:Walking with 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: delete. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * walking with series


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - main article Walking with... serves as an appropriate navigational hub. There is also a complete template. No need for the eponymous category. If retained, it needs to be renamed because the current name is unclear. Otto4711 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - An unnecessary category. One might seek an analogy with deletion of performance by performer categories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 29 June 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:TVyNovelas Awards

 * 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. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * tvynovelas awards


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - all of the subcats are going to be speedily deleted as a result of a previous CFD. The category is not needed to hold just the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Subcats added to WP:CFDW for deletion, so delete the parent category: as Otto says, unnecessary for one article. BencherliteTalk 09:47, 29 June 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:Presidents of the American Bar Association

 * 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. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * presidents of the american bar association


 * Nominator's rationale: Discuss - a previous CFR resulted in the renaming of this category from "Presidents of the ABA" but sentiment was expressed that the category be deleted as non-defining in favor of the list. It was suggested that the category be renamed and then nominated for deletion. The first part happened so here's part two. I don't have strong feelings either way. Otto4711 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep One could argue that this was equivalent to categorisation by award (which we regularly delete and listify), but to be president of a major professional body is rather more than a trivial award. We have retained Nobel prize categories and certain other important award categories.  I would suggest that this an important enough position for its retention.  Note: I am English.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pk. Only 2 were infavour of deletion last time. Seems defining for the likes of Frank E. Holman, though many were also politicians, or at least Solicitors-General. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's a notable/defining enough position to have held. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 1 July 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.

Actively undergoing

 * 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. The categories are used to find forgotten inuse and underconstruction tagged pages. I am one of those people who forgets about them. Evidently we need a way to find these articles and links will not do. Renaming seems pointless when they are hidden, maintenance cats. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rename of two related categories:


 * Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit to Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit
 * Category:Articles actively undergoing construction to Category:Pages actively undergoing construction
 * Rename as nom: Not all of the pages in these categories are articles. In fact in the first category alone, most would fall into the "other" area, if this existed. For example, user pages, general Wikipedia pages, project pages, portals etc. Simply south (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I guess I'm at kind of a loss as to why it's important or useful to categorize pages on this basis. Otto4711 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I also wonder about the value of these categories. I suppose it is to enable Admins to delete these tags if they have been there sometime without progress being made.  However, if they are not useful, they should certainly be deleted.
 * Their hidden categories, accompanying inuse and underconstruction. Simply south (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But what are they used for? What purpose do they serve? Otto4711 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are supposed to temporary, in place for a matter of hours & days respectively. If anyone watches the categories, they could be used to detect one forgotten about & left in place too long. But it might be a big if. Looking at some, Facility condition assessment (major edit) had not changed in 4 days, so I removed the tag. Nearly all of the rest of these seem to be on user sub-pages, where it seems odd to use "in use" at all. Template George Best has not been edited since April (Rich Farnborough if you please). Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - See comment above - I'm loath to delete unless there is another way of tracking these templates, which seem often forgotten about. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, this proposal was not about deleting them, just renaming them. Simply south (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but once a category is listed here, all options are on the table. Otto4711 (talk) 11:21, 30 June 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:Drafted Norwegians

 * 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:National Hockey League draft picks. All articles are listed in Category:Norwegian ice hockey players so a dual upmerge is not required. Further diffusion can be made after this CfD closes.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * drafted norwegians


 * Nominator's rationale: Category created for Norwegian hockey players selected in the National Hockey League draft. Unnecessary overcategorization, as players are already categorized under Category:Norwegian ice hockey players and category of specific NHL team draft choices (i.e., Espen Knutsen is categorized under Category:Columbus Blue Jackets draft picks). Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support nom – Upmerge to Category:Norwegian ice hockey players and Category:National Hockey League draft picks. (If this survives the name should be changed to something more comprehensible, such as 'Norwegian draft picks in the National Hockey League'.) There is as yet no other nationality subcat of Category:National Hockey League draft picks or Category:National Hockey League Entry Draft. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nom beat me to it. I was mulling over putting it up for the same reason. -Djsasso (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support nom - Only if the players gets a category like the one you mentioned Espen Knutsen had, but actually is the only one who doesn't have. lil2mas (talk) 17:34, 29 June 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:Female American state legislators

 * 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:American women state legislators. There were several issues raised in the discussion.  There was consensus for this rename.  The other issues raised they did not produce a consensus.  Those other points can be raised again in a new nomination.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Female American state legislators to Category:Female state legislators of the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent category: Category:State legislators of the United States and sister categories like Category:LGBT state legislators of the United States. – Lincolnite (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the other parent cat, Category:American women in politics, the picture is somewhat different. We have Category:American women state governors and Category:American women mayors -- and I would also point to the organization called the National Foundation for Women Legislators. So I would suggest renaming to Category:American women state legislators. Cgingold (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This was a tricky one to name, as Category:State legislators of the United States and Category:American women in politics have conflicting naming conventions; the latter, in fact, doesn't have a clear convention at all, but instead has subcategories named in several different formats. As the creator, I have no preference as to the potential new title for this, except to note that it might be worth reviewing as to whether a consistent naming convention could possibly be applied to both parents. As well, the popcat template needs to be maintained on it at this time, as the category currently contains only a small minority of its total potential population. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per suggestion by Cgingold. As a subcategory of the "women in politics" the word "women" should be used. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * rename to Category:American women state legislators to reflect the facts. These are all women, not girls (minors), and so female is too inclusive.  Hmains (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to note that it was a CFD discussion just two months ago that changed a sibling category, Category:Female United States Senators, from the proposed "American women foo" naming format to "Female US foo". Which is why I'm asking for a standard naming consensus here. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given some thought to how & why the two naming conventions are applied, and my sense of things is that people feel that it just doesn't sound right to put "women" directly in front of "United States" -- whereas using it in other word-combinations doesn't seem to bother most people. I suppose it could just take some "getting used to". In any event, as much as it would in principle be nice to agree on a single all-encompassing naming convention, it may simply not be possible to do so. Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 30 June 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:Rhino albums

 * 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. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Rhino albums to Category:Rhino Records albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, Looks like the category was created without realizing one already existed under a slightly different name. Wolfer68 (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Per nom.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Huge precedent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 12:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom – redundant. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and suggest that it's snowing. Otto4711 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 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:Seoul Metropolitan Subway templates

 * 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) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Seoul Metropolitan Subway templates to Category:Seoul Metropolitan Subway succession templates
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Missing word identifying templates' type. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:50, 28 June 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:Kowloon-Canton Railway templates

 * 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) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Kowloon-Canton Railway templates to Category:Kowloon-Canton Railway succession templates
 * Nominator's rationale: Missing word identifying templates' type. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment why not just let the category include any Kowloon-Canton RR templates? 70.51.8.148 (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the templates involved are of a different type (succession, not navbox) rather than topic. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:02, 30 June 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:Split by month

 * 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:Articles to be split. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * split by month


 * Nominator's rationale: I created this category but it adds an unneeded level of category hierarchy. Contents should be in Category:Articles to be split. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All you have to do to get it deleted is put   on the category page. Cgingold (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as User request Assuming thats what you're saying here. Here because I&#39;m here (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, an upmerge appears to be the request, to get rid of this intermediate layer of category. BencherliteTalk 09:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly Rename - Category:articles to be split by month. This might be a useful category for identifying articles nominated for splitting a long time ago, for which some final decision is needed.  However, is there a bot that adds dates to "split" tags?  If not, this category will be difficult to maintain and should be upmerged, and (perhaps) the monthly categories deleted too.  Category:Articles to be split currently contains rather over 200 items, making it rather too large to be convenient.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am trying to avoid to high a hierarchy. A Category:articles to be split from Month Year list of cats in the Category:Articles to be split is sufficient. See Category:Category needed for what I am trying to explain. I have recently requested a bot to place a date parameter on the split tags so they are sorted into the date categories.. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:35, 30 June 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.