Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 20



Category:Sennin-G

 * 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) 04:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

sennin-g
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. - Looks to be an individual user's category for their images. Vast precedent to delete such categories, see here. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Misuse of category space. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete usercategory masquerading as an article category. Also, all this user's contributions are related to his user page or this category. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 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:Encycloboxes

 * 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) 04:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

encycloboxes
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. - Virtually unused category apparently made solely for a userbox. Useless. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unused category. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:00, 21 November 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:Half-Life 2

 * 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: upmerge to Category:Half-Life. Category:Half-Life was not nominated, but it could be in a future nomination for renaming to match the main article Half-Life (series) per Vegaswikian1. (I imagine it has that name because "Half Life" is ambiguous as it has other meanings.). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * half-life 2


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Simply put, I think this is overcategorisation. All Half-Life 2 articles are far better placed under Category:Half-Life than creating a limited subcategory soley for HL2 products. I've already moved all the articles into the main Half-Life category, they fit much better there. -- Sabre (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant to existing Half-Life category. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've restored this category and its contents, since it was first manually emptied and then deleted during this CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - personally, I don't think this is a problematic category (though I wouldn't particularly mind if it were merged). All the articles it contains are solely related to Half-Life 2, rather than the Half-Life series in general - and despite being 'limited', there are actually several articles (e.g. Alyx Vance, Gravity gun) that should be in this category but aren't. Terraxos (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, upmerge per Vegaswikian below. It seems that we generally don't have separate categories for each game in a series, in which case we shouldn't do so here. Terraxos (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Half-Life per the comments in the parent category. The question is does each game in the series need a category.  I believe the answer is no given the existence of Half-Life. Rename Category:Half-Life to Category:Half-Life (series) to match main article. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Renaming seems entirely redundant. Convention is that a video game series category merely has the name of the series rather than "(series)" stuck on the end of it. See Category:StarCraft, Category:Halo, Category:Final Fantasy. -- Sabre (talk) 23:15, 25 November 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.

Merge Category:American opera companies and Category:USA opera companies

 * 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:American opera companies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose merge - overlap. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverse Merge to follow standard form in Category:Opera companies by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete USA or Merge one way or the other. Category:USA opera companies consists entirely of empty sub-cats. It they remain so at the end of this, they should just bew deleted. They are a week old already. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * merge to Category:American opera companies to be clear of merge direction. This name follows the names of sister categories. Hmains (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverse Merge to follow Fooian opera companies standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge per Hmains; "USA" is non-standard. -choster (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge and rename the target to Category:Opera companies in the United States. "American opera companies" could mean "opera companies that only perform American operas." Otto4711 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge and rename per Otto. Assuming that this renaming proposal gains support, the same formulation should also be applied to all of the other sub-cats of Category:Opera companies by country. Cgingold (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge both to Category:Opera companies in the United States per Otto 76.66.195.63 (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per Otto, and also support the rename of the other sub-cats, to match most of the rest of the by country trees (like, Category:Companies by country, Category:Theatres by country, Category:Sports teams by country, etc). Neier (talk) 22:35, 23 November 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:Settlements in British Columbia by regional district

 * 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 all. I don't see a preference for the formal names over the informal names where two options have been presented, so I'm renaming to the formal names since I assume they were the nominator's preferred form (but correct me if I'm wrong). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Communities in Cowichan Valley Regional District, British Columbia to Category:Settlements in the Regional District of Cowichan Valley
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Three issues; one is to harmonize with the parent "Settlements" category and standard, the next is the superfluity of comma-British Columbia, and the third, most important to me, is that we do not refer to regional districts as stand-alone proper names, but always prefixed with the definite article "the".  Some RDs also have official names in "reverse format" as in this case, so the category should reflect the RD's official name; otherwise the new name could be Category:Settlements in the Cowichan Valley Regional District.  However in this case and certain others - and only certain others, particularly Central Okanagan, East Kootenay, maybe others (see list following) - the more practicable category name may be Category:Communities in the Cowichan Valley although the Regional District of Cowichan Valley is not quite synonymous with the geographic region Cowichan Valley; this and other sepcial cases can be addressed in future CFDs....Skookum1 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Communities in Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District -> *Category:Settlements in the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen or Category:Settlements in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District
 * Category:Communities in Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, British Columbia -> Category:Settlements in the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
 * Category:Communities in Cariboo Regional District -> Category:Settlements in the Cariboo Regional District
 * Category:Communities in East Kootenay Regional District -> Category:Settlements in the Regional District of East Kootenay or Category:Settlements in the East Kootenay Regional District
 * Category:Communities in Central Okanagan Regional District, British Columbia -> Category:Settlements in the Regional District of Central Okanagan - or Category:Settlements in the Central Okanagan, as the RD and the region are virtually indistinguishable as also with Cowichan Valley.
 * Category:Communities in Central Kootenay Regional District, British Columbia -> Category:Settlements in the Regional District of Central Kootenay (or Category:Settlements in the Central Kootenay Regional District
 * Category:Communities in Fraser-Fort George -> Category:Settlements in the Fraser-Fort George Regional District
 * Category:Communities in Comox Valley Regional District, British Columbia -> Category:Settlements in the Comox Valley Regional District
 * Category:Communities in Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, British Columbia -> Category:Settlements in the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District
 * Category:Communities in Nanaimo Regional District, British Columbia -> Category:Settlements in the Nanaimo Regional District
 * Category:Communities in Capital Regional District, British Columbia -> Category:Settlements in the Capital Regional District
 * Category:Communities in Fraser Valley Regional District, British Columbia -> Category:Settlements in the Fraser Valley Regional District
 * Category:Communities in Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia -> Category:Settlements in the Greater Vancouver Regional District
 * Support These have been bothering me for a while, as have the associated "people from" categories which I'll make a separate umbrella nomination for. I don't like using RD categories as geographic-division categories to start with, for a variety of reasons, but if they're going to exist at all they should reflect the way British Columbians refer to regional districts - i.e. by the inclusion of "the" before the regional district name.  The inclusion of "British Columbia" to the category titles also seems superfluous, likewise in the parent categories (another umbrella nomination yet to be done...) and supplanting "Settlements" for "Communities" not only fits wiki standards it also "fits" with localities, ranches, islands, ghost towns, etc where "community" doesn't quite work for one reason or another.  Also some regional district proper names come in the form "Regional District of xxx" and maybe that should be reflected in the subcategory name; I've included both options as, for example, in the case of the Okanagan-Similkameen, in speech we commonly refer to it as "Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District" despite its official name as "Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen".  Fraser-Fort George was also missing "Regional District" entirely, as also with its other subcats which I'll nominate separately.  Some of these will also be composed only of subcats, e.g. in Okanagan Similkameen's case Category:Settlements in the South Okanagan and Category:Settlements in the Similkameen as the RD is composed of more than one "natural" geographic region that we use in ordinary speech; can't be done with othersSkookum1 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The British Columbia dab is completely unnecessary. It ought to match the parent category as "Settlements in". I don't feel strongly one way or the other on the use of "the".  D OUBLE B LUE  (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure if you live in BC or not, but without the "the" sounds very odd and artificial, like a bad copy-paste from someone else's styleguide. "Settlements in regional district" reads like point-form - "jotted down" or shorthand - in an abbreviated, un-natural usage.  "Most common usage" should apply, and any news copy would say "the town is in the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District} rather than "the town is in Squamish-Lillooet Regional District"....unless that news copy were written using (sadly) Wikipedia as a reference.Skookum1 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or put another way, without the "the" looks every bit as odd as "Settlements in the Suffolk County" or "Settlements in the Whatcom County" vs "Settlements in Suffolk County" and "Settlements in Whatcom County"; counties don't need the "the", regional districts do....Skookum1 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Round here we just say Municipalities in York Region. :-)  D OUBLE B LUE  (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that's an Ontario-ism and specific to York Region and I'd suppose Peel Region and...Ottawa Region? I'm out in Hali these days, and it's not "the Halifax County" it's just "Halifax County"; I'd imagine Perth County, ON, is still said as "Perth County" not as "the Perth County", right?Skookum1 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're correct. The name change from "county" to "region" was foisted upon us Ontarians and the word "region" has taken on a rather peculiar meaning of a county.  D OUBLE B LUE  (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you see, that's sort of my point. Regional districts are not counties yet are treated in wikipedia and by wikipedians as if they were, including not using "the" when speaking/writing of them and also people using "seat" to refer to the town where the RD offices are (something that's just not part of British Columbia English); it's the reverse situation from what you observe about Region/County in Ontario, although I note perhaps that given the name change people didn't also starting saying "in the York Region" instead of "in York Region".  "only in wikipedia" do you see constructions such as "in Thompson-Nicola Regional District"; the normal format is "in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District".  About the County/Region rebranding and things like it (see Talk:Metro Vancouver's discussion re that usage vs GVRD) my own opinion is that the government is wiping away history to build "the new Canada", to remove regional identities and replace them with asbtract administraitve units.  That's highly POV and only my own opinion/sentiment but I could point to countless other examples (one that comes to mind re my immediate surroundigns is the rebranding of Greater Halifax as "HRM").Skookum1 (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support to remove unnecessary disambiguation. --maclean 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Can we do this with U.S. counties next (by that I mean the uniquely named ones; of course we'd want to move the articles too)… — CharlotteWebb 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, all you have to do is laboriously compile them all like I just did for these communities cats and make an entry here; takes hours, as I've found out....Skookum1 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * rename to include 'settlement'; keep 'British Columbia' in each name 'Settlement' is the WP used term for places where people live. 'British Columbia' to match the properly named parent category.  Readers should not have to guess what they are reading about nor look around elsewhere to figure it out. Hmains (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * commentThere's lots of categories that don't say what they are = see the subcats in Category:First Nations in British Columbia but it's not just stuff like indigenous tribe-names, I've seen lots of cats which weren't all that obvious. Why do categories have to have diaambiguation when it's preferable for articles not to?  Anyway it's odd to me that the main issue that got me to propose renaming thse categories was the absence of "the" before the name of each regional district, which is a-stylistic in BC English and constitutes a sort of neologism - what I call a wiki-ism; an improper use of language/names.  "Provinces of the Canada" would be a similar mistake in the opposite direction.  The communities/settlements and British Columbia disambiguation were, to me, secondary issues but I raised them inline with what seemed to be wikipedia guidelines/standards.  Maybe I should have just proposed the addition of the "the" and left these other issues aside.  In passing I note there's another category of places to be yet made across the board - for localities, places that have names and notability but are not and were not settlements....more on that another time, I'm mostly concerned with the improper absence of "the" from all of the above categories, and in the similar "people from" categories (which I have other issues with, conceptually, as I don't believe it's appropriate to classify people by which RD they're from....StatsCan does, but it doesn't document individuals, only groupings....so classifying people, or anything, by regional district, is another neologistic "wiki-ism"....).....Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please be aware of subcats of some the above already created; Okanagan-Similkameen has two main, actual geogregions, the South Okanagan and the Similkameen so Category:Settlements in the South Okanagan and Category:Settlements in the Similkameen have been created; in the Cariboo I've only broken out the Chilcotin as yet - Category:Settlements in the Chilcotin is the only subcat for the Cariboo one as of yet, but North Cariboo, Central Cariboo and South Cariboo are the break-outs; and are complicated becasue the Cariboo RD boundary does not take in all of the Cariboo, such that part of the South Cariboo is in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. This pattern can be applied across the board for most regions in BC, except in cases like Skeena-Queen Charlotte where the "Skeena" part is really only Prince Rupert and environms, and does not include the bulk of the Skeena Country, which is in Kitimat-Stikine (and which in turn does not include teh whole of the Stikine Country); as with the "people from" cats I have my doubts about the utility of regional district-based subdivisions of BC; they don't fit with historical and geographic reality and are not used by British Columbians as points of reference or identity.  What I'm getting at is in cases like Comox Valley and Cowichan Valley the "Regional District" part of the settlements category could theoretically be dropped, but this is by no means constant; about half of the Fraser Valley, for instance, is not in the Fraser Valley Regional District; the Peace River RD includes areas that are not part of the Peace Country despite being in the Peace basin (e.g. Tatlatui Lake, Fort Ware, Kwadacha) and the area called by the government the Stikine Region is only partly in the Stikine Country; Bulkley-Nechako includes the Omineca Country and so on.  Not taht all this could be worked out here, I'm only concerned about the proper use of the language when naming the subcats; the absence of "the" from the above list of subcat titles sounds, quite frankly, half-literate.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:12, 24 November 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:Dirty Sexy Money characters

 * 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) 04:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * dirty sexy money characters


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete It contains only one article. Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Overcategorization. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the individual character articles have been merged into a list instead. Terraxos (talk) 03:39, 22 November 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.

Films critical of...

 * 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) 04:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * films critical of hindu nationalism
 * films critical of marxism-leninism
 * films critical of capitalism
 * films critical of civilization
 * films critical of consumerism
 * films critical of globalization
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Miscategorized under Category:Films by genre (these do not, I believe, represent actual genres of film), these categories are rather narrow in their scope and very POV-ish. Take Surplus: Terrorized into Being Consumers, for example, the sole article in Category:Films critical of Marxism-Leninism; the article doesn't even mention Marxism-Leninism. This sort of thing should really require citations, making categories such as these inappropriate. PC78 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per their POV nature... definitely something that cannot be easily categorized. Lists of these topics would be better, backed by reliable sourcing. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OVERCAT and WP:POV.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - far too subjective and arbitrary for categorization. And what, The Incredible Shrinking Woman not in the consumerism category? Otto4711 (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete POV categories, hard to maintain. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:19, 20 November 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.

Horror films by year

 * 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: upmerge all to both. Will place this in the manual work queue, where any editor can perform the merges and then tag the categories for speedy deletion when they are emptied. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging:
 * Category:2006 horror films → Category:2000s horror films, Category:2006 films
 * Category:2007 horror films → Category:2000s horror films, Category:2007 films
 * Category:2008 horror films → Category:2000s horror films, Category:2008 films
 * Category:2009 horror films → Category:2000s horror films, Category:2009 films
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge all. As I understand it, Category:Horror films was broken up into decades to keep it from getting too big, but I don't see any pressing need to further subcategorize by year. At around 1000 articles, Category:2000s horror films isn't/wasn't so prohibitively large that it required splitting, nor do I think that categorizing films by year and genre is a path we ought to be going down. PC78 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete because genre films by decade is not prohibitively large; no need to narrow it down further. — Erik (talk • contrib) 17:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all Per nom, and then delete.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all Per nom, and then delete. I created the Category:2000s horror films, and splitting it up any more then it currently is would be over the top. What we should do is go through all the not relevent horror films in this category to make it smaller. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, and I suggest merging to the appropriate general year category as well to ensure that any films moved from there are restored. Otto4711 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per above. I don't know how smart the bots are, whether they can replace one category with two categories, but that would be ideal here. — CharlotteWebb 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all For genres articles should be categorised by decade.  Count Blofeld   19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all per nom. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Support, I'll make it flourish.--217.211.164.17 (talk) 06:45, 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:MS objects

 * 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 (looks like an OCAT by shared name, in any case). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ms objects


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Unclear inclusion criteria, created by a banned user who routinely used ambiguous acronyms without specification as to application of which particular version of an acronym was meant. See for several possible "MS" which could be categorized here. User:CarloscomB has not responded to the query asking for clarification of what is meant by this category, or related entries on article infoboxes. This user has not responded to queries on links to dab pages from infoboxes on what version of various acronym has been meant to be linked to. 76.66.193.170 (talk) 11:57, 20 November 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:Recursive categories

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * recursive categories


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Cute but unnecessary category. Recursive cats are actually caught by Database reports/Self-categorized categories.   roux    07:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - definitely cute but empty as far as I can tell (after checking 10 or so recursions, admittedly just a beginning). Occuli (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with its parent category. --Jonathan Drain (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I lol'd. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jonathan Drain FTW. // roux   22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jonathan Drain. We don't need the last few, but the main ones a keeper.  Syn  ergy 19:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Infinite loop. No, seriously, delete as redundant. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged for speedy delete as patent nonsense. Otherwise delete. Otto4711 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 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:Sean Paul collaborations

 * 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: Closed: Duplicate nomination (already listed on November 19). Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * sean paul collaborations


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Qualifies as Overcategorization by arbitrary association. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This deletion is such a good idea, User:DiverseMentality nominated it yesterday. - Dravecky (talk) 03:21, 20 November 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.