Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 3



Category:Atlanta music

 * 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) 23:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Atlanta music to Category:Music of Atlanta, Georgia
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match other similar "Music of (place)" categories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per naming convention. Alansohn (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per some in Category:Music by city. Occuli (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Occuli and naming convention.  Risker (talk) 14:10, 7 October 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:Country quartets

 * 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, renaming for clarity.  As below with Trios, no prejudice against a renom to upmerge to deal with the arbitrariness issues. Kbdank71 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Country quartets to Category:Country music quartets
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the precendent set by similar categories such as Category:Country music duos and Category:Rock music duos. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. For a moment I thought this might refer to a diplomatic grouping, or something of that sort. Cgingold (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Unless this refers to groupings of four nations. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Country music groups. Categorizing acts by the number of members in it will quickly get out of control as there is no theoretical upper limit. Country music octects? Country music groups with 32 members? Otto4711 (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Category:Quartets shows a clear precedent for this category, however, the renaming would give a better, less ambiguous name. __meco (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, with the exception of specialty groups like string or barbershop quartets, the fact that a group happened to have four members at one point in its is existence is, while interesting, not sufficiently defining to merit categorizing. There could be no substantive lead article Country music quartet written. There is no reliable research that these groups have anything in common beyond the coincidence of having had at some point in their performance history exactly four members. This strikes me as being very similar to categorizing bands of whether they have a female lead singer, something we don't do. Another problem with this structure is that the number of members a band has does not necessarily remain stable, meaning that bands may be placed in multiple clutterful categories. R.E.M. for example started out with four members and currently have three. So they could go into two such categories. Th B-52's have had five members, four members and three members. That's three different categories they could be in, which tell us nothing about the whys and wherefores of those fluctuations. Otto4711 (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An inclusion criterium that stated that the group would either have to be widely recognized as being a quartet (i.e. in the media generally described using that term) for an extended period or always having been a four-piece ensemble would tend to that concern. I do agree that it would be inappropriate to categorize any group whose size has fluctuated considerably in any such category. And although there may be have been a consensus not to have a category for bands that have a female lead singer, that is something with which I disagree. I find that pretty defining. __meco (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Except of course no one has to actually read the inclusion criterion before adding an article to the category. This also doesn't address the lack of encyclopedic relationship between these groups based on membership size. Otto4711 (talk)
 * Well, that's the debate on whether or not to allow inclusion criterion-dependent categories. I'm sure there's an ongoing debate on that subject that I haven't spotted. I don't think we need encyclopedic relationship between these categories in the manner you may desire. Possibly picking an argument from what WP is not I just think such a category could be useful. __meco (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CAT, one of the questions to ask when considering categorization is "If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?" If the answer to this question is no then the category probably should not exist. If you can point me toward reliable sources that provide substantive coverage of the topic "country music quartet" (not just sources that merely identify one or another group as a quartet but that are about the concept of country music quartets in general) I will withdraw my objections to this category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you would support a nomination of Category:1975 births? That aside, I agree that it would be difficult to write such an article on the quartets. __meco (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:WAX doesn't cut any ice with me. 2) Even if it did, the births and deaths categories are well-established as maintenance categories so I wish the people who trot them out every time they disagree about the definingness of a particular category would find some other dead horse to flog. 3) Even if they weren't established as maintenance categories the notion that the year a person begins to live and the year the person stops living don't somehow define that person is nonsensical. Otto4711 (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My point here is merely that you are invoking a purported generally applicable guideline and I am showing that obviously there are exceptions to it. Is this the only exception or could there be others? When indeed you present the rationale for the exception as something being "well-established" that basically throws all principles out the window, makes the "rule" you invoke vaguely applicable and relegates the entire process to consensus based on POV. __meco (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say as I understand the point that you are trying to make, as I've already said that if you can find reliable sources that support the ability to write a several paragraph article about the concept of Country music quartets, or for that matter any sort of quartet or musical grouping based on numbers, I'll happily withdraw my objections. While certainly there are exceptions to WP:CAT, this isn't one of them. Otto4711 (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will concede that this probably isn't one of them, based on a very vague "common sense". I withdraw my vote and render myself neutral. __meco (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Country music groups. This cat, and the whole tree should be deleted/merged. My simple reason is Crosby, Stills, and Nash - Or wait, is it Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young? This would seem to directly violate WP:OC. If kept, then rename per nom for clarity. Though I have to say I strongly hope that this is not kept. - jc37 15:57, 7 October 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:Country trios

 * 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, with no prejudice against a new nom to merge into Category:Country music groups to deal with the arbitrariness of the category . Kbdank71 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Country trios to Category:Country music trios
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the precendent set by similar categories such as Category:Country music duos and Category:Rock music duos. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, for clarity and consistency. Cgingold (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support to clarify that this is related to groups of musicians playing a certain style of music, not countries. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Country music groups. Categorizing acts by the number of members in it will quickly get out of control as there is no theoretical upper limit. Country music octects? Country music groups with 32 members? Otto4711 (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Category:Trios shows a clear precedent for this category, however, the renaming would give a better, less ambiguous name. __meco (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See my additional comments for quartets above, which since there AFAIK no genre-specific groups traditionally have a limit of three members, are even more relevant here. Otto4711 (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Country music groups. This cat, and the whole tree should be deleted/merged. My simple reason is Crosby, Stills, and Nash - Or wait, is it Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young? This would seem to directly violate WP:OC. If kept, then rename per nom for clarity. Though I have to say I strongly hope that this is not kept. - jc37 15:57, 7 October 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:Tibet Autonomous Region

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Tibet Autonomous Region to Category:Tibet
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Found doing cleanup as an incomplete nomination. I think the issue was that the Autonomous Regions generally don't go by that name. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The issue/confusion here stems from the dispute over the legal status of Tibet, and how that entity relates to the Tibet Autonomous Region. I'm not sure what the best solution is in terms of Wiki Categories. Cgingold (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is clearly an issue with the Tibet / Tibet Autonomous Region article pair, and this decision on the category name is bigger than just CfD. I would suggest that the category be left unchanged until the far bigger issue is addressed. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment, and I've solicited input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet. Cgingold (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge, whilst there are some differences in borders throughout history, the area officially labelled 'TAR' is essentially the same as Tibet proper. --Soman (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This remark is not true. Sichuan, great part of Qinghai, and some autonomous prefectures of Yunnan and Gansu are part of Tibet too. Davin (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Other Chines region cats don't use the full title, no need for the split. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The word "Tibet" is used two quite different senses. One sense is "the region where Tibetan people live". The other is "the political domain which was once ruled by the government in Lhasa". The former is much larger than the latter, both by land area and population (by land area it is 50 - 100% larger). The Tibet Autonomous Region is basically the same place as the latter definition, but the Wikipedia article on Tibet is clearly about the former. Therefore, these categories are not referring to the same thing, and they do not need to be merged. I'm not sure how valuable the TAR category is, but I suppose it could be used to tag government officials and such.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support . Looking to the parent category Category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China, we see that none of the other autonomous regions have this division or the "autonomous region" category. __meco (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that because none of the other autonomous regions require "autonomous region" for disambiguation?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 14:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @Nat Krause: Right. Davin (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a circular argument, depending wholly on WP naming decisions. Inner Mongolia is called by the full name as often as Tibet, and many of the others are often so called. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, "Tibet" is a word that has two primary meanings. I think it is quite relevant to note the conventions that have developed over a period of years in Wikipedia articles about the use of this term.&mdsah;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep Sichuan, great part of Qinghai, and some autonomous prefectures of Yunnan and Gansu are part of Tibet as well. This would signify a smooth completion on Wikipedia of the Chinese take over of Tibet.Davin (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the areas you mention have either never been part of Tibet (the great majority of Sichuan, Yunnan) or have been Chinese since the early 18th century. If we took that line everywhere, the United States of America would still be under the United Kingdom! Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

t
 * Keep I change my vote per new information provided by Davin. __meco (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The "Tibet Autonomous Region" or "TAR" excludes huge areas (particularly Kham and Amdo) traditionally regarded as Tibetan territory (and recognised as such by earlier Chinese regimes including the Qing dynasty). It only includes about half of the traditionally accepted Tibetan region. Moreover, it was established in 1959 by the PRC and is, therefore, merely a relatively recent political construct with marginal relevance to a general discussion of Tibet, its people, culture, and history. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The word "Tibet" has two different meanings, and related categories should not be merged : "the region where Tibetan people live" (Category:Tibet), and "the political domain which was once ruled by the government in Lhasa" (roughly Category:Tibet Autonomous Region). Croquant (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As Croqant above. The reason why we have two seperate categories is for political reasons, in the way we have two sweperate main articles. Also Tibet Autonomous region is in keeping with the other recognised regions of China, Jilin, Sichuan etc. Category:Tibet is intended for articles related to historical Tibet or the community in exile The Bald One      White cat 08:21, 9 October 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:Capitals of English regions

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * capitals of english regions


 * Nominator's rationale: Pure original research. The Regions of England do not have "capitals", and no user is likely to ever need to navigate through this unattributed list anyway. --Jza84 |  Talk 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Nom is spot-on. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no formal/official "Capitals of English regions".  Mr Stephen (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a concept of County town, but I see no indication as to how these cities have become regional capitals, nor anything that unites them into a category. Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – Melton Mowbray, capital of the region immediately surrounding Melton Mowbray ... Occuli (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Regional capitals? There are no such thing, and some of the entries in the cat are, well, surprising at best.  Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unofficial, also WP:OR. Nev1 (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and OR. Risker (talk) 14:11, 7 October 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:*.South Africans.*

 * 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. Kbdank71 14:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Coloured South African people
 * Category:Cape Coloureds
 * Category:White South Africans
 * Comment: These categories appear to be horribly named and/or unnecessary in applying labels to WP:BLP people, that may not be happy with the label. Could I leave it to the wise CFD regulars to comment what might be the best course of action with them.  (There appear to be some more misfits on Category:South African people by ethnic or national origin).  —Sladen (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See the last debate Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - These are legal distinctions that are important in South African law, for example the recent re-categorization of individuals of Chinese descent as "Coloured" for legal purposes. I am neutral as to whether the categories need to be renamed.  I'm not so sure about Cape Coloureds, though.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - see Coloured, Cape Coloureds and White South African. Occuli (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - the categories are not tagged. Occuli (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep These categories correspond to a racial classification system that is abhorrent, but that does exist and matches articles of the same titles, and these are defining characteristics. I assume that there is no stigma of being labeled a White South African, but regardless these categories should only be applied where there are reliable sources to support the label. I reviewed some of those in the Category:Cape Coloureds and there are some that do provide a source, some that do describe the individual as "Coloured" and some that have nothing. Either reliable sources need to be added or these categories need to be removed if there is no supporting source. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all, we need less racial biology/ethnicity categories for individuals at wikipedia, there is constantly a need to weed out these categorization schemes. --Soman (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We have plenty of ethnic categories less defining than these. NB previous debate linked above. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep all Like it or not, these are the correct terms used in South African history, which is recommended reading. Hmains (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Defining classification for South Africans. Dimadick (talk) 12:48, 7 October 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:Fictional misanthropes

 * 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, recreation of previously previously deleted category.  Postdlf (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * fictional misanthropes


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Meaningless and subjective categorization of fictional characters.  Also category only has one article in it.  Ford MF (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree on all points with the nominator's rationale. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:33, 3 October 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:Fictional virgins

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * fictional virgins


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary and unclear fictional categorization.  What the category seems to mean is "Fictional virgins who are probably old enough not to be, if they tried".  Otherwise the category would include virtually all of Category:Fictional children.  On the other hand, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, which is included is deflowered by the end of the film, so the category perhaps is supposed to mean "Fictional people who were at some point virgins", in which case it would include all fictional characters.  Ford MF (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree on all points with the nominator's rationale. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not a static characteristic so inclusion criteria is unclear, and not significant as a rule so grouping them together out of context is not meaningful.  Postdlf (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all - surely this a recreation too? Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - one of the many problems with categorising fictional characters by some feature or property. We tend to stay in literary present tense, so, for example in the case of the 40-year-old virgin, the character simultaneiously is and is not a virgin. (With apologies to Schrödinger and his cat.) - jc37 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsensical cat. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:21, 7 October 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:Fictional security guards

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * fictional security guards


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unpopulated category that's both an overcategorization and unlikely to ever be populated. Ford MF (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree on all points with the nominator's rationale. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - jc37 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nominator's rationale. Risker (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete too redundant, and sort of vague. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:21, 7 October 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:Marvel Comics serial killers

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * marvel comics serial killers


 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend deletion. Unpopulated category that per previous discussions of the community is an overcategorization. Ford MF (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree on all points with the nominator's rationale. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - jc37 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nominator. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:21, 7 October 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:Concepts pertaining to strategy
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 14:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Concepts pertaining to strategy to Category:Strategy
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, The distinction between these two categories is unclear, so I am proposing that the new category be merged to the pre-existing one. Stepheng3 (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I assumed this category was a sub-cat of Category:Strategy, so I was surprised to discover that it doesn't have any parent categories. (As I've pointed out before, if we required at least one decent parent cat when a new category is created, it would reduce the number that wind up here at CFD.) In this case, I'm not quite sure whether to keep, rename, or merge with existing categories. One of the articles is already included in ; the other three are all in military-related categories, and could probably go in as well -- so that may be a viable solution. But I'd like to see what the category creator has to say.   Cgingold (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw a need for something that would group not categories but concepts that are used to talk about the formation, implementation, etc. of categories. I recall looking at the category strategy and finding it too diffuse to use for my purposes. Making "concepts pertaining to strategy" a sub-category of "Strategy" seems reasonable to me, at least from the standpoint of pragmatics. P0M (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the discussion. It seems to me that there are any number of other articles in Category:Strategy, especially in the sub-cats, and, that also deal with concepts -- so what, if anything, distinguishes the four articles that you picked out for this category from all the rest? Cgingold (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I categorized the articles that I wrote or that crossed my tracks while I was making links and cross-connections to those articles. There may well be other articles that deal with concepts used to understand strategy. If they were categorized that way I might find them. But "dealing with concepts" seems vague to me. For instance, I was just looking for the concept of "mapping" -- as used in the mathematical sense of that term. I haven't found it yet but I assume there is either an article on "mapping," or that there needs to be such an article. But if I wrote such an article I don't think I would say that a wrote an article that "deals with" mapping. "He deals with criminals," means that he conducts mental and/or physical operations on criminals or in conjunction with criminals. It doesn't mean that he explains how the individuals in a certain jail are conceptualized as "criminals" apart from how they are conceptualized as "humans." "fat guys," "slobs," "immoral louts," or whatever. To me, a "military concept" is a concept that is used to help us think about some aspect of military activity, just as a "sociological concept" is some concept that is used to help us think about something that comes under the heading of sociology. An example might be "primary group." At a certain point you can't really talk about sociology, about what is going on in a certain society, unless you realize that groups of humans up to a total somewhere around 15 (?) behave in a cohesive way, and would-be groups of, e.g., 20 will naturally split themselves up into at least two smaller groups, neither of which will be larger than 15.
 * Anyway, if there are other concepts that help us think about military strategy, how one makes a good military strategy, etc., then that should fit into that sub category. But my areas of specialization are philosophy and martial arts -- and to some extent the general issue of how one effectively processes information in the middle of a fast-paced fight. So if there were a term that applies to, e.g., supply line maintainance, I wouldn't think of it in a million years. P0M (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One further thought: In the process of searching for more info on the original article I was working on, Fingerspitzengefuhl, I came across a French term that names a concept used to discuss military strategy. But I would never ever have thought of it, and if I had seen it on a list or something like that I would never have guessed what it means or how it was used by Napoleon to discuss his own non-verbal tools of strategy making and maintenance. P0M (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is a need to create two categories, and their articles Category:Military concepts, and Category:Military methods. The two are often confused. For example, strategy is a concept, Strategic airlift is a method of implementing a given strategy. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree.P0M (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;"/>
 * Delete Category:Concepts pertaining to strategy. After reading this discussion and looking at the contents of the categories in question, I've changed my mind about merging the categories.  More than ever, Category:Concepts pertaining to strategy strikes me as a hodgepodge, a private collection of military-theoretic jargon.  I understand that strategy and tactics are distinct things, as are concepts and methods. However, "concept" is a very vague desginator; every word is associated with a concept, and every method lives in a conceptual framework of some sort.  Being so vaguely defined, I don't think Category:Concepts pertaining to strategy is going to prove helpful to users.  I think it would be better to go through the four articles currently in this category and recategorize them by hand (perhaps as follows: Blitzkrieg to Category:Military doctrines, Fingerspitzengefühl and OODA loop to Category:Military theory, and Systempunkt to Category:Sabotage and Category:Systems theory) then delete the empty category. - Stepheng3 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom, or Delete. Far too vague a category. Systempunkt should vitself be merged somewhere, as just a long-winded dicdef. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete - the category is insufficiently distinguished from Category:Strategy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:33, 3 October 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.

Webby Award
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 per OCAT/AWARD; In this case, the existing list is better suited to present the information. Kbdank71 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * webby award winners


 * webby award people's voice winners


 * Nominator's rationale: Does not rise to the level of an award winner like the Nobel Prize which seems to be the consensus for keeping award winner categories. There are various articles in the parent Category:Webby Awards that include these, including a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep this is the most notable award for these entries and a defining characteristic covered at length by the media. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is defining for the Public Broadcasting Service? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can rebut the other 21, I will be happy to reconsider my vote. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please. CBS Sports, CNET Networks, Citysearch, EBay, Edmunds.com, Experience Music Project, Exploratorium, HotWired], Internet Movie Database, SeniorNet, The WELL, Travelocity?  And that's without needing to do any research.  I did not recommend a listify since there is List of Webby Award winners which probably needs some work, but that's a different issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review Google News Archives for the Webby Awards, which turns up 1,800 references, including from PBS, which describes the award as "the leading international honor for Web sites and individual achievement in technology and creativity". I think the case for defining characteristic is rather strong. Per WP:CLN, the list and category go quite well together. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why the article is not mentioned. This is only about the need for a category when a list exists along with a navbox and several articles on the award shows and why Category:Webby Awards is not included in this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn's valid input.-- VS talk 22:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and listify -- This is the usual solution for awards categories, and has the advantage that a date can be attached the the item in a list, whereas in a category they are (unhelpfully in alphabetic order. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OC and add any that are missing to the existing list. Otto4711 (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that WP:OC is your own personal guideline crafted by you and two other editors interested in imposing comparably arbitrary restrictions on categories in direct contravention of WP:CLN. This is just circular logic: Delete this category because you say you have to win a Nobel Prize to have a category. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the guideline is an attempt to articulate clearly and concisely the results of many, many CFDs for awards such as these. Your continued misrepresentation of that attempt as some sort of power play by me and two other editors is a deliberate misrepresentation of the guideline. If you don't like the guideline as written, why not take it up on the guideline's talk page instead of continually bitching about it at CFD? Otto4711 (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;"/>
 * Keep I don't think the Nobel Prize should be what's setting the bar for category inclusion here. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Because of the way the template is set up, most of the articles that were in these two categories have been moved to Category:Webby Awards. Please keep this in mind when discussing this.  --Kbdank71 13:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete & update list - but the parent should probably be nominated too. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 3 October 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:Comet Hunter
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:Comet discoverers. I will leave it to the participants and other interested parties to remove the entries that did not discover a comet. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comet hunter


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate to Category:Comet discoverers. If kept anyway, should be moved to Category:Comet hunters (capitalization). Fram (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into the larger Category:Comet discoverers (which is also properly parented). Occuli (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, and recategorize its denizens as Category:Comet discoverers (some of whom are already there). Perhaps this is the same as to "merge". If decision is to keep anyway (which I do not recommend), rename to Comet hunters per Fram; categories are logically plurals. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an excellent definition of 'merge' (which avoids the need to check if all are already in the target). Occuli (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Category:Comet discoverers. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge only those entries who have actually discovered a comet. One can be a hunter without actually finding anything. Otto4711 (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per everyone. Ford MF (talk) 17:26, 5 October 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:Canadians deported
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Kbdank71 13:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Canadians deported to Category:Canadians that have been deported
 * ''Previously CFD'd: Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 18
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name lingers, it's simply unidiomatic.. meco (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Question - is this category for people who, regardless of nationality, have been deported from Canada or is it for Canadians who have been deported from a country other than Canada? Regardless, the category name needs to use who, not that. Otto4711 (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that issue was touched upon in the previous CFD. Perhaps we could diffuse it into one category for either variation? __meco (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a result of a very ambiguous name coupled with a complete lack of inclusion criteria, this category is currently being used for the following: on the one hand, there are two individuals stated to have Canadian citizenship, and on the other hand, two individuals of uncertain nationality; one of these individuals was deported from Canada, while the rest were "deported" from three other countries -- although of the four, only two were deported as the result of a legal process. In short, it's a real mish-mash of articles. It's also the only category of its sort -- there's nothing else remotely like this in . It might be good to have one or more categories for people who have been deported, but I'm not at all certain how any such categories should be structured. Cgingold (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Canadians who have been deported" ffs, unless Canadians are non-human, as one occasionally suspects :) Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even assuming that all Canadians are human, the questions remain: Are all of these articles actually about Canadians? Does it matter where they were deported from?? Cgingold (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. In fact while none were born Canadian, all had Canadian passports. Of the 4, 2 were deported back to Canada, Bashir Makhtal was "illegally renditioned" from Kenya to Somalia ? & the last guy was stripped of his Canadian citizenship & deported from Canada. Maybe this should be 2 categories - to & from, though the last would be small & unlikely to expand on current form. It is I think defining for all 4, unlike members of Beatles etc. No other countries have a similar cat. For now I think just delete though without prejudice to an organised attempt to set up global cats. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you see why I threw up my hands in despair! Cgingold (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If renamed, it should be to, not , surely. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - this category is very unclear. Is it Canadians deported from Canada? Canadians deported from other countries to Canada? Canadians deported from other countries to still a third country? The category has only four articles in it, and all three of these possibilities are represented. Suggest deleting the original category (all of the articles are in multiple other more relevant categories) and not renaming.  Risker (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, deportation is not necessarily a permanent status, and it is always specific to the country doing the deporting; this category makes no such distinctions. Postdlf (talk) 15:48, 7 October 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:Scouting in The Netherlands
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Scouting in The Netherlands to Category:Scouting in the Netherlands
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Name without capital. Please see discussion at Category talk:Scouting in The Netherlands (wrong use of move request.) Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: there was a wrong use of a move request. Please discuss the rename at Category talk:Scouting in The Netherlands to keep the discussion at one place. Thank you. (Maybe for archive the completed discussion could be copied here at the end?) Sebastian scha. (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 3 October 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:Gubernatorial titles
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 on oct 9. Kbdank71 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Gubernatorial titles to Category:Positions of subnational authority
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Positions of subnational authority. There is no systematic distinction being maintained between the titles listed in the parent category and those listed in the subcategory. The idea of distinguishing between titles that are issued by a central authority and those that aren't seems like an overfine distinction, and the fact that most of the titles listed are ambiguous and that most of those in the parent category are also in the subcategory tends to confirm me in this belief. Suggest merging these into a common category, open-minded as to which of the titles (or a new one) is kept. Willhsmit (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that Gubernatorial titles is the wrong name (too US Centric), but Positions of subnational authority seems too vague, as it could also apply to Mayors or even councilmen or any other sub-national government official. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:33, 3 October 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:Retail stores in the United States
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:Retail buildings in the United States. Kbdank71 13:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Retail stores in the United States to Category:???
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename?. Found doing cleanup as an incomplete speedy proposing a rename to Category:Retail store buildings in the United States. This category contains a mix of articles about stores, chains and buildings. Renominating as a speedy would probably fail with the proposed name.  Bringing it here for a discussion to see if anything needs to be done. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From my eye the companies need to be recategorised to Category:Retail companies of the United States. I'd suggest renaming as Category:Buildings used for retail in the United States and recategorising contents appropriately, as I think that is what the category is looking to categorise.  Hiding T 11:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we go with the latter, then Category:Retail buildings in the United States might be a shorter choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Hiding T 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Retail buildings in the United States, and cleanup as appropriate, per the discussion above. - jc37 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Retail buildings in the United States, and cleanup as above. -choster (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Retail buildings in the United States, and cleanup per discussion. I'll try and redo the introduction and some cleanup now since it appears that there is a clear consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 8 October 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:Prisoners of Prison Break
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Prisoners of Prison Break to Category:Prison Break characters
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Prison Break characters. The show is now on the 4th season and they are not any prisoners anymore. Moreover, this is overcategorisation. Magioladitis (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge - Agree on all points with the nominator's rationale. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support categories are small enough and distinction can cause semantic issues best resolved by merging. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 3 October 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.