Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 2



Category:Conservative websites

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * conservative websites


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Proposed deletion of category due to deletion of Category:Liberal websites. To copy the reason provided by User:Loonymonkey, and reword it to fit the alternate side: Just as the previous category "American Conservatives" was deleted, this one should also be deleted for the same reason. "Conservative" is completely subjective designation and is therefore far too vague of a criteria for a category. Inclusion in this category could never be determined objectively, but rather merely supported by the opinion of others. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per precedent of Category:Liberal websites. The boundaries are too fuzzy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is Little Green Footballs conservative? With the exception of its reporting on Islamism, certainly not. What about LewRockwell.com? Why is Free Republic missing, but Drudge Report included? Delete delete delete.-choster (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Inclusion criteria will be hopelessly NPOV. Debresser (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete hopelessly confused. "Conservative" is the name of many political parties. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2009 (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:Corvettes of Austria

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Corvettes of Austria to Category:Corvettes of Austria–Hungary
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The only current member of this category was a corvette of Austria–Hungary, not of just Austria. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * looks like a doubtless speedy rename to me. NVO (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2009 (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:Agricultural tractor manufacturers of Greece

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Agricultural tractor manufacturers of Greece to Category:Tractor manufacturers of Greece
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. No other "Tractor manufacturers by country" cats are subdivided in this way. Category:Tractor manufacturers are already a subcat of Category:Agricultural machinery manufacturers. Tassedethe (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (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:90210 episodes

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:90210 episodes to Category:90210 (TV series) episodes
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article 90210 (TV series) and similar Category:90210 (TV series) characters. Tassedethe (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2009 (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:Albums by Benn Jordan pseudonyms

 * 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) 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * albums by benn jordan pseudonyms


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Superfluous, incorrectly named category. The only contents (Category:The Flashbulb albums) are described thus: "This is a category of articles about albums by Benn Jordan under his "The Flashbulb" pseudonym", so a further level of categorisation is unneeded. Tassedethe (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2009 (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:Albums by Zarif

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Albums by Zarif to Category:Zarif albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming per Category:Albums by artist. Tassedethe (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename for consistency with other similar categories. -- BRG (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2009 (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:Albums by UK

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Albums by UK to Category:UK (band) albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming per Category:Albums by artist. Using UK (band) to avoid ambiguity. Tassedethe (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2009 (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:Album by David Garett

 * 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:David Garrett albums. Jafeluv (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Album by David Garett to Category:David Garett albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming per Category:Albums by artist. Tassedethe (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename for consistency with other similar categories. -- BRG (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:David Garrett albums (Garrett, not Garett). Occuli (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree as nom, don't know how I missed that. Tassedethe (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator(s). :) Debresser (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2009 (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:United Arab Emirates racecar drivers

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:United Arab Emirates racecar drivers to Category:United Arab Emirati racecar drivers
 * Propose renaming Category:United Arab Emirates rally drivers to Category:United Arab Emirati rally drivers
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with the rest of the Category:United Arab Emirati people tree. DH85868993 (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom (there are a few more such as Category:United Arab Emirates international footballers). Occuli (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that one's OK, noting that it's consistent with other members of Category:Football (soccer) players by national team, e.g. Category:Argentina international footballers (not "Argentine"), Category:Armenia international footballers (not "Armenian"), etc. Likewise, I think Category:United Arab Emirates ODI cricketers also doesn't need to be changed, noting that it's consistent with other members of Category:ODI cricketers, e.g. Category:Australia ODI cricketers (not "Australian"), Category:Canada ODI cricketers (not "Canadian"), etc. DH85868993 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2009 (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:Project-Class Project articles

 * 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: Deleted per CSD#G7 by . Non-admin closure. PC78 (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * project-class project articles


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Typing error after dozens of cats. Very sorry. Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Next time, you can just tag it with db-user. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 2 October 2009 (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:Evangelic Mission Supporters

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Evangelic Mission Supporters to Category:Christian missions
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The category has only one article, Apostolic Faith Mission. This one article appears to be a Christian mission. Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2009 (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:List of former schools in England

 * 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:Defunct schools in England. Jafeluv (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:List of former schools in England to Category:Defunct schools in the United Kingdom
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category does not contain lists of schools merely individual schools and as such should be upmerged. Tassedethe (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Defunct schools in England and gather together various subcats of Category:Defunct schools in the United Kingdom (Berkshire, London, grammar schools etc). Occuli (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree: Rename to Category:Defunct schools in England makes sense, agreeing with the title of Category:Defunct schools in the United Kingdom but keeps the geographical subdivision. -- BRG (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename & reorganize per Occuli. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per Occuli. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2009 (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:List of rivers of the United States

 * 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. BencherliteTalk 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:List of rivers of the United States to Category:Lists of rivers of the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Disputed as a speedy merge candidate here (at bottom). Category contains lists of rivers (albeit 1 list broken down alphabetically) and as such should be correctly pluralized to Lists (e.g see subcats of Category:United States-related lists). The category can be merged to the parent category with no problems as there are only 7 articles in that category. Tassedethe (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. This is a clear duplication, IMO, and is the type of case for which speedy renaming exists. There is certainly no need for both categories. The nominated category contains multiple list articles—one for each letter of the alphabet. The fact that the lists were originally part of one non-broken-up list doesn't mean there are not now multiple lists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge – the 7 articles in the parent category could themselves be subcatted (relating to US territories) leaving the alphabetical lists in prime position in the parent, if desired. Occuli (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * do not merge There is a problem in putting these alphabetic articles (part of one logical list, not multiple lists) into Category:Lists of rivers of the United States: the reader cannot then readily find the 7 articles already in Category:Lists of rivers of the United States: they become nearly invisibly buried, out of sight.  It is for this reason that I created Category:List of rivers of the United States. Some proponents are misrepresenting the contents of Category:Lists of rivers of the United States in making their arguments Hmains (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Counterproposal: Rename to Category:Lists of rivers of the United States by alphabetical order. It definitely needs a plural title, but Hmains' criticism would seem to be met this way. -- BRG (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All categories are in alphabetical order so that is redundant. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mind you, would make sense... but it would be unique - no other split-lists are categorised in that way, so a merge seems appropriate. Hmains' criticism could easily be met by adding piped links in the articles' category links, e.g.  Grutness...wha?  22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Grutness suggestion would work for me. Hmains (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Exactly why do we need to have the list that is behind this problem broken down into 24 pieces?  If it was combined into 1 piece it would also solve the problem.  If it was then converted into a table that included the length, the list would become more valuable and a better resource. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * comment It works fine as it is for the readers and maintainers. See the master article here named List of rivers of the United States.  This is the only article that readers need know about; the alphabet articles are for maintainers.   Same as done for List of rivers of Romania (alphabetic), the only other country that seems to have documented its rivers in as much detail as the US.  Why fiddle with what works? Hmains (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Why fiddle with what works?" I think that was exactly the point. Why did we need to break down the master list into smaller chunks? The main list was working fine. It should have been broken down internally, not through the creation of 20-odd new articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Never heard of large article, hard to maintain problems, hard to load problems? This setup of 20-odd articles has worked fine since October 2005.  It is not new.  Read history. Hmains (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter when it was done or by whom—the question is why does it need to be that way? How are multiple small articles easier to maintain than one large one? I had assumed they had been separated into separate articles at the same time you placed them in this newly-created subcategory, which was much more recently. It looks like prior to your edits, these were happily sitting in, so yes—some fiddling was done by you. Anyway, the setup of the article(s) is beyond the scope of this discussion. The real issue is why are you trying to have multiple lists considered as one list from a linguistic standpoint? Is your only reason because you think these articles are "buried" by being included in a category with 7 other list articles? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my reason, as I stated above. And Grutness offered a solution that I accepted above. Hmains (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have learned that what was put together on this wiki a few years ago can often be improved. So that fact that this has existed for 4 years is not an indication that the implementation is correct.  It may well be an indication that there may be a better way to display this information.  Given the multiple overlapping lists, converting the entire mess to a consolidated sortable table would appear to be a better solution for everyone.  Especially since it would reduce duplicated material which is always an maintenance problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. Why these 24 articles should be difficult to find in a category which as yet only contains seven articles I have no idea. "nearly invisibly buried, out of sight"? Do me a favour! They would outnumber the other articles in the cat by more than three to one! Why on earth this should be regarded as a special case I also have no idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read what I wrote, I said the 7 would be buried, not the 24. In any case, I agree with Grutness on his solution, so what is your point? Hmains (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do apologise. I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed to make a comment because you had agreed with a previous one! An AfD is a discussion to which all are invited. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should not have written that. Sorry.  Hmains (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. If the material gets lost, then simply don't include these in the category since they already include a nav box.  I'd also recommend that these articles be combined into one.  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2009 (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:List of Bangladesh Navy Ship

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * list of bangladesh navy ship


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a copy of the article List of ships of the Bangladesh Navy and is superfluous to Category:Ships of the Bangladesh Navy. Tassedethe (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete article masquerading as a category. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2009 (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:Sierra games
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sierra games to Category:Sierra Entertainment games
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match name of company Sierra Entertainment. Tassedethe (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2009 (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:Skip games
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Skip games to Category:Skip Ltd. games
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match name of company Skip Ltd. and to reduce possible confusion with skipping games. Tassedethe (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2009 (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:Prison wardens
<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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Prison wardens to Category:American prison wardens
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity. Note that this should not be the general category title since "warden" in this context is almost exclusively a North American usage - most countries use other terms such as governor, superintendent etc. Nevertheless it should be renamed for clarity (as Canada, at least, also uses the term). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename as it is a subcat of Category:American prison officials. Occuli (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * REname per nom by all means, but does it not need merging with one of its parents? As an Englishman, I am not familiar with Us terminology.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which parent? It is a specific category referring to wardens, the people who we in the UK would call governors. As such, I think it is a perfectly acceptably named category (or will be when renamed). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to clarify category content. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2009 (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:Editors who are not getting feedback from their good edits
<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. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 13:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * editors who are not getting feedback from their good edits


 * Nominator's rationale: Category fails to meet the criteria at WP:USERCAT as it does not seem to be intended in facilitating coordination nor collaboration. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - This category was created to notify other wikipedians that a particular user is not getting feedback from his/her good edits. -Porchcrop (talk 06:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete This category seems like whining, and is somewhat bitey to me. A good editor should not expect any feedback on their edits, but will sometimes receive barnstars based on their editng. Therefore this category can be deleted. ArcAngel (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems a rather bad-faith/complaining category to me. I would not object to a more neutral category like 'Category:Editors requesting feedback on their edits (although we already have Category:Wikipedians on Editor review for that purpose...). Robofish (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment See the related tag unappreciated and its TfD. They would seem to stand or fall together.


 * Weak Delete Well-intentioned, but unworkable. See related TfD Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2009 (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:Gangs in Nevada
<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: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Gangs in Nevada to Category:Gangs based in Nevada
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm bring this up here for a discussion since I'm not convinced that we need the current category as named. If you look at the Hells Angels article, the gang appears to be included in this category because of a notable fight with another gang.  I think these clubs should be handled the same way we do a restaurant where the company is listed where the headquarters is (with some exceptions) or fraternities where we have an article for the main group with appropriate categories and not for every chapter.  Comments?  This is a trial nomination and if we agree that we need to change something, there will be a need for follow on nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * do not rename a better argument than this is needed to make this major change in the content meaning of this and all its sibling categories. Where exactly would one find the hdq of a particular gang when many they appear to be made up of various chapters, without a centralized control element located in a particular state.  As best, one might find something in the articles saying in which US state they originated. Hmains (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming for essentially the reasons explained by Hmains. This seems to fundamentally change the meaning of all the subcats in Category:Gangs in the United States by state, and in a way that could be difficult to verify. It's not as if most criminal organizations put their name on a building in the manner of big corporations like AIG or Worldcom. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then these can simply be dropped as not being supported by the article text? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or just leave things are they are, since the categories are already supported by article text. Read the articles, showing where gang chapters exist. Hmains (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And how is that different from using a category for every state where foo incorporated has a store? Something that we clearly have decided not to do, Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of WP categories is to help readers find things, not make things 'neat' for the sake of consistency or other irrelevant ideas.  A parent of Category:Gangs in Nevada is Category:Crime in Nevada as is the case with all similar state gang categories.  Someone looking for crime in Nevada and the criminal gangs involved therein surely does much care whether the US headquarters or founding location of the gang is in Nevada or not, but very much cares that the gang is operating in Nevada.  There is what we have now and there is no good reason to change that. Hmains (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2009 (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.