Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 22



Category:20th century refugees ennobled in the 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 to Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom. There's consensus to do something, but no consensus to listify or delete. The trend toward removing "20th century" suggests that should be done at minimum. No prejudice against relisting the new category if desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 20th century refugees ennobled in the uk


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an unusual category and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. It combines three things: refugee status, century, and eventual notable achievement of the person. It doesn't have any immediate logical parents, like or . It could be misread as suggesting that they were ennobled when they were refugees, which of course is not true. On balance, given it's problems, I suggest deletion, unless someone has a better idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, it would also have to be former refugees to work as well. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify - this is actually quite an interesting topic, but I don't think it's handled well as a category. A list page with some basic biographical info would be welcome. TheGrappler (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, probably removing the century limitation, or listify. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify then delete. It's a 4-way intersection, not appropriate for a category. The "20th century" can probably be omitted from the list too. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to removed 20thC. We have recently got rid of a lot of 20th/21st century categories by merger inot a parent and this should be no exception.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (no objection to listifying if a suitable location exists) - Even if we remove the century designation, we still are left with an ambiguous triple-intersection of refugee status, attainment of nobility, and country (Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom). Are these people who were refugees to the United Kingdom or from the United Kingdom (the category description clarifies that it is the former, but the category title does not)? Did their status as a refugee have anything to do with their ennoblement? -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2010 (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:Gordon J. Laing Award

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * gordon j. laing award


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous award category being used to categorize winners, which are already listified at Gordon J. Laing Award. OCAT applies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2010 (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:Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories

 * 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 as a recreation of deleted content and as an empty category. Also for this nomination WP:SNOW. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * israeli companies operating in the occupied territories


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:POINTy category that was created to avoid the delete conclusion of Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 1 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. The creation of this category in the middle of the discussion to delete the now-deleted Category:Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories was completely inappropriate. If a user anticipates that a category they would prefer to retain is about to be deleted, they should not be able to avoid this result by making a new category that is worded slightly differently but essentially accomplishes the same purpose that the original category was meant to accomplish. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP I not create category, it already exist. But it important category that need to differentiate between company base in Israel and in area that current occupy by Israel military. Ani medjool (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. Aggressive bad faith behaviour by editor. --Shuki (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This couldn't be deleted faster. It was created in absolute bad faith, in the middle of the deletion process of the same category with two words rearranged. Editors need to be shown that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. The existence of this category is only causing added drama and edit wars. Breein1007 (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:NOTADVOCATE. This is an obvious attempt at POV-pushing by pro-Palestinians who consider their territory "occupied" and who will probably use this list for another boycott of Israeli goods. Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Malik Shabazz claim that it was created to avoid the delete conclusion of another category is inaccurate. This category was created specially for the Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories, products Israel creates in its settlements which is a subject that is discussed in many different places, so it has notability. If the reader sees that the category is empty now is because several pro-Israeli editors have removed the category from all Israeli articles operating in the occupied territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Yoninah. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. Purely evasive behavior by editor characterized by a chronic battleground attitude. Delete, then block or ban the disruptive party. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the cat page takes you to Israeli-Occupied Territories, and therefore that is what the cat should be, but alas, that was voted in the CFD as delete so this is just a way to work around that. Yossiea (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2010 (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:Joseph Campbell

 * 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) 09:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * joseph campbell


 * Nominator's rationale: This is a category full of articles related to Joseph Campbell, many of them biographies of other people e.g. Jackie Onassis. Since those articles may be safely accessed by wikilink if they are relevant, and there is a navbox for Joseph campbell already, I don't see this category as necessary. TheGrappler (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2010 (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:Cornish immigrants to 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. —  ξ xplicit  06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Cornish immigrants to the United States to Category:English immigrants to the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: too narrow a distinction to make and without precedent (no Category:Cornish emigrants, Category:Cornish expatriates etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename; at this stage, I see no reason to single Cornish emigrants out from English ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (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:Privately owned Government companies in India

 * 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 under G3 - Vandalism. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Privately owned Government companies in India to Category:Government-owned companies in India
 * Nominator's rationale: The title of this category is oxymoronic: if a company is privately-owned, it's not a govt company. However the category does appear to be for state-owned enterprises, so  I suggest merging to the existing .  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit  20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the header for this category it appears that they are ‘Autonomous’ rather than ‘private’. Perhaps a rename to Category:Autonomous Government companies in India might be better than merge. I do not know sufficient about the Indian business model to say whether the distinction should be drawn between these businesses. The category is in any case in the wrong place – it should be a sub-cat of Category:Government-owned companies in India. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I know little of the subject, and agree that we have an oxymoron, but I think that BHG (in Ireland) and me (in England) should be very wary of seeking to impose our views of what can exist on a land as complex as India. I would support Twiceuponatime's suggestion or Category:Privately-run Government companies in India, both of which seem to fit the definition in the headnote better than the present title.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: WikiProject India has been notified. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as a hoax. Besides the oxymoronic title ... though governments work in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform :-) this is especially clear from the last sentence of the description, "These companies are run by the Directors of the company and he/she is assisted by the workers of his/her caste." (emphasis added). The creator  has made other disparaging edits about Bharat Dynamics Limited, and if I had to guess it is just a frustrated (potential?) employee using wikipedia as a soapbox. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as vandalism. The category note is testament to the nonsense that this category is. There are autonomous entities among the public sector undertakings, but that doesn't appear to be what this category is about anyway and if required it's better to start a clean category for that. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax. Complete nonsense, the companies in the category are government-controlled and there aren't any privately-owned government companies in India. Moreover, the category note is unsourced OR. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2010 (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:People from Nyeri, Kenya

 * 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:People from Nyeri District. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People from Nyeri, Kenya to Category:People from Nyeri District
 * Nominator's rationale: Nyeri is but a town while the district in which it is located (Nyeri District) does not have a 'People from' category page.  (Note: Nyeri, Kenya redirects to Nyeri) Mayumashu (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2010 (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:People from Central Province
<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:People from Central Province (Kenya). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People from Central Province to Category:People from Central Province (Kenya)
 * Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate as there are several places Central Province and to match Central Province (Kenya) Mayumashu (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Straightforward—this clearly needs disambiguation. There are many Central Provinces. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (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:Highly Hazardous Chemicals
<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: Listify. There seems to be enough interest in keeping the material, but the specificity to one U.S. agency doesn't garner consensus for keeping it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * highly hazardous chemicals


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. A specific list of chemicals from a specific regulatory body does not a category make. An article, maybe. (but even then the capitalisation is not warranted per http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9761&p_table=standards) .  Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC). 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as too subjective. - Gilliam (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Keeping the category for the chemicals designated as HHCs can be useful, IMHO. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is article or list material, not defining categorization material. There are other organizations which no doubt have their own lists of the ones that are highly hazardous, and if we proliferate them that's a recipe for category clutter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have notified the creator.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost said "keep", this is a good category, but then found that the parent article is, and only ever has been, a redirect, and that the category is woefully underpopulated. (Or are there really only 34 "Highly Hazardous Chemicals"?) I think this category *is* a good idea, and am happy to single out the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the defining body for "Highly hazardous chemicals", subject to change upon a good argument. However, the parent article needs to be flesh out first, and then the category needs to be completed, otherwise this category should be deleted due to being misleading.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a few more than 34. I could help to populate the category though, if it's going to be kept. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a good parent article is needed. Is there a difference between "highly hazardous" and "toxic and highly hazardous".  Does "highly hazardous" exclude things like "Super highly hazardous"?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't think what a parent article would say other than what is on the existing category page. Assuming that the American taste for hazards is unlikely to be much different from classification in other countries, I'm inclined to weak keep and populate. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found this article useful in spite of it not being comprehensive. Bryce (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Article-ify to Highly Hazardous Chemical, which is currently a redirect. A useful, notable subject, but not yet good as a category.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is not a subjective (i.e. POV) category, because the contents are limited to those designated by a US public body. However, I am not familiar with this American system, being British and not involved in chemistry since leaving university nearly 40 years ago.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No one here has suggested it is POV. The rationale is that undue weight is being given to one organization's classification scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Listify. The list is available on the US website. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify to Highly Hazardous Chemical per Good Ol'factory: "undue weight is being given to one organization's [OSHA's] classification scheme". There is no doubt that a listing of HHCs can be useful, but categorization must consider not only the potential utility of the grouping but also the definingness of the characteristic for the articles which the category contains. If this was an internationally-accepted and definitive listing on the level of the IUCN Red List, then I would support its existence; as it stands, however, this is a list published by a single nation's health and safety agency. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (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:Television shows with named seasons
<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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Television shows with named seasons to Category:Television series with named seasons
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a very odd category, uniting such disparate programs as Avatar: The Last Airbender, Ugly Betty, and Real World/Road Rules Challenge under a perhaps specious banner. The reason I brought it here, though, is that like all subcategories of Category:Television series, it should use "series" rather than "shows." I'm not opposed to a delete result either.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename if kept but it seems to be a variant on 'Categorisation by shared name', which would require delete. (Inclusion criteria would be nice.) Occuli (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not useful to the way we categorise stuff now. Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. Seems to be overcategorization by shared naming feature. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per olfactory. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Really borderline keep/delete, but any possible names don't seem to work which tips it over the edge. (in the US we have "seasons" of a show, but the UK term for a single year's worth of programmes is a "series" (i.e. Doctor Who series 3)...) - The Bushranger (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2010 (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:RationalWikians
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * rationalwikians
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - No article on RationalWiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom and per neologism. Yoninah (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no need to categorize by what doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:30, 23 April 2010 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to the Club Penguin Wikis
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * wikipedians who contribute to the club penguin wiki
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - No article on the Club Penguin Wiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Queries
 * "Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories..." even assuming it set a precedent, which leaving it be, or listing and keeping do not, per POKEMON, OTHERSTUFFEXSITS etc, what is the harm of a few thousand user categories?
 * "No article on the Club Penguin Wiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration" - on the contrary the cat does not suggest that these Wikipedians are experts on the subject of the Club Penguin Wiki (although they may be) but on the (vastly more important - and once AfD'd) Club Penguin.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
 * 1) Per WP:USERCAT, the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. A few thousand user categories that don't do this (or even one) dilutes the goal of user categories and therefore causes harm by merely existing. 2) In that case a more appropriate category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in Club Penguin. Such a category runs the risk of being too narrow to adequately foster collaboration, however. Usually user categories should encompass at least 4-5 potential articles to collaborate on, otherwise talk pages are more appropriate. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, no need to categorize by what doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:31, 23 April 2010 (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:Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Gamma
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * wikipedians who contribute to memory gamma
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - No article on the Memory Gamma, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:31, 23 April 2010 (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:People of Kohanim descent
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * people of kohanim descent


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an unnecessary category which overlaps Category:Kohanim. For people who are not Kohanim in the eyes of halakha (Jewish law) &mdash; such as a man whose maternal grandfather was a Kohen &mdash; the classification of "Kohanim descent" has no halachic value and is at most a coffee-table tidbit. A woman whose father is a Kohen (called a bat Kohen in Jewish law) might be included in Category:Kohanim, although this would probably be important only to Conservative Jewish women, who might want their own category, Category:Women kohanim. Yoninah (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete First of all, I completely agree with the nominator. Another strong argument to delete this category is that the specific ancestry of being descended from a kohen but not being a kohen yourself is never considered, mentioned, valued etc. It is not notable, so to say. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am looking through all the names in this category and adding the categorization of Category:Kohanim where applicable, so that they will be categorized as kohanim somewhere. I'm finding that quite a few people, men and women, who have "Cohen" as a surname have been placed in Category:People of Kohanim descent, which is not necessarily correct, since Jewish families often changed their names to Cohen to avoid the draft (as in 19th century Russia). Yoninah (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A Bas Kohen does have some halachic issues that apply regarding terumah, etc. but that is b/c as long as she does not marry a non-Kohen, she is a Koheness and such may eat terumos etc. -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  IZAK (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Kohanim if they can DEFINITELY be known as Kohanim, otherwise Delete per nom and because (1) this is a violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and (2) Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue, since (3) there is no way to be sure who is truly of this branch/religious caste, even among the most religious of Jews, it is presumed to be merely a chazakah (a legal "assumption", unverified and unverifiable in absolute terms.) Finally, see (4) Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11 regarding the impossibility and untenability of creating and running a nebulous category such as Category:Poles of Jewish descent. (5) This may also well be a violation of Wikipedia is not for things made up one day that could never pass muster of WP:RS without violating WP:NOR; WP:NPOV and WP:NEO. (6) This category was created by User:M.Ajnhorn a sock of controversial User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg who is blocked and banned prone to creating mixed-up Jewish categories who refused to back down from his violations of WP:NOR in this regard. IZAK (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:32, 28 April 2010 (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:Converts to Orthodox independent denominations from Eastern Orthodoxy
<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 both. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * converts to orthodox independent denominations from eastern orthodoxy


 * converts to old believers from eastern orthodoxy


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. These two categories are kind of meaningless. The people in the categories left or were excommunicated from one Eastern Orthodox church and joined a different Eastern Orthodox Church. The Old Believers are a movement within Eastern Orthodoxy. None of these people converted from Eastern Orthodoxy at all, they just became associated with different churches in the overall movement. It would kind of be like saying, "Converts to Sufism from Islam" or "Converts to Methodism from Protestantism". Doesn't make sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The founding fathers of the movement should not be categorized under "converts" in first place. One note: the continuum of Old Believers, taken broadly, is not all Eastern Orthodox. There are plenty of cults (mostly extinct now) that are clearly non-Christian. NVO (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoo, let's not get into the who is and who isn't "Christian". Wars are fought over things like that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Good Ol’factory Ani medjool (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2010 (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:Self-released albums
<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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Self-released albums to Category:Independent albums
 * Nominator's rationale: To clarify that these albums were released independent of externally owned or operated record labels. Note that the main article is independent music. Alternatively, it can be renamed . — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah damn, I just noticed was merged into  in the August 2008 CfD. After reading that nomination, I think that "self-released albums" is even worse, as it seems to imply that no record label took part of the project, which clearly isn't the case. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Independent" could refer to an independent record label (e.g. SST Records) or a vanity label. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, then there's a problem here. I'm not sure what the original contents of were, but if I take a stab at it, it seems that a lot (but not all) of these albums were released from independent record labels—a large majority which are not notable. This can be seen from the contents of . So, if anything, the deleted category's contents weren't very well looked in to. A split might be worth considering. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Self-released albums would be independently-released, but if anything, they should be a subcatregory. Simply put, releasing an album yourself and releasing it on SST are two different things, even if both of those mean that you are avoiding the Big Four. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The present title appears to be clear and precise. Possibly "self-published" might be even clearer, but I do not think that term is used for records.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (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:Works by Aoi Nishimata
<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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * works by aoi nishimata


 * Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are listed in her biography, this category is completely unnecessary. Even if all of the works she has been involved with are included, it would only be 7 articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:IINFO. There is no reason for this categorization when all the works are neatly listed in the main article. Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO and Yoninah Ani medjool (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure IINFO applies here. This category is certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. When we routinely say it's OK for now defunct bands that have only ever produced one album and will never again produce another album to have a category dedicated to their albums, it seems strange that the same rationale would not apply to categories for other works. Here, we have three works in the category, and if there were 7, that would seem to be quite a robust category for a creator's works. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2010 (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:Whitegoods manufacturers of China
<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:Home appliance manufacturers of China. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Whitegoods manufacturers of China to Category:Home appliance manufacturers of China
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Whitegoods refers to major appliances, which is a subtype of what WP calls home appliances. As the article home appliance says, "Traditionally, home appliances are classified into: Major appliances (or "White goods") [and] Small appliances (or "Brown goods")." This category belongs in the parent, and should be renamed accordingly. Right now there is no subgroup of . Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom and per Wikipedia is not guess, guess, guess. Most people would look up "home appliances", not "white goods". Yoninah (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, but not per GGG - a. categories are not primarily meant to be looked up, and b. many people would use "white goods" as a known term rather than "home appliances" "household appliances" "domestic appliances" etc. Nonetheless rename, since most manufacturers make both or neither. Rich Farmbrough, 17:51, 22 April 2010 (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:Volcanoes by Volcanic Explosivity Index
<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:Volcanoes by highest known Volcanic Explosivity Index of eruption. Consensus does not exist to do anything in this nomination. However, all participants agree that the category title, and thus all the subcategory titles, contain a factual inaccuracy. So while the utility of the category has not been agreed to be low, the category title must change to be one that isn't wrong. I picked the best name I could find from the nomination, but certainly don't think it's great. Further nominations are recommended, and they should include the subcategories.Mike Selinker (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * volcanoes by volcanic explosivity index


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. VEI is not a characteristic of volcanoes but of eruptions. A volcano cannot have a VEI.  Thus, this category and its subcategories are meaningless. 94.196.237.72 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge work done to Volcanic_Explosivity_Index and delete when done. Indexing by this measure is not a good use of the category system, especially not when the index list is so incomplete.  Categorisation is not flexible enough for this developing idea (in terms of wikipedia content).  Very likely, Volcanic_Explosivity_Index will need breaking into multiple pages when it fills out, and maybe then some useful categorisation need will become apparent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)
 * The list in the VEI article is already too large to be very useful as a list of examples, and I agree with the comments at Talk:Volcanic_Explosivity_Index about the futility of trying to create a comprehensive list of eruptions on Wikipedia. It is also often not clear what eruption led to a volcano being put into these categories (see Glacier Peak or Stromboli, to take a couple of randomly chosen examples). So I don't thinking merging this information into that list would be easy or useful. I would have more sympathy for a separate List of volcanoes by size of largest eruption, which seems to be what the categories were trying to record. --Avenue (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. We could create Category:Volcanic eruptions by Volcanic Explosivity Index, but Category:Volcanic events is small enough that this seems premature.--Avenue (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify to separate list, e.g. List of volcanoes by size of largest eruption, not as part of the VEI article. --Avenue (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Things are not so easy. There are volcanoes as Yellowstone hotspot that will regularly (all 700 ka) have an explosive eruption by silica rich magma, and so have high VEIs. Probably it will do it again in our lifetime. Others like Hawaii (island) erupt silica poor lava. The Katla volcanic system erupts transitional alkalic lava and is dangerous. The central volcanoes of Iceland erupt tholeiitic lava and are not so dangerous. We could keep VEI 5 to VEI 8, and VEI lower than 5, instead. Volcanoes in monogenetic volcanic field have not VEIs greater than 4. Volcanoes, lava types, and VEI of its eruptions are linked... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Volcanic eruptions by Volcanic Explosivity Index. Category:Volcanic events could be the parent cat of Category:Volcanic eruptions by Volcanic Explosivity Index since volcanic events are more than just eruptions. Volcanic events also include earthquakes that are magmatic in origin (e.g. 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes) and the upwelling of magma in the Earth. BT (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with above, Rename. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to 'eruptions' doesn't work as they are all volcanoes, not eruptions. And none of the subcats are tagged. Occuli (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps they should be renamed as well. Very small scale VEI eruptions, such as VEI-1 and 2, are common at volcanoes and those volcano cats (Category:VEI-1 volcanoes and Category:VEI-2 volcanoes) can easily be over populated. Thus, overcategorizing would be become a problem. It is better off renaming all VEI volcano categories to VEI volcanic eruption categories because that would prevent volcano articles becoming overpopulated with VEI categories. There is currently one VEI-2 eruption article (2004–2008 volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens), one VEI-4 eruption article (1888 eruption of Mount Bandai, two VEI-5 eruption articles (Hekla 3 eruption, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens), two VE1-6 eruption articles (1883 eruption of Krakatoa, Avellino eruption), three VEI-7 eruption articles (Hatepe eruption, Akahoya eruption, Minoan eruption (which was either VEI-6 or 7)) and one VEI-8 eruption article (Oruanui eruption) and others in Category:Volcanic events I did not noted. BT (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Volcanoes with VEI-X eruptions could solve the problem for the VEI-X volcano categories. BT (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Volcanoes with VEI-X eruptions seems problematic to me, since almost all volcanoes will have produced a small eruption at some point. We'd have to rely on editors being sensible and only applying categories that are a defining characteristic of the volcano, but I suspect this may not work out well. If people are keen on renaming the existing categories, I think Category:Volcanoes whose most explosive eruption was VEI-X comes close to matching what they currently contain. -- Avenue (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Listify as above and also List of volcanoes by highest known Volcanic Explosivity Index of eruption (or a better name) so that the implied question of what the most powerful volcanoes are is answered. (Top Trumps, anyone?) Rich Farmbrough, 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Listify per above. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This appears to be a perfectly rational category tree of whcih the nominated category is an appropriate parent. Possibly rename, but the articles are largely about volcanoes, not articles about theri particular eruptions.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify to WikiProject Volcanoes/Volcanoes by Volcanic Explosivity Index (or similar) so that it can be improved and readied for mainspace. Although this information is significant, I think that it is not suited to being the basis for a category. There are simply too many issues, not least of which is the fact that volcanoes tend to experience multiple eruptions of varying size, leaving open the way for overcategorization. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2010 (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.