Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 22



Category:Razorback Records albums

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. —  ξ xplicit  06:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * razorback records albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination, found doing cleanup. Probably nominated since there is no main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete As real nominator (with Twinkle.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 26 August 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 people by ethnic or national origin

 * 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 rename based on the 19 July CFD result. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Israeli people of Syrian descent to Category:Israeli people of Syrian origin
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found doing cleanup. Apparently not listed in the July 19 nomination that was approved for rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 22 August 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:University or college founders

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  06:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:University or college founders to Category:University and college founders
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Other such subcategories of category:Universities and colleges use "and" rather than "or."--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. "University and college" is the WP construct for institutions of higher education; it does not indicate an alternative of one or the other.- choster (talk) 19:52, 27 August 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:College and university band directors

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:College and university band directors to Category:University and college band directors
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Category:Universities and colleges. Could also be renamed Category:College marching band directors to match Category:College marching bands, since all article appear to be about people who direct marching bands (sometimes among other bands).--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:25, 22 August 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:Building projects

 * 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 as proposed. Ruslik_ Zero 12:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Building projects to Category:Construction projects
 * Category:Buildings under construction to Category:Buildings and structures under construction
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Building project was a redirect to building science which I just changed. Clearly that does not work as a main article for this area.  Construction project however redirects to construction which is what the contents of this category are about.  So I think this rename would be more accurate in how it describes the contents. The category still needs more cleanup to remove the completed and canceled projects. A search on "building project" yields 1,600,000 hits and "construction project" yields 4,300,000 hits. Since a UK based article like Altitude 25 actually uses 'construction project', I'm thinking this may not even be a US/UK language issue. Could be viewed as projects about buildings rather then the broader usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The description you recently added says that the category is for "building and structures that are proposed or under construction." However, we also have Category:Proposed buildings and structures and Category:Buildings under construction (which should probably be renamed to Category:Buildings and structures under construction). Split and merge into the two less-ambiguous categories. - Eureka Lott 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I did work on the introduction since editors were adding everything to the category even stuff that was completed. In cleaning up the category, mostly by adding subcategories I did see the proposed category and have used it in some cases. I guess what we really need to decide is do we need a category for the projects or would Category:Buildings and structures under construction work?  After crawling through maybe 250 articles, I see merit to just moving this into Category:Buildings and structures under construction and Category:Proposed buildings and structures.  Note that we have quite a few that have been approved which I have been dumping into proposed.  And we also have Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures and Category:Buildings under construction which probably should be renamed to Category:Buildings and structures under construction. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I just found Category:Incomplete buildings and structures which also needs to be considered with this group. As well as the parent Category:Development projects. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Buildings under construction has been added to the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:28, 24 August 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:Tudorbethan architecture

 * 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 per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 12:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Tudorbethan architecture to Category:Tudor Revival architecture
 * Nominator's rationale: The main article Tudor Revival architecture states that Tudorbethan is simply an alternate name, and uses the two terms interchangeably: Tudor Revival architecture as the article name, Tudorbethan in the body text, Tudor Revival once again below, in the template. (Tudorbethan architecture is merely a redirect). It seems, to me, that what we have here is a duplicate category. If not, then some defining difference between the two terms needs to be identified. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My own Googling does not reveal a distinctive difference between the two, save for the fact that Tudorbethan appears to be a less commonly used term. Most of the Ghits seem to be wiki mirror texts, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Tudorbethan is not an alternate name for Tudor Revival, far from it. Tudorbethan is an almost toungue in cheek "twee" and often cheaply reproduced pastiche of late Tudor architecture. Whereas Tudor Revival covers the whole spectrum of Tudor architecture and often incorporates fine craftsmanship and building materials.  Giacomo   22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply can you point me to any WP:RS that support this point of view? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At this moment in time no, I was about to say it's a subtle difference that the Americans and Canadians would never understand - then looking at through the categories, I was forced to make this edit . Which rather re-enforced my opinion.  Giacomo   22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: It looks, and I'm less than half way through, like many of the pages belong in neither category, but "Arts and Crafts" architecture of the early 20th century.  Giacomo   22:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone in need of a laugh, may enjoy the lead image here - how can we tell which category is needed - anyone got a chainsaw?  Giacomo   22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 *  Hmmmmm  Googling seems to indicate that Tudor revival is the standard USA name and that Tudorbethan may be British for the same thing, with perhaps the pejorative note coming from the fact that the Brits have genuine Tudor period buildings and the USA does not. As a matter of course NRHP listings are the source of these style cats for American buildings, and I doubt if they ever use Tudorbethan (they don't on the two I've thus far checked). If we prune the listings on that basis there may not be anything left of this category. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then perhaps we could reserve Tudorbethan for neo-Tudor buildings in the UK, with Revival used for other countries? That would at least give us a clear reason to use one or the other. I'm not swayed by the creator's opinion so far that the problem lies in the ignorance of North Americans, but that he can go through the articles and decide what's what, depending on how well the style is used, in his view. Because the problem with that, of course, is that all architecture style categories contain both good and mediocre examples of the form, with the distinction between the two being subjective. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the American cases, and with two exceptions (one of questionable notability, the other is listed in the NRIS as "Neo-Tudor") everything categorized as "Tudorbethan" in the USA is listed in the NRIS as "Tudor Revival"; therefore I've changed all of those to match. All of the others in the category are British with the exception of one or two Canadian buildings and one in Potsdam. I didn't check the listed British buildings, but if their listings don't use the term I would argue for using the term they actually use. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, based on your research, do you see any defining difference between these various names? The use of Neo-Tudor in one NRIS description backs up my worry that there is in fact no clear difference that can be easily understood by users, with different terms used on different registry forms, in the way that most architectural styles have variant names. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Further note: The English lists do not have formal style identifications comparable to the NRHP, but of the two I've checked neither uses the word "Turdorbethan" (one "has Tudor elements", the other is "vernacular"). The only source I've seen for the term at all was on a dictionary of terms, but I've found no evidence for formal usage of the term; "Tudor Revival" seems to work just as well. Therefore I'm tending towards DELETE at this time. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I went through the catgories last night, I have not seen them all, but a high number of the pages included in those categories were neither Tudor Revival or Tudorbethan in any country's understanding of the term. Many of those pages that did just fall into the "Tudor" catgory would be more acurately decribed as Arts and Crafts, one was even "Art Deco." As I understand it, Tudor revivial is slighly more tasteful and better built than Tudorbethan. The latter being kitsch black and white made of rendered concrete blocks and plastic/wood.  Giacomo   14:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood the arguments you've advanced on the merits of Tudor Revival over Tudorbethan and so misquoted you below in a couple of cases. But my central point remains, you have not as yet offered WP:RS to back up your understanding of the matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be a lot consistency in the use of the term, other than that it isn't used in the USA. I see some places applying it to all Tudor Revival, other applying it to vernacular (i.e., tract housing) buildings, and yet another using to for Arts and Crafts buildings with Tudor elements mixed in with other things (e.g. shingle style). The problem I'm seeing with the category at the moment is that I do not see any source for any of the articles thus far saying that "such-and-such building is in the Tudorbethan style." But it's clear that Category: Tudor Revival architecture in the United States is going to go in Category: Tudor Revival architecture directly and is not going to intersect with any Tudorbethan category. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, and I've just recategorized The Algonquin here in Canada. Based on the creator's own yardstick this would not seem to be rigorously Tudorbethan, but more of a revivalist take on the form. The term Tudor style is used. Perhaps Tudorbethan might apply in this case, if the category creator's WP:OR is correct, but I've not yet seen proof that it is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the article on Key Route Inn suggests only that it is "in imitation of an old English style." Hardly the sort of thing that the category creator's own criteria would seem to call for, for more exacting Tudorbethan (in his view) to apply. I've moved it to Category:Tudor Revival architecture in the United States, as California does not yet seem to have a state category and the Revival name is common usage in the US. The Tudorbethan category is getting to be rather sparsely populated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Me again. Ditto for Vancouver's Aberthau House. Both terms are used in the lead, suggesting once again that these are simply two names for the same thing, as is common in architectural styles. However, one of the few working RS uses the Revival name only, so I've changed to Category:Tudor Revival architecture. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm this whole debate, and looking in text books for references, is making me think again about the whole concept of both catgories. The most modern text books I own seem to ignore the whole concept and concentrate more on Arts and Crafts and "German influences" for the half timbering for the better quality buildings while dismissing the less notable examples as suburban "Tudoresque." Certainly most of the building I have seen in the categories here could fall under these alternate descriptions. I am beginning to wonder of the whole "Tudor" concept is not something seized on by real estate agents to give credence to rubbish architecture or through their own lack of knowlege. I shall read some more and report back.  Giacomo   16:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I detected the same condescension towards suburban architecture (again especially in the British examples) but since such buildings are not likely to come up as notable, so it's rather a moot point in that regard. The main issue is going to be classification of British Listed buildings; the NRHP plainly prefers the term "Tudor Revival". Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a minor point, while I'm still reading up The Algonquin is not "Tudor" at all, but clearly inspired by northern Germanic half timbered architecture. Black and white, does not always mean "Tudor." This too, Aberthau House is Germanic, apart from the lead image which looks to display an odd Chinese influence. I thihk we have a whole can of worms here.  Giacomo   18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but with Aberthau House we do have at least one WP:RS describing it as Tudor-style. While I appreciate the work you're doing, I'm sure you can understand, as an experienced editor, that we cannot simply go by your tastes or how things appear to you, in deciding the fate of this category. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right! It's very sad, however, does your source have a source for the sash windows being "Tudor"? Or indeeed, the crazy paving walls or porte cochere? While I'm sure Good Queen Bess or even Henry VIII would have found them al hugely convenient, would she have known what they were? The article states "The enormous masonry base is balanced by the vertical arrangement of the wood panels, and the stone chimneys, characteristic of the Tudor Revival style." That is complete bollox; it is indicative of northern Europe - lands over which the Tudor's never presided - or do you have a reference to the contrary?  Giacomo   18:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but again, we only have your opinion that it is "bolox." Look, you're obviously very passionate about architecture. The purpose of this CfD was to see if there's any defining difference between Tudorbethan and Revival. By your own admission, you're having trouble finding any RS that that's the case. I don't mind if you want to challenge or add to the Tudor category on some articles. That's not what this discussion is here to resolve. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am conceding on this one. It seems Tudorbethan and Revival are both merely distinguishments of taste and quality of what came to be known as Arts and Crafts. You can delete them both.  Giacomo   19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't wish to delete the target category. If you do, you may wish to wait for the result of this merge proposal, then open your own CfD. That's up to you, of course. But you might also want to consider striking through your keep vote, above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine - really - delete both. I don't mind, I have come to the conclusion that neither exist in the sense of the meaning described on Wikipedia; I'll do a new page some time   Giacomo   21:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You continue to misunderstand me. I am not concerned about whether you "mind" deleting both. It's not what I am suggesting here and I would not support it in a subsequent CfD, unless you could provide some proof to the community, other than your own POV, that the Tudor Revival category should simply not exist, period. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But this is the whole point, there was not a "period" of Tudor revival, for some time (over a century) it has taken many forms - some Tudorbethan and some more faithful Tudor Revival, they are both derived from Arts and Crafts. There was no "period."  Giacomo   19:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur on upmerge, per discussion above. Mangoe (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename as nom or some other outcome per consensus. Do not keep.  I am English and have never heard the term "Tudorbethan".  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 29 August 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:Languages included on the Voyager Golden Record

 * 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  06:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * languages included on the voyager golden record


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't think this needs to exist - that all these languages are related by being used this way tells you nothing about them. Or if this is a useful category then how many other "languages used in historic document x" or "for purpose x" categories might be created? JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Languages used officially by the UN or EU may be sig, but this is trivia. — kwami (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, It doesn't make any sense to create categories on languages when they are used in a scientific project. --Helmoony (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as non-defining, and also Category:Musical compositions included on the Voyager Golden Record, which was created by the same editor at the same time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I was leaning toward deletion but I wanted to be very sure about it, so I did a bit of research -- which confirmed what I thought. The primary consideration in selecting the languages used (for greetings) on the record was as follows:
 * "We made a special effort to record those languages spoken by the vast majority of the world's inhabitants. Since all research and technical work on the record had to be accomplished within a period of weeks, we began with a list of the world's most widely spoken languages, which was provided by Dr. Steven Soter of Cornell. Carl [Sagan] suggested that we record the twenty five most widely spoken languages." (from the book Murmurs of Earth -- which also explains the very unfortunate absence of Swahili from the group!)
 * In light of this information (and more that I won't go into), I would agree that inclusion on the record is not terribly noteworthy & not particularly defining -- and therefore doesn't warrant categorization. (There is, of course, a very good list/chart of the languages included in the article Contents of the Voyager Golden Record). Cgingold (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a defining category; this is the sort of thing lists (or Contents of the Voyager Golden Record in this case) are for. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:20, 25 August 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:Musical compositions included on the Voyager Golden Record

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

musical compositions included on the voyager golden record
 * Delete as non-defining/a trivialism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I separated out this discussion from the other discussion on the sibling category for languages spoken (above) because this one entails a very different set of considerations.


 * In contrast to my position on that category, I think inclusion in this much smaller and far more select group is indeed quite noteworthy -- in fact, it's hard to think of a higher honor for a piece of music than inclusion on this interplanetary space probe.  Cgingold (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * delete as above, says nothing about the members of the category, and is just one of many trivial ways they could be categorised, some of which are far more "honorable" such as inclusion in a hall of fame or "best of" lists. It's misleading as it's not the work that was used by a particular recording of it. For example whose cover of Johnny B. Goode was used ? You can't find this out from the article as it's too trivial a fact to mention.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk about "misleading"! Asking which specific recordings were used is a very red herring. Tsk, tsk -- completely irrelevant. As for the hall of fame or "best of" comparisons, those are indeed dime-a-dozen sorts of things, whereas inclusion on this record is absolutely unique -- in all likelihood, there will never be another such record. Cgingold (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cgingold (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Category falls under WP:TRIVIA guidelines. No need for category, simply list these compositions in an article page about the Voyager Golden Record.  Centy  – [ reply ] • contribs  – 12:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should take a minute to read WP:TRIVIA -- those guidelines clearly DO NOT APPLY to this (or any other) category. Cgingold (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the editor was thinking of WP:OC which is what applies here – that e.g. Johnny B. Goode appeared on the record is not a notable part of its history, or at least not notable enough to mention in what's a fairly comprehensive article for a song. WP:OC is also I think relevant – this is an arbitrary list and not at all well-known.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 08:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Not at all well-known"? Au contraire! I think that claim is flatly contradicted by the G-hit stats. Surely something that obscure would not be able to generate over a million Google-hits (using the middle figure). Cgingold (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of information - It's hard to get definitive numbers on Google-hits, because the results vary depending on the exact search string. What is clear, however, is that the music on the Voyager record is widely referenced all over the internet -- including scholarly sources. Here are the results for three search strings (followed in parentheses by GoogleScholar-hits):
 * "Voyager Record spacecraft music" - 570,000 (880)
 * "Voyager Record space music" - 1,190,000 (9,120)
 * "Voyager Record music" - 1,440,000 (13,600)
 * comment if I put the last of the three in quotes and search for "Voyager Record music", it returns exactly seven results. If you put three common words into a search engine it will find lots of pages, even a million, but they will almost all be pages with text that happens to contain those words. Thats why Google hits are a poor guide to notability, even when used more carefully than the above tests.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good grief. That is a patently ridiculous "analysis". Of course you don't put quotes around a search string, unless you're looking for instances of that exact phrase -- and none of these make any sense semantically as phrases. That's not how you find results on a topic. (If I really have to explain that to you then you must be pretty new to the use of search engines. Btw, "voyager" is hardly a "common word" on a par with space or music.) I have a very considerable level of experience in the use of search strings, and the ones I used were carefully selected. I would agree that the last one, with just three words, is a little too loose. That's why I used a couple of 4-word search strings. If you check the actual results that these search strings return, it's abundantly clear that the vast majority are in fact right on target. Cgingold (talk) 02:29, 31 August 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:Energy in Connacht
<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. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * energy in connacht


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category consists of one subcategory (category:Corrib gas controversy) and only one entry which is not included in this subcategory (Corrib gas project). It would be useful category if there are other articles in addition to these ones related to the Corrib gas project; however, right now it does not have any added-value. As we don't have also any other energy categories on Irish provinces, this category also does not needed for the categorization system of energy-related articles. Beagel (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Once you remove the articles that are already in the subcategory, you are just left with the subcategory.  No need for an extra level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 31 August 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:Watchmaking companies (defunct)
<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) 05:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Watchmaking companies (defunct) to Category:Defunct watchmaking companies
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match naming convention for other daughter categories of Category:Defunct companies  Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 06:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename Probably speedy?  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 20:14, 23 August 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:Biographies of multiple people
<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 per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Biographies of multiple people to Category:Articles about multiple people
 * Propose renaming Category:Biographies of multiple people in ancient Greece to Category:Articles about multiple people in ancient Greece
 * Propose renaming Category:Biographies of multiple people in ancient Rome to Category:Articles about multiple people in ancient Rome
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - this appears to be the only subset of categories within Category:Biography that uses "biographies" to mean "Wikipedia articles about people" This is ambiguous. Rename to clarify that these are categorizing by article content and not books about more than one person. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename and remove from Category:Biography. Occuli (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These categories were formerly named Multiple people (previous discussion). - Eureka Lott 01:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename somehow; in any event do not delete. The articles that I sampled are a variety of disambiguation page for a number of ancient people sharing a name.  However in contrast to the normal DAB pages they are not lists of links to substantive articles, but contain the substantive content themselves, probably often becuae little is known of the people concerned.  As far as they go each entry in the article is a biography.  One might call them "multiple biographies", but I cannot see a good solution.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a well-formed category: The articles in the main category are strikingly heterogeneous, including disambiguation pages, groups of conspirators, dance troupes, martyrs observed as groups, famous multiple births, and who knows what all else: after ten or so articles I stopped looking further. If we limited this to articles which are strictly biographies there might not be much left of it. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment if the categories are so malformed that they can't be saved then I have no problem with deletion. My main concern in bringing the nomination was to clarify the "biographies" issue and clear up the Category:Biography tree. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:43, 25 August 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.