Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 19



Category:Emma Lanford songs

 * 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  02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * emma lanford songs


 * Nominator's rationale: Emma Lanford does not have an article. Despite being a hanger on for a couple songs by a notable artist, she herself does not appear to be notable. Making a category but no article is putting the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – 2 of the 3 articles do not mention Ms Lanford and the 3rd cites her as a vocalist on someone else's song. So the category has no valid members. Occuli (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and Occuli, and because even if there were three songs, that would hardly justify a category. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 24 February 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:Streets in Las Vegas

 * 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  02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Streets in Las Vegas to Category:Streets in Las Vegas, Nevada
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Las Vegas is simply ambiguous. This rename matches the current contents which are in the city.  I must admit that I changed the introduction before this nomination and moved a number of articles to other categories prior to this request. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 24 February 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:Past Band Members

 * 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  02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * past band members

However, we do not split categories into "former" and "current", so I think this category is a clear delete. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are lots of problems with the category. First, incorrect capitalisation. Secondly, ambiguity: the title is not clear whether it refers to former members of The Band, or of musical groups in general. From the one draft article in the category, I think it's the latter, so if kept the category should be renamed to Category:Former members of musical groups.


 * Delete per nom and also because it is empty apart from a user page (which looks unlikely to make a successful transition to article space). Occuli (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete there's nothing here beyond userspace nonsense so this does not aid navigation. Alansohn (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Part of a blatant effort at promotion.  G11 speediable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not do current and former categories. All that is there is a link to a userspace article, which is itslef being considered for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 22 February 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:St Martins Property Group

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * st martins property group


 * Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category with no hope for expansion. The company only owns two shopping malls: Centrale and Cevahir. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments – everything in Category:Shopping malls by management company should be renamed to something like Category:Shopping malls owned by XXX. On the present one, which should be renamed to Category:Shopping malls owned by St Martins Property Group, the article St Martins Property Group mentions plenty of malls including Cevahir - why is the nom so confident that there is 'no hope for expansion'? Occuli (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The article St Martins Property Group lists substantial property holdings, and I am surprised by the nominators assertion that there is no room for expanding the category. Is London Bridge City really non-notable? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The Company is certainly notable, and no doubt owns other property. The question is whether there is enough contnet to warrant a category, where there is at present only the main article and one other.  If the category is not better populated by the end of the CFD period, I would suggest that the category be deleted and a navbox template created with the same content.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 22 February 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:Switchblade Pictures

 * 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. (Creator has agreed and category is empty.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * switchblade pictures


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not, as I initially thought, a category of films by studio, but rather of films by distributor (in this case http://www.switchbladepictures.com ). Per previous CfD discussions, distribution arrangements are not a defining characteristic of a film, and whatever the creator's intentions, it seems to me that the main purpose of a category such as this is to advertise the distributor. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Creator's comment: No objections to deletion. Joeinwap (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - we don't categorise films by distributor, partly because one film can have many different distributors. Robofish (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 24 February 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:PIAA District 6

 * 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:  at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 27.  postdlf (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * piaa district 6


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. The categorisation of school boards by athletic grouping seems like a rather undefining characteristic of them. I would suggest that the category be listified, except that there isn't even a head article on the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Assocation, so I am not sure how notable it is. If this category is kept, the obscure acronym PIAA should be expanded, and it needs some parent categories.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooops! The article on the PIAA is at Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association. Still not sure that needs a category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Catgeory:Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association District 6 to spell out the acronym. Perhaps more so in Pennsylvania than in many other states, interscholastic high school sports is a defining characteristic of schools and school districts. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no evidence that this is defining for the schools and school districts in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. I might have thought otherwise if there was an overarching scheme for categorizing schools and districts in the U.S. in this way, but it doesn't look like there is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:38, 27 February 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:Films about Belgian citizens

 * 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:Biographical films about Belgian people.  postdlf (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * films about belgian citizens

I am neutral at this point on whether to delete, but may change my mind as a result of the discussion. However, I am concerned that since films are already highly-categorised, we do need to keep an eye on the risk of over-categorisation. A look at may also be relevant: it contains only two national sub-cats,  and, both of which have the same ambiguity: are they for "biographies written by fooian  authors", or for "biographies of "fooian people". A further thought: people categories usually categorise by nationality rather than by citizenship, because the two are not always identical. if this category is kept, I would prefer that it refer to the broader group of "Belgian people" rather than "Belgian citizens". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: I found this category in Database reports/Uncategorized categories and set about parenting it (in and, the latter being a bit tentative).  However, I can find no other category of biographical-films-by-citizenship, and am a bit concerned that it could lead to category clutter, since many films about people of more than one nationality. The closest parallel I can find Category:American biographical films, a hazily-named category (created by the now-category-banned ) which appears to consist of "biographical films made in America" rather than "biographical films about American people".


 * Comment – the name needs to be tightened up per the intro "Biographical films about Belgians". (A category of films cannot be a subcat of a 'people' category.) Does Category:Biographical films need to be subcatted via nationality? It is quite large so something like Category:Biographical films about Fooian people might be reasonable. Occuli (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I hadn't spotted the size of (645 articles), and national sub-cats sound like a possible solution. Category:Biographical films about Fooian people sounds like an appropriate construct for the names. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Having created the category, clearly I would prefer something like that over the deletion of the catergory. My first intention was to call the category Films about Belgians, but my significant other thought that could include fictional Belgians, which is not the intent of the category. Anyway, I think it's a valid category, whatever it ends up being named. Krikke (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The usage of "people" is imo redundant, however, since the category already specifies that it is "biographical." Category:Biographical films about Fooians would be my preference. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Biographical films about Belgian people per above discussion. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 24 February 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:Awards of the Association for Computing Machinery

 * 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  02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * awards of the association for computing machinery


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. The purpose of this one-article category is unclear, because it is entitled "awards" but contains a biographical article on a person who win one such award the ("ACM Senior Member Award"). Per WP:OC, "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category". The usual response at CfD to such categories is to listify them, but in this case a list of one article seems superfluous.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – this is curious as we have articles such as Turing Award which is indeed an Award of the Association for Computing Machinery (and Category:Turing Award laureates). It's not clear why user:drrwebber thinks that D R R Webber is an award. Occuli (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is over-categorization. Turing Award and and Category:Turing Award laureates are in Category:Association for Computing Machinery and that is fine. The one entry should just be removed from this category. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:35, 20 February 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:Kradai languages

 * 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  02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Kradai languages to Category:Tai-Kadai languages
 * Nominator's rationale: to match with an article being moved to Tai-Kadai languages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Message moved from Category talk:Kradai languages: "The article has been moved to Tai-Kadai languages after discussion and by consensus. This category should be moved to Category:Tai-Kadai languages as well.  (Taivo (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC))".)


 * Rename per nominator to match moved head article, which was renamed after a WP:RM discussion at Talk:Tai-Kadai_languages. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:30, 19 February 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:Montana city templates
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Montana city templates to Category:Montana templates
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. This one-template category is un-needed. The parent contains only two templates, so there is no need to subdivide it.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nominator, without excluding the possibility of recreation if more templates were ever to be created. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 24 February 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:Infraestructure Projects in Colombia
<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. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Infraestructure Projects in Colombia to Category:Building projects in Colombia
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to better fit the parent category (parent categs added by me, because this was an uncategorised category), and to make the the category more inclusive.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Rename to better fit existing parent categories. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 21 February 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:Audio software with JACK support
<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. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * audio software with jack support


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify. Categorising software by which other software it supports is an approach guaranteed to lead to category clutter on articles about software. In this case it is a non-defining characteristic, because as noted in an earlier version of the head article, nearly every audio playing application for Linux supports JACK output. No objections to replacing the category with a list; there was one in this version of the head article, which was removed in this edit when the category was a created.  The list is also a better way of presenting this information, because it can include redlinked articles.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Retain. I think that category should be kept (ok, I introduced it ;). The original reason for this new category was some other contributor's very valid criticism that the JACK Audio Connection Kit page was a mess due to the long (and incomplete, and outdated, and generally not very well structured) list of other programs implementing JACK support (as indicated by the "prose" tag). Hence, the list was removed. To avoid loss of information, the category was created, because it better fits into the whole wiki structure and there is hope that it might "maintain itself" better than a static list on some page. It is not true that "every audio playing application" supports JACK. Nor is JACK support only concerned with "audio playing applications". Contrary to BrownHairedGirl's assumption, JACK support is a very defining characteristic of any audio application, and nowhere as ubiquitous as some would like (me included). (Aside: note that I originally created another category "free audio software with jack support", but then I noticed that "free software" and "jack support" are orthogonal and should not be lumped together. I'm not sure how to mark that one for deletion - I'd appreciate if somebody could do so.) --Nettings (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The other category has already been deleted per WP:CSD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was quick :) --Nettings (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep to allow navigation based on this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 21 February 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:Gadgets
<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  02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * gadgets


 * Nominator's rationale: Not likely to be populated and no clear boundaries as to what should be included. I have removed Cat Bicycles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Capricious inclusion criteria. Virtually any piece of technology is, has been, or can be a gadget. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and per ustin (koavf). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Koavf. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 24 February 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.