Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 28



Category:Murray family

 * 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 00:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * murray family


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. This category holds 3 names, all brothers, all of whose names appear in the other brothers' articles. This is an unnecessary category. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who care's if holds three names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FriscoKnight (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The three articles are sufficiently interlinked. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – it is also ambiguous as there are plenty of Murrays, some of them in families. Occuli (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator - unnecessary category. All three names are already placed in relevant categories, without this one. Having this category may be over doing it. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There I was thinking it was a category containing Andy Murray and Jamie Murray (local boys made good); or any other subcategorisation of Murray (surname) including the Dukes of Atholl. But the current use of the category name is both far too specific and too vague. AllyD (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete and comment Joel Murray should be added, making four articles, which is probably the bare minimum here. Since there is no Category:Baldwin family and they are more famous as a Hollywood family, plus all of the other categories here have at least two more pages, this seems like it is not useful enough to be retained. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:08, 2 March 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:Theoretical biology / Category:Mathematical biology

 * 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 both, but leave category redirects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Theoretical biology to Category:Mathematical and theoretical biology
 * Propose merging Category:Mathematical biology to Category:Mathematical and theoretical biology
 * Nominator's rationale: Merging the theoretical biology and mathematical biology in the same way that the articles have been merged already. Basically, theoretical biology is the historical name and more appropriate for the very old foundations of the field, and mathematical biology is the modern name and more appropriate for some of the modern parts. For the overwhelming majority of subfields both names are equally applicable. The two fields form basically a single community which often uses the term "mathematical and theoretical biology". Older departments are generally named after theoretical biology, newer departments after mathematical biology. Hans Adler 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge both per nom, but after deletion please re-create the existing categories as category redirects. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge both per nominator's rationale, and it sounds like a very good idea. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom; but BHG is absolutely right about dropping category redirects in the wake. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:19, 7 March 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:List of songs by Fresno

 * 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 merge per WP:CSD. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:List of songs by Fresno to Category:Fresno songs
 * Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a duplicate category as it contains the exact same contents of . — ξ xplicit  20:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom as clear duplicate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge as per nominator's rationale. It is appears to be duplication. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 19:36, 2 March 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:The Vietnam Veterans

 * 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.  --  X damr  talk 14:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * the vietnam veterans


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization per WP:OC. Only contains one article (it's own) and one sub-cat with only one article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. A category like this is the only way of ensuring that the article on a band is in the same category as the category of their albums. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So every single musical artist with only an albums and/or songs category should have its own eponymous category? Why does an article on a band need to be in the same category as its albums when the   template deals with that efficiently when added to the albums/songs categories. This is simply overcategorization, and especially so in this case. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – one could put the band article in the albums category (at the top sorted under * say, to indicate that it is not in fact an album). I don't think we have ever kept an eponymous musician category with only 1 subcat. Occuli (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the more standard way of doing this is having a wikilink to the artist's article from the category description text. Jafeluv (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this does not address BHG's concerns (that one should be able to get directly from the article The Vietnam Veterans into category space and thence into the albums cat). Occuli (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But the album is wikilinked from the artist's article anyway, isn't it? Jafeluv (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename if kept to Category:The Vietnam Veterans (band) since this obviously could be used to categorize Vietnam War veterans. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. The articles can be in categories related to the music style or other types of categoriaztion already on Wikipedia. If the band generates more notable press and more albums then I can see having this category. For example "Pink Floyd" and "Led Zepplin" deserve their own categories because of the notable work, notable impact, and notable news these bands have generated. Also, this band has nothing to do with Vietnam veterans (military servicemen) who served in Vietnam, on either side of the conflict. That is not just apples and oranges. That is apples and rocks. There appears to be no correlation. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 16:50, 1 March 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:Winmau World Masters

 * 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 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Winmau World Masters to Category:World Masters (darts)
 * Nominator's rationale: Dropping of the sponsor name per C2.B, in particular WP:SPAM, plus general practice in categorization of sports, music and other events. Sponsor names are not added to event articles and categories unless necessary for disambiguation, as sponsors frequently change, it makes it harder to find things (readers are less likely to know the sponsor[s]' name[s] than to be seeking this information to begin with), and it isn't Wikipedia's job to provide free advertising). Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename. Doesn't quite fit the speedy criteria, but the main article is at World Masters (darts) so the category should be named similarly. Jafeluv (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename. I created this category to group together the articles (rather than leave them in the parent category) when the articles were all themselves named with the sponsor's name. Since all the articles have now been renamed, the category should be too. --David Edgar (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename. It makes sense to stay with the convention of not using or dropping sponsor names, in the context stated by the nominator. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 19:40, 2 March 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:Songs written by Blaine Larsen

 * 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  07:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * songs written by blaine larsen


 * Nominator's rationale: Little to no chance of expansion. None of Blaine's own songs have proven notable enough for their own articles, and I Gotta Get to You is his only outside cut. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I created this category, I must admit I had expected to find at least one more entry - maybe next year. What amazes me with this nomination is that although I am not a supporter of single entry categories for artists and songwriters there is enough very vocal support for the retention of them because it is WP Policy! If it is your intention to amend this policy let me know, you know you will have my support! You may also find this Billboard article very interesting too! --Richhoncho (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories that are part of a large accepted subcategorization scheme are an exception to the "small with no potential for growth" rule. "Songs by artist" categories are listed as an example in the guideline, and I don't see why "songs by songwriter" ones should be any different. Jafeluv (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – did we not decide against cowritten songs being categorised by writer? (The single article mentions 3 writers.) Occuli (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm? I wasn't aware of that. Do you have a link to the discussion? Jafeluv (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep An appropriate category within its larger parent. Alansohn (talk) 01:30, 1 March 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:Candidates for speedy deletion

 * 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 at current name, closed early per WP:SNOW. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to Category:Pages for speedy deletion

Also proposing:
 * Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion to Category:Contested pages for speedy deletion
 * Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user to Category:Pages for speedy deletion by user
 * Nominator's rationale: To match most of the linked categories for specific types of CSD pages. would also be better, just like we have Cat:Wikipedia protected edit requests and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - I have notified, whose bot updates User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion; and , and , who have toolserver tools analyzing this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say: the result of placing a CFD tag on this page is rather funny, as it says "This does not mean that any of the pages in the category will be deleted" — I think the tag is just slightly wrong in this specific situation :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Use "Wikipedia" as in "Wikipedia candidates for speedy deletion" or "Wikipedia pages for speedy deletion" in either case. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Without looking or thinking too deeply at the moment, I always figured it was called "Candidates" so that it and Criteria for speedy deletion matched in acronym. Renaming as proposed would lose that parallelism, barring a move to WP:Precepts for speedy deletion or some such. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 13:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We will still have the shortcut CAT:CSD; I believe that merely keeping it as "candidates" for the purpose of having the same acronym is a bad reason. If, however, oyu think this is important - you could go for Requests here and "Reasons" there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Using "Wikipedia" as you suggest isn't a good idea, because it would convey the sense of "Pages in the Wikipedia namespace that are up for speedy deletion", not "Pages in Wikipedia of all namespaces that are up for speedy deletion". Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The nominator is thoughtful editor and I'm sure that this proposal was well-intentioned, but it's clearly going nowhere. Would the nominator like to withdraw this nominaton? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am leaning towards an oppose of "pages for", because I think that the word "candidates" is rather apt. These are not "pages which will be speedy deleted", they are "pages which some has put forward as being, in their opinion, eligible for speedy deletion". The same sort of meaning is clearly conveyed by "candidates", but lost in "pages for". Some (but not all) of the meaning is retained in "requests for"; strictly speaking, this is a not a category of requests, it is a category of pages for which requests have been made.  So even that rename loses some clarity, and I can't see any gain from making the change. Am I missing something? What's the perceived benefit which makes it worthwhile troubling the bot-owners to reprogram their bots to give us a less clear name? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Candidates implies that there's a vote, usually where there is a fixed number of winners (such as our ArbCom elections); these aren't voted about - a single admin determines if they fulfill any of around 3 dozen previously chosen criteria. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a rather narrow view of the word "candidates". I have found it routinely used in many other contexts for, e.g. job applicants (interview "candidates") and for exam candidates. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * dictionary.com lists "a person who is deserving of or seems destined for a certain end or fate: Such a reckless spender is a candidate for the poorhouse." and "a student studying for a degree". Merriam-Webster Online gives as an example "a candidate for surgery". In mathematics i have heard it used to mean an object that fulfills some conditions which is being checked to see if it fulfills others: "a candidate for congruence", "a candidate for primality". DES (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: See no benefit in the change of name, which I think conveys the purpose of the category quite well; one must remember that images and other media ("files") proposed for speedy deletion are also included, so it is not just "pages" in the category. Risker (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Longstanding name, no particular benefit to change. Moreover, proposed name is less accurate. Not only does the category contain images and other files (as Risker pointed out above), it is also used to list other categories that are up for deletion. And i agree with BrownHairedGirl that Candidates very correctly identifies that deletion haas not yet been decided, merely suggested, for items in this category. Reviewing admins decline a great many speedy deletions, removing the tags and thus taking items out of this category. I also agree with Amorymeltzer about the parallelism in name between CAT:CSD and WP:CSD. DES (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I really don't see how it would help to change this name when we've become so accustomed to it. Not entirely sure that the proposed name is less accurate, but the current name is quite fitting, so we don't need to change for the purposes of accuracy.  Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It would just confuse our editing populace. Plus, we would have to rewrite/update a good number of tools and pages that refer to the current system. For no benefit. NW ( Talk ) 17:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Reasons above for not doing it are good.  Reasons for doing it are not sufficient. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to fix a non-problem. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like change for change's sake to me. I also agree with NW's reasoning, being someone who has written and still runs a couple of tools myself.  -- Cyde Weys  19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per above.  Long standing name.  No real reason to change it. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Current category name serves its purpose perfectly.  – Athaenara  ✉  01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose no real need to change the name, it would be fixing a problem that's not there, and likely creating problems in the process, as noted by NW. SpitfireTally-ho! 05:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a Wikipedia tradition calling it CSD with a deliberate ambiguity across Criteria for Speedy Deletion. We would have to change thousands of references if this was changed, and the reason for renaming is very weak. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment above and subsequent discussion where many others have expressed similar concerns. I'm unpersuaded by the reasons offered for the renaming, and I don't think that there's any problem with the current name; in fact, I think it's better than the proposed alternatives. I'm particularly concerned about the impact on the bots: wikipedia maintenance relies heavily on bots, and I don't think it's fair to impose extra work on bot-owners unless there is a good reason for it.
 * Oppose. I don't see a compelling reason to make such a major change. "Candidates" is a clever term because it implies that the entries may qualify for deletion. Tons of pages and templates would need to be updated for little benefit.  Jamie S93 ❤ 18:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, pointless generator of busywork. Stifle (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Would generate a huge load of work for no visible benefit. I'd also recommend to withdraw the nomination or WP:SNOW close this discussion. Regards  So Why  23:10, 1 March 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:Parent categories

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Parent categories to Category:Container categories
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains categories that should only have subcategories in them. The current name is misleading since any category that has at least one subcategory is a parent category. The template that populates this is called container category, and in my experience that's how this kind of categories are usually called. Jafeluv (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Use "Wikipedia", as in "Wikipedia parent categories" or "Wikipedia container categories", since this is not an article categorization scheme, it is a maintenance category. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The term "parent categories" is a term of standard usage for category organization throughout the English language; "container category" is not. Risker (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was that "parent category", in standard or in Wikipedia usage, does not mean "a category that only contains subcategories". It means "a category with at least one subcategory". Jafeluv (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * '''Oppose as per Risker. DES (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – these are evidently meant to be container categories, not merely parent categories (although quite a few of them are not container categories). No objection to "Wikipedia container categories". Occuli (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Parent categories" works for me and it is easily understood, and I know what it is. It appears to be an uneccessary extra categorization layer, as well. In my experience "Parent categories" expresses very aptly how it supposed to be used on Wikipedia, and elsewhere. I can't think of any instance, in my experience,  where "Container categories" has been used to express this meaning. Also oppose per Risker. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Risker - too confusing for readers/users. Orderinchaos 03:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. "Container" is less ambiguous, and matches the terminology displayed on the category page when it is tagged with container category. Note that the sub-cats of are all hidden, so the category will not be visible on a category page to most readers (unless they have logged into an account and change their settings). This makes it effectively a category for editors (rather than readers), so any concerns about general readers are irrelevant: what matters here is editors, who need in any case to be able to distinguish between a parent category and a container category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Risker. i understand the current meaning perfectly, and the new proposal sounds off to me, even if it may (not convinced of this) make sense logically. if people really want this change, i think it would have to be taken up on a larger scale (dont know where), as it would be an extremely large shift in WP. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Renaming one obscure maintenance category would be an extremely large shift in Wikipedia? Care to explain? Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support either renaming the category or the template container category- they should match, at any rate.  I really don't have a strong preference either way; I can see the arguments made by Jakeluv and BHG in support and Risker in opposition.  (If I had to choose, I'd move the template). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:04, 7 March 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:Short story collections by Tom Wolfe

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Short story collections by Tom Wolfe to Category:Books by Tom Wolfe
 * Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article, Hooking Up, which is actually half non-fiction. Prezbo (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge, we really shouldn't have a category with only one likely member. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per nominator. We don't need a single-article category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 28 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:Major League Baseball players from Greece
<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.  Questions of incorrect categorisation are editorial matters to be dealt with at the editorial level.  In the event that this category should become depopulated, it may be considered for speedy deletion.  Otherwise, as a subcategory of Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin, it forms part of a wider categorisation tree.   --  X damr  talk 14:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Major League Baseball players from Greece to Category:Major League Baseball players from the Dodecanese Islands
 * Nominator's rationale: Upon researching some history of Kos (the birthplace of Al Campanis, I have some concerns that Campanis is listed as being born in Greece. Campanis was born in 1916 in Kos, when the Dodecanese Islands were under Italian rule. Prior to 1912, the islands were under Ottoman rule. The islands were not formally united with Greece until 1947. I believe the birthplace should be corrected to reflect history, and this category be renamed. Flibirigit (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarification Since Campanis is the only person in this category, I suggested renaming instead of creating a new category had there been two or more persons in this category. Flibirigit (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Put him in if you want to, and remove him from  if you like, but don't create an overly-specific new category just for this one dude.  contains only 9 articles, and making three steps of subdivision is waaay too specific (step 1: "sportspeople from...", step 2: "baseball player from...", step 3: "MLB player from...").  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the suggestion, and added him. I didn't nominate this category for deletion as it was created to make a complete categorization of MLB players. Flibirigit (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you did that in good faith, but it seems to me to be wrong to have such narrow categories: baseball players from foo is quite adequate. We don't need by-nationality categories for every sports league. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, since a category with only one possible member (regardless of what part of the world it covers) really isn't helpful. Much better to follow the procedure followed by the "oppose" comment above mine.  Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the islands were under Italian rule, shouldn't he be in the category Category:Major League Baseball players from Italy? This same discussion came up with players who were put in a category for players born in Czechoslovakia when they were actually born before that country existed. Kinston eagle (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would be an applicable category, as well as . I also note that the Italian category is underpopulated, there should be 6 others besides Campanis. I will see if I can populate the Italian category now. Flibirigit (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he should be in the Italian category. So this discussion becomes rather moot. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the original confusion also stemmed from the fact he has both Greek and Italian ancestry. Flibirigit (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename per BHG; with only a handful of articles in, we don't need to break it down even by occupation, let alone by the combination of sport occupation and league. I also agree that barring the existence of any other articles that could be added, the nominated category can probably be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:04, 3 March 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:NWOBHM 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: rename. Users can create a soft redirect at the old category name if it's thought that this would be helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:NWOBHM albums to Category:New Wave of British Heavy Metal albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to expand abbreviation for the New Wave of British heavy metal. I have no idea whether this is an appropriate category, so I have no idea whether it should be kept ... but if it stays, it needs a plain-English name, not an obscure abbreviation, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename but keep the original as a redirct. The term NWOBHM is frequently used for this era.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree on renaming it. The abbreviation NWOBHM is used on most of the articles that I read, maybe for the laziness of the writers. For a better understanding of the category in an encyclopaedia it is correct to use the not abbreviated term. As for the category itself, I think it can be useful and appropriate to show the link between the albums of successful bands, like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and Def Leppard, and a much larger movement that in a short time span produced such a great and lasting influence on hard rock and heavy metal music.Lewismaster (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unsure NWOBHM is the main term used, I rarely remember what it actually stands for - but I do generally agree with Lewismaster's points. (There's the confusing aspect that some of the bands which are part of the genre are not British.) Orderinchaos 03:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A strict definition of the term NWOBHM recites "rock movement, comprising British bands formed between 1979 and 1982". In fact the list of bands in the article New Wave of British Heavy Metal are only British and not American. Of course, the influence of the movement on the other side of the ocean and in Asia was immediately very strong, producing many imitators. I'm not inclined to include all these not-British bands in the definition.Lewismaster (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename Music is perhaps the field Wikipedia has tons of articles on I'm the least knowledgeable about, but this acronym is meaningless outside of those in the know. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:12, 7 March 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:Copied uses without oldid
<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 Category:Copied uses without oldid to Category:Wikipedia pages using copied template without oldid.  --  X damr  talk 15:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Copied uses without oldid to Category:to be determined by consensus
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename, I am listing this here to get input on naming a set of maintenance categories associated with templates and . I created one category to start, but named it poorly. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the templates themselves: something like Category:Copied templates, compare to Category:Merge templates and Category:Split maintenance templates
 * For pages where they are transcluded: "uses", "instances", or "transclusions"
 * For transclusions with specific qualities or issues, such as Category:Copied uses without oldid, "needing attention, "review requested"
 * Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the templates are talk page templates used mostly in article Talk and occasionally in other talk spaces. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Wikipedia pages using copied template without oldid, since it is not an article categorization scheme, it is a maintenance category. The template category should also use "Wikipedia". 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the "Wikipedia" prefix the current standard? The majority of subcategories in Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates do not use it. My concern is confusion with "Wikipedia pages" (Wikipedia: space). Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall a few years ago, a consensus discussion was launched, and that was the outcome. In any case, all non-article hierarchy categories should be distinguished from article navigation categories. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. Should mixed case, e.g. Category:Wikipedia Pages using Copied template without oldid, be avoided? It seems like the search box will auto-complete them correctly. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 6 March 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:Crack Rock Steady 7
<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 07:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * crack rock steady 7


 * Nominator's rationale: Too loose a category. Includes several projects by main band, whose article is up for AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of an eponymous category which is merely gathering together articles vaguely connected with Crack Rock Steady 7. Why not await the outcome of afd? If the article is deleted then presumably any associated categories would follow suit. (If the article stays then there should be Category:Crack Rock Steady 7 members assuming the respective articles survive, and that is about it.) Occuli (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete assuming the AFD closes as delete, where is currently appears to be heading. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:15, 7 March 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.