Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 20



Hill Zaini

 * 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:Hill songs, delete Category:Hill albums as empty. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Hill songs to Category:Hill Zaini songs
 * Propose renaming Category:Hill albums to Category:Hill Zaini albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Hill Zaini. The albums category is empty; delete it if it's still not populated at close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support to match parent. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – as the nom says. (The album doesn't as yet seem to exist. The song seems to have been big in Brunei.) Occuli (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support "Hill songs" could be songs about hills, like Jack and Jill, or ethnic hill-people songs. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 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:Wire fu films

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * wire fu films


 * Nominator's rationale: Another made up category by User:Lg16spears that he is throwing on dozens of articles, most, if not all, of which are not "wire fu films" (which is not even a genre). User appears to have used some kind of unauthorized bot to add this cat to dozens of articles, when after he was warned about as the cat was non-existent, he created the cat then restarted his bot. The Wire fu category is stub with a single reference, that defines it as an "element of a martial art film" and not a genre. This category implies it is a genre, which is incorrect. Further, should films be categorized by techniques used? Will we have Category:Films filmed with cameras or Category:Films that use sets? The use of wire work is common in many films, and that is not an identifying genre. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as an inaccurate category since there is no such thing as a wire fu film. Wire fu is an element in a film, and it can be minor or major.  Better approach would be to work on the list of films at wire fu to list those that have it prominently or are notable for them. Erik (talk) 23:21, 20 January 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:Eskrima films

 * 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 14:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * eskrima films


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily minute category for martial arts film created by User:Lg16spears. As always, almost all of the films in the category have nothing to do with Eskrima or are films that use Eskrima in it for two seconds. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete since there is no such thing as an Eskrima film, and I doubt there are enough films that feature Eskrima to have this category. Erik (talk) 23:21, 20 January 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:Dance-pop

 * 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 all. —  ξ xplicit  21:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete all - unrelated overcategorization.
 * Category:Dance-pop
 * Category:Dance-pop songs
 * Category:Dance-pop albums

"Dance-pop" is a "genre" created by All Music Guide (no one calls "dance-pop" as a genre but AMG). I believe topic is somewhat controversial, because it seems dance-pop is just dance-oriented pop music not a genre. Because of this I guess deletion is a best idea, because of its controversy. Also it seems like random unsourced and unrelated categorization, for example Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song) (no sources and no dance-pop mentioning in text except genre box and the top of the article), The Greatest Hit, Dynamite (song), (Do You Wanna Date My) Avatar, AM to PM, Easy Lady. Also these categories are metaphors for Billboard Club Play Singles chart-toppers, see Hot Shot (Karen Young song), All Night Long (All Night), Dr. Beat, Rhythm Is Gonna Get You. Similiar topic: Category:Post-disco, see also: (AfD) Dance-pop. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Simple searches find sources discussing dance-pop as a genre and it's stylistic definition. This is hardly made up by Allmusic. The style is mentioned within books and several news sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me these sources, please. Yeah, News, for example: "Chart-topping dance-pop diva Lady Gaga...", but meaning is clear: "dance-oriented pop music". That book says it is a chart-oriented music and yes a style, but "dance-oriented pop music" is also a music style, however both "dance-pops" (or pop music for dance, if you want) are not genres.   ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the follow-up genres you mention are just descriptions of the style or a way to write prose without just saying "dance-pop" every five minutes. Other books also refer to the genre here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and it goes on. Most writings are breif about the style and writers critique the genre so there is no real strong documentation or study of the genre, but I do believe deleting it here because you think it's not genre would be a poor choice. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who wants it deleted? O.o it's just a category with random links, that's all. Yeah, this reference really saying: "dance-pop is a genre", but others are just mentioned  words "dance" + "pop" togheter (it's shorter than "dance-oriented pop)". ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * However it is not defined as a genre, but a beat-driven "everything", and dance-pop artists and songs that were dance chart-toppers. It seems more to be all dance-oriented pop music than a solid genre. Just a pop music that is catchy and "dancey". ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't really providing sources for these suggestions. Dance-pop should remain noted as it does differ from similiar genre's such as House, Disco, and the rest. If more sources are dug up outside googlebooks I'm sure this category can be expanded and styled. This isn't like saying a catch all phrase like "Metal" when they say heavy metal. It's an important sub-genre of dance and pop music. All in all I've provided a source, you have only provided opinion. Also, this book goes heavy into detail about the music as a genre which it is mentioned as several times. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're wrong, dance-pop is a product of disco music that is playing in da clubs for dancing (=pop music for dancing=dance pop).  Yeah, this source (understanding popular music) really mentioned "dance-pop" as genre, however  see same book, p. 164: "This firmly located her in the dance pop/disco genre" (= pop/disco for dancing). This category is useless, because we have  Category:Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs number-one singles in here (for all club chart-toppers), dance-pop is a OR synthesis of club/chart-oriented mainstream music. As a wordplay, you know heavy metal or house are genres, because there are so many (reliable) sources providing it, but dance-pop lacks from RS. Also these book sources isn't saying characteristic elements of this "genre". How it is different from all "dance-oriented pop music"? etc. It is so unclear and poorly defined, that's why Category:Dance-pop should be deleted. It is a semi-genre controversy. "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy then a list article is likely to be more appropriate." ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep All as a defining characteristic of the music. Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 28 January 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:Iconography of Jesus

 * 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. I think the nominator had the best points. This could probably use some more discussion, especially after the discussion immediately below is resolved one way or the other.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Iconography of Jesus to Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus
 * Nominator's rationale: Just set up in December, this category for standard types of depiction, as opposed to specific examples of them, does not really work. If it were populated correctly, most of the parent Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus should be moved in here. This would have the undesirable effects of a) leaving the principal general articles in the area sidelined into a sub-cat with a name not everyone understands correctly (many thinking it has to do only with icons, which is not the case); and b) leaving the articles in the main cat "Artistic portrayals of Jesus" consisting mainly of modern tat that does not fit into the "paintings" and "statues" categories, like Buddy Jesus, Piss Christ. Jesus Dress Up, Che Jesus and so on.  There are already lots of layers in this category area, and this extra one is more trouble than it is worth. See next nom also; the destination nom is up for renaming. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment from creator. Hi Johnbod, I created the category because I thought Artistic portrayals was trying to do two things at once (both types and specific examples) and thus was a bit of a hotchpotch, as in fact it still is. But this might be unavoidable without creating an excessive number of layers. I also think the idea of iconography is a strong one because it includes not only depictions of Jesus but symbols as well (both important to Christian art), but I am not too attached to the title. My preference would be to merge as Category:Jesus in art. Ham 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thinking, & initially started filling the category up with the other articles in "Artistic portrayals", but then the doubts I've mentioned above kicked in. It would be something of a hotch-potch, much as I would love to set up Category:Non-traditional depictions of Jesus or something for Jesus with erection and the other pop culture/contemporary art ones. Maybe I should? Especially if you are moving up the tree from some types of individual works, there can be a lot of layers in these categories.  The other issue, affecting Category:Jesus in art, is that vast numbers of works & scenes include Jesus as a figure, usually the principal one if not as a baby with mum, & I think a category focusing on portrait-like depictions is more useful than the whole of Category:New Testament art or whatever.  Of course there is no firm line to be drawn between the two. Category:Jesus in art is a possibility; a renaming nom is just below. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There already is a Category:Jesus in popular culture, and to be honest, I think they could all be added there except for Piss Christ (which forms a nice bookend with Alexamenos graffito!). I think I follow you on the point about keeping portraits separate from gospel episodes, but wouldn't Jesus in art effectively become that sort of category anyway if we created Category:Life of Jesus in art as a subcat? And sorry I didn't post on the renaming nom immediately; I was going to keep discussion in one place until you'd replied. Ham 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Iconography is a distinct form of art, and worthy of its own category. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge-- While "iconography" is a distict form of art there is too much overlap in this articles with other artistic portrayals of Jesus. Few articles are about iconography only. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 06:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Iconography is a distinct branch of art history, not of art ("Iconography is the branch of art history which studies the identification, description, and the interpretation of the content of images" - as our article starts). In fact most of the articles in both categories are general ones about distinct subjects like Nativity of Jesus in art, not distinct works, so taking an iconographic approach. Johnbod (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree totally with you Johnbod, Iconography is distinct-- in fact-- that was part of my point, but I do not see your point. If all the articles in Category:Iconography of Jesus are also in Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus already, then "Iconography of Jesus" is redundant. Even if some articles are only about non-iconography artistic portrayals now, text on iconography portrayals could be added at any time to these articles. At most, the category on iconography could become a "list of subjects of Christian iconography." User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 05:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The iconography is cuurently a sub-cat of the "portrayals", though really a large number of the articles in there are on iconography. But I don't think its helpful to have them in a sub-cat, for reasons given above, so I think the category is indeed "redundant". Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep established terminology . I think there is a distinction, though it should be made explicit, and Johnbod should use his expertise to reassign items to the right categories as needed.    DGG ( talk ) 12:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a distinction, though not always a clear one, but the question is, is this the best scheme? Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a defining difference between iconography and artistic portrayals, and this category serves as an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How does it "serve as an effective aid to navigation"? Its only parent is the category I want to merge it to. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 1 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:Artistic portrayals of Jesus

 * 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:Artistic portrayals of Jesus to Category:Depictions of Jesus in interests of consistency with similar categories.  --  X damr  talk 04:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus to Category:Depictions of Jesus
 * Nominator's rationale: Set up in 2004, no other category has a similar name. I'd prefer to rename to match Category:Depictions of the Virgin Mary, as well as Category:Depictions of Napoleon & a few others, but renaming the Virgin Mary one to match this is an option. "Artistic depictions ..." for both would be preferable to "portrayals", but anyway the two should match. See last nom also; the proposed name is better for a category covering both specific works and subjects/types of work, which this category is, either as a parent or directly (see last nom).  Category:Jesus in art (see last nom) is another  possibility; I wouldn't object to that. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Jesus in art (see previous nom). Avoids limitation to portrait-like depictions, but also includes episodes from the life of Jesus, and non-figural representations of Jesus in art. Most importantly, it's simple. Ham 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Visual depictions of Jesus-- to be clear it is not for preformance art (musicals, movies, etc.) also. I am not sure an images such as this one would be put correctly in [Category:Jesus in art]. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 06:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Art" (as opposed to "the arts") means visual art in WP category names, without this having to be disambiguated. Johnbod (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed my point. I propose "visual depictions" over "depictions," not "visual art" over "art," because there are non-visual depictions. Futher, this depiction purports to be to product of forensics, not art-- visual or otherwise. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 11:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The category for "non-visual depictions" of Jesus is called Category:Jesus in popular culture. That's another reason why I favour Jesus in art as a title: it follows the same formula. The forensics-based reconstruction (which AFAIK doesn't have an article) is an interesting case, but I don't think it would really belong in a category with artworks. Ham 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Depictions of Jesus per nom. Then the category will match Category:Depictions of the Virgin Mary and Category:Depictions of Napoleon. If it's then thought to be a good idea to nominate them all to a different name (such as those suggested above), we can do that. For now though, it would be useful to have some consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 10 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.

Independent politicians

 * 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 "Independent politicians in foo", as proposed here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal #1: Rename
 * Category:Independent Australian politicians to Category:Australian independent politicians
 * Category:Independent politicians in Canada to Category:Canadian independent politicians
 * Category:Independent politicians (UK) to Category:British independent politicians
 * Category:Independent politicians from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Ireland independent politicians


 * Proposal #2: Rename
 * Category:Independent politicians in Canada to Category:Independent Canadian politicians
 * Category:Chinese independent politicians to Category:Independent Chinese politicians
 * Category:German independent politicians to Category:Independent German politicians
 * Category:Irish independent politicians to Category:Independent Irish politicians
 * Category:Luxembourgian independent politicians to Category:Independent Luxembourgian politicians
 * Category:English independent politicians to Category:Independent English politicians
 * Category:Independent politicians from Northern Ireland to Category:Independent Northern Ireland politicians
 * Category:Scottish independent politicians to Category:Independent Scottish politicians
 * Category:Welsh independent politicians to Category:Independent Welsh politicians
 * Category:Independent politicians (UK) to Category:Independent British politicians


 * As was discussed in this earlier nomination, the subcategories of Independent politicians are not named consistently. I propose renaming them all to either "Independent Fooish politicians" or "Fooish independent politicians". I slightly prefer the latter (ie. proposal #1), but either option is fine by me. Also note that for Northern Ireland, it seems that we sometimes use "Northern Ireland", sometimes "Northern Irish" and sometimes "from Northern Ireland", so the situation is not quite as straightforward as for the rest of the listed categories. Jafeluv (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Independent politicians in foo" also avoids the "Northern Ireland"-as-adjective problem, and avoids parenting the Northern Ireland group under the highly-contested adjective "British". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but rename all to "Independent politicians in foo". That clarifies that the category refers to politicians in a particular country, without presuming that they are citizens of that country.  This may sound superfluous, but throughout the European Union, citizens of EU countries may stand for election to the European Parliament any where in the EU, and may stand for local elections in the country where they are resident, even if they are not citizens.  This also applies within the UK, where for example an English person resident in Scotland faces no legal impediment to holding any elected office, and it would be misleading to apply directly to their article the label "Scottish".
 * Comment – BHG makes a good point, as is often the case. There is a general assumption in categories (often via inclusions) that 'Fooian Booians' and 'Booians in Foo' are the same thing (I am thinking in particular of PastorWayne and Bishops, where 'Bishops in Australia' and 'Australian bishops' (say) are likely to be different). I expect Rowan Williams would object to being placed in an English category, as might Sentamu. (Politicians in Foo are much more likely to be Fooian, the UK and other 'complicated' countries apart - I think US politicians have to be American (?).) Occuli (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with any rename that will result in conformity. The proposal of BHG sounds the most correct English-wise. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no problem with "Independent politicians in Foo", if we can agree on renaming all of these to "Politicians in Foo" as well. Jafeluv (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I'll happily do the nomination once this one is closed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Independent politicians in foo
There seems to be unanimity above that a rename to "Independent politicians in Foo" would be clearest. Just so that there can be a clear agreement on what that means, here's a list:


 * Category:Independent Australian politicians to Category:Independent politicians in Australia
 * Category:Independent politicians (UK) to Category:Independent politicians in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Independent politicians from Northern Ireland to Category:Independent politicians in Northern Ireland
 * Category:Chinese independent politicians to Category:Independent politicians in the People's Republic of China
 * Category:German independent politicians to Category:Independent politicians in Germany
 * Category:Irish independent politicians to Category:Independent politicians in Ireland
 * Category:Luxembourgian independent politicians to Category:Independent politicians in Luxembourg
 * Category:English independent politicians to Category:Independent politicians in England
 * Category:Scottish independent politicians to Category:Independent politicians in Scotland
 * Category:Welsh independent politicians to Category:Independent politicians in Wales

Please can editors confirm that this list reflects what was agreed above? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, although I suggest using "People's Republic of China" instead of just "China" (see eg. Category:Politicians of the People's Republic of China). Jafeluv (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jafeluv, you're quite right, so I have amended the list accordingly. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - what about this one Category:Independent MPs (UK) and this Category:Independent MPs of New Zealand ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappy (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 January 2010
 * Can we leave those MP categories for a tidyup nomination, to avoid complicating this one? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Snappy (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support renaming all to "Independent politicians in Foo". Snappy (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as Snappy. This is a straightforward solution.  There may of course be a few follow up cases to sweep up, but that can be done in due course.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this option for minimal ambiguity. I do, for the record, remember incidents where people who happened to have been born in Canada, but spent much of their lives and careers living in other countries, were being categorized (and recategorized upon removal) as . Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 26 January 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:Aerosmith personnel

 * 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: Nomination withdrawn. non-admin closure Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nominator's rationale: Per so many other band categories. Take non-members and upmerge to Category:Aerosmith if the band is really that relevant to the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn I was not paying attention. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 20 January 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:Los Angeles Chargers stadiums

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Los Angeles Chargers stadiums to Category:San Diego Chargers stadiums
 * Nominator's rationale: This is partly a test case for undoing the mess Levineps made of the category system as it pertains to NFL venues. The Los Angeles Chargers are now known as the San Diego Chargers, because the team moved- they are the same entity playing a hundred miles or so further south on the Interstate 5.  I don't see any reason for keeping this single article in a subcategory than all the other stadiums the Chargers have played in over the years, just because the Chargers were in a different city at the time.   Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I take offense to the "mess I made" comment, no need for a personal attack here. But that aside, I totally disagree. What Chargers did in LA is completely different than in San Diego. Just like Houston to Tennessee, Oakland to LA and back again, the Rams in three cities, etc.--Levineps (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack (see WP:NPA). It's a recognition of the facts agreed by a community discussion which resulted in you being indefinitely banned banned from creating new categories and from re-categorization of either existing categories or articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about that, it seems as if you always come out against whatever I say, is that a coincidence, I think not.--Levineps (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator may have been quoting me. I take responsibility for initiating the idea or phraseology that you created a mess. I still think my whittled-to-a-stub mop and carpal tunnel syndrome confirms my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, I was playing off your wording. Of all the articles in the NFL stadium by team system, this one seemed the most unnecessary, so I chose it as a "test the waters" nomination.  I didn't mean it as a personal attack in any sense. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge – Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum is in a host of 'XXX stadiums' categories, often considered to be clutter. Do we need these? (Los Angeles Chargers is a redirect.) Occuli (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:OC. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 20 January 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:Football competitions in Spain

 * 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 and restore pre-existing category; left a note on creator's page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Football competitions in Spain to Category:Spanish football competitions
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, per convention of . The  was emptied out of process by, who blanked it with the comment "merged into Category:Football competitions in Spain". Djln has been warned before about out-of-process deletions. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 20 January 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:Southwest University

 * 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 05:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Southwest University to Category:Universities and colleges in Chongqing
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OC. Single-article category, and the head article Southwest University gives no links to any other pages which could be added to the category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge but without prejudice against recreation when/if more articles are written that would fit. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. It's certainly an article sui generis: eg The big man from SWU. Occuli (talk) 10:54, 20 January 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.