Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 2



Category:Promoters of the Rosary

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Listify and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * promoters of the rosary


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining for the individuals. Also very subjective.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename but I'm not sure to what. There are a number of people who are specifically known for their advocacy of the use of the rosary. I thin kit is useful to have them in a subcategory but I'm not sure what the best name for such a category should be. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe listify? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Listify seems a good idea, unless there is enough compelling and verifiable details to expound upon - Alvincura (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify perhaps in the article on the rosary. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 6 November 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:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary semicha recipients

 * 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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary semicha recipients to Category:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary semikhah recipients
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent article for rabbinic ordination is titled semikhah and does not match the transliteration used in the existing title. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename, but to Category:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary smicha recipients. Though the article name is semikhah, the article should also be moved to the far more common name, "Smicha." -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename, but to Category:Smicha recipients of Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. This is effectively an alumni category and should follow that format.  No view on spelling of smicha/senikhah/semicha, as I am not Jewish.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  IZAK (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Rename per nom, per US alumni convention (ie 'Foo alumni', not 'alumni of Foo') and per semikhah. (Rename again if the article semikhah is successfully moved anywhere.) Occuli (talk) 09:44, 3 November 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:Hyphen Luddites

 * 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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * hyphen luddites


 * Nominator's rationale - Delete - "The time has come for a popular revolt against the dictatorship of en-dashes and em-dashes. The code that creates them is ugly; it litters the page with unnecessary markup whose marginal esthetic value is more than outweighed by its tendency to discourage newcomers from embarking upon their first edits." - Category doesn't benefit the encyclopedia in any way that I can see. Fits the definition of innapropriate categorization at Overcategorization/User_categories in that it is a category of users who dislikes or opposes something. At minimum needs a rename to Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites to indicate it is a user category, if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; inspiring, but violative of the guidelines on user categories. I can't see how this improves collaboration of a positive sort. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites. This use of a category is a perfectly reasonable way enable mutual recognition of wikipedians on a relative back-burner issue.  In raising awareness, it promotes communication and development, and thus is for the benefit of the project.  At a sub-minimum, should be listified to the essay Hyphen luddites, retaining the above excellent header text and the non-trivial talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were prone to paranoia, I might say that the CfD regulars are intent on turning red every user-catergory I like, except that the CfD regular groupthink (which wrote the guidelines) finds such wording offensively labelling and divisive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I love how "the CFD regulars" = users I disagree with, even when, based on edit counts at CFD, the person using the term could be regarded as a "CFD regular". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I am not particularly prone to paranoia, and would not say the above. No disrespect is intended to the regulars, but CfD regulars are a non random sample of the community.  I dare say they seem more concerned with consistency, logic and order than the typical wandering editor.
 * This category happens to contain a proportion of high profile editors. Is it forbidden to invite them to the discussion?  Should they not be invited because we assume they don't understand how CfD and categorisation works?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are a 'CFD regular'. It's hard, I know, but I'm sure you'll get through. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't in any doubt of this. Did you not notice the "listify" suggestion, tacitly accepting the CfD-regular position?  CfD needs more diverse participants, I say.  The least I can do is participate.  Perhaps I should blue link Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, having read the nomination and the follow-up comments. I just didn't agree with it as being my "first preference". Anyone can make a list any time if they want to, so I don't even feel that it's a very important issue to express an opinion on one way or the other, so I essentially ignored it and didn't supplement my initial comment by saying "listify" or "do not listify". The central part of my opinion is that the category should be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you not concerned that by deleting without first listifying, and moving the header text and talk page, valid multi-authored wikiedian project-related opinion will be lost, even "censored!"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not particularly. The information is never "lost" if anyone wants to retrieve it. If you're worried about it, then I'd suggest going ahead and making a list page right away before it's (possibly) deleted to save you the extra hassle of retrieving the information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Membership information is effectively lost after members are removed from the deleted category, so I have copied the membership of today. I ask that if the category is deleted, that the category talk page be moved to Wikipedia talk:Hyphen luddites.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I object to the piecemeal deletion of all of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy. I don't think it is right that CfD regulars should do this.  VegaDark, do you wish to see all or most of this category structure deleted?  If so, please be upfront about it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I support deletion of any user category that I don't see benefits the encyclopedia, usually due to it not fostering collaboration. I would have to go through each of those categories before I made a sweeping statement that everything there should be deleted. But, in general, I would say it isn't very helpful to proclaim one's editing philosophy via a category, unless there is a purpose behind it to group all such users together for some effort to improve the encyclopedia. If this category were more focused on changing the hyphen system rather than complaining about it (some of the talk page discussion seems to be focused on this, which is a good start), I could support keeping this under a different name. Something like (Category:Wikipedians working to improve Wikipeida's hyphen system. The entire opening paragraph would have to be changed as well to reflect this. VegaDark (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites or Category:Hyphen Luddite Wikipedians, but no reason for deletion. The prohibition on "like/dislike" categories traditionally has not extended to people who like or dislike things about Wikipedia, which is why we have categories for inclusionists, deletionists, pro- and anti- Pending Changes, and so on, though I admit that I'm not sure anyone's ever specifically defined the rule as excluding those things.  —  Soap  —  00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the vast majority of support/oppose categories relating to a Wikipedia issue have been deleted, see here. A few have been kept, but I would support deletion of those as well as I feel they violate the guideline on categories. and don't help the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

¶ OK, after a couple of years and several thousand edits here, I've finally found that I don't have the time or patience to learn, remember or keep up with all the arcana of Wikadminstration, but when I thought "if it wouldn't mean instant inaction, ineffectiveness and oblivion, shouldn't this once-robust category of lusty rebels join all the 'Associations of Wikipedians...'", why lo! and behold, I find that they're almost all categories, too. See Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy There's no point (unless, which I very much doubt, there's some malicious motive to suppress free speech and association) to deleting anything if it's just a matter of renaming it. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merely renaming would be disappointing, but keeping as is would be unacceptable. I think I made it clear that deletion was my first choice, as I don't believe this benefits the encyclopedia as a category (I'd be fine if this were a Wikipedia-space page). VegaDark (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - it should be, or  (all done without any 'ugly code').  Occuli (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But what is the mysterious code you just used? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Arrgh—the ugliness! You're littering this page with unnecessary markups with a marginal esthetic value. As a newcomer, I am discouraged from embarking upon my first edits ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My question is serious. ",  or  " all look the same (in my edit window).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, -, – & — produce different things when saved, but how is it explained simply, and how many notice such subtlety, let alone care, especially regarding the first two, which look identical on close inspection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They would seem to be ascii characters 45, 150 & 151. My experience of these things is that characters above 128 are unreliable.
 * "               ¬ !"#$%&'*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~€‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜™š›œžŸ ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬­®¯°±²³´µ¶•¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúûüýþÿ"  Where is more information on this string?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some browser fonts don't differentiate, especially on PCs. It is possible to change that if you care enough so that they do appear differently—it just depends on the font, mostly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather remain a luddite, using words like from, to, between, and symbols like the old comma and hyphen, for which no training is required. I've got pretty far relying mostly on the standard keyboard, with the occasionally necessary use of a Greek character, which causes problems when it doesn't print or upload properly. Why would I bother with special characters that don't look, or even when they do look, read, differently to me and many readers?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you would—perhaps you could care about those readers that do know the difference and do recognize the difference and read them differently. You'll be fine; just don't apply for any professional editorial jobs, especially at—God forbid—the New Yorker. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * if kept, Rename as a WP user category. No views on merits, assuming it is not an attack category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I do think that Wikipedians by Wikipedia-related philosophy categories may be useful in certain situations (although, as VegaDark noted above, facilitating expression of a philosophy—e.g., via a userbox or an essay page—is not the same as creating a grouping of users), I don't think that this extends to Wikipedians by opinion on Wikipedia-related issue #235,622-type categories. Categories such as Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies reflect broad philosophies or editing styles, respectively, affecting much of what a user does on Wikipedia. To be honest, this category strikes me as being more similar to Category:Wikipedians who add two spaces before stub templates... I support SmokeyJoe's suggestion to listify, and I see that it has already been done at Hyphen luddites-- Black Falcon (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding attribution to the edit history comments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Support Rename to Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites Allows collaboration and contact on this issue among editors. The stand may be futile, but I respect the wish to self identify in this manner. Alansohn (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-identification is achieved via Hyphen luddites and even a userbox (User:UBX/Hyphen Luddite could easily be created), but the category goes a step further to create a grouping or faction of users. I'm curious ... what potential collaboration do you envisage? If some plausible collaborative use could be identified, then I'm sure that would help to firmly shift the consensus toward keeping (and renaming) the category. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I personally would would prefer Wikipedia to keep simple with hyphens and minimise special characters, I would not seriously consider taking to arms to smash a guideline over the issue. I am pretty sure that that most involved consider this humorous.  I don't understand why people feel that user categories must not be used this way, but if they must not, a sign up list on an essay works equally as well.  Perhaps the agreed list on the essay would work better, because personalised comments could be added.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites as this is a category for Wikipedians, and not intended to be added to biographies. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Typically, this would be deleted as one of any number of soapboxing user categories. Consensus is typically consistent... except when the drama in question is a HUGE drama (as this drama was, for awhile), then such user categories are typically "voted" to be kept. I strongly doubt that the case will be any different here. I honestly think someone could speedy this as "no consensus" : ) - jc37 03:43, 10 November 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.

Irish regiments of the British Army

 * 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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Only one link MFIreland (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Irish regiments of the British Army
 * Comment Move Category:Defunct Irish regiments of the British Army to Category:Irish regiments of the British Army. Hekerui (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Move Category:Defunct Irish regiments of the British Army to Category:Regiments of the British Army. MFIreland (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have restored changes by the proposer who had blanked this page. Otherwise a proper discussion is not possible. Cjc13 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a difficult category because it combines former regiments from Ireland when it was linked to the UK and current regiments associated with Ulster which is still part of the UK. It is probably easiest to delete this category. Cjc13 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There are far to many Categories for the British army, a major clean up of them is need. MFIreland (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- We do not normally like defunct or former categories, but I think it is in this case appropriate since they mostly became defunct by being disbanded or such like on the creation of the Irish Republic in about 1921. Alternatively, it might be renamed and repurposed as Category:Irish regiments of the British army disbanded before 1925.  Some of the contents would need to be recategorised inot the parent e.g. Ulster Defence Regiment.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and support proposed move of Hekerui: Category:Defunct Irish regiments of the British Army to Category:Irish regiments of the British Army. The British Army had and still has regiments that have been specifically given an Irish identity. See Irish Guards for an example. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The current regiments relate to Northern Ireland rather than the Republic of Ireland. There are no similar categories for Welsh and Scottish regiments so this category does not seem necessary. Cjc13 (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically the regiments represent Ireland as an island - the Irish Guards recruit from all Ireland as does the RIR - at the Queen Mothers funeral in 2002, 8 guardsmen including 2 from the Republic of Ireland carried her coffin see also Ian Malone. Looking at why the category was created it would appear that this category was created as a sub-category of Category:Irish regiments to distinguish those regiments in service with the British Army as opposed to the current Southern Irish Army and other non-British Army regiments. All of Wales and Scotland are part of the UK hence such a distinction is not as important IMHO Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. While somewhat redundant, it is possibly important to distinguish this cat from other "Category:Regiments of the British Army". Firstly, while the deletion rationale provided is "only 1 member", the main child cat (Category:Defunct Irish regiments of the British Army) is well populated, and needs a meaningful/distinguishing parent. Secondly, if there was actually "only 1 member", I could see a rationale for addressing this in other ways. But there are actually rightfully 2 members. And, finally, to the argument that "Scotland, Wales, etc don't get their own cat". Given the complex history/provenance questions, and the fact that this is somewhat notable that Irish people still join these British Army regiments, it is probably worthwhile categorising them slightly differently. Guliolopez (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The proposer's persistence in removing sub-cats and articles from the category in question (and generally delinking it), BEFORE this discussion is closed, is contrary to the conventions/intent of this process. Guliolopez (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Also the Defunct Irish regiments category as they are both meaningful categories. Note that there is a Category:Scottish regiments which is a subcategory of the British Army category but includes some Commonwealth regiments, and also Category:Regiments of Scotland which is not. Hugo999 (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep also would like to comment on MFIreland removing regiments from the category which is now bordering on vanderlism and is blatent POV pushing --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:41, 4 November 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:Elections in Taiwan (Republic of China)

 * 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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Elections in Taiwan (Republic of China) to Category:Elections in the Republic of China
 * Nominator's rationale: Per main article and other such articles. If this passes, the by year subcats should be renamed as well (speedily?) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Since this category only includes elections since the ROC moved to Taiwan and not during its years on the mainland, something in the name needs to specify this or the name should remain as is. The main article here is also badly and misleadingly misnamed. Hmains (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment there is one election for the whole of China, before the evacuation to Taiwan, in the category. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * comment And that one election for the whole of China (or however much was under Nationalist control at that point) was the only election held during its mainland history. Hmains (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Rename per nom. Since it includes both types of election (Taiwan-only and whole of China), the proposed name is the best. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:22, 9 November 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 Powerpuff Girls characters

 * 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 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * the powerpuff girls characters


 * Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article, which is a list of all characters from PPG.  ANDROS1337   16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit  07:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and recreate if List of The Powerpuff Girls characters is split into multiple articles. jonkerz♠ 11:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's useless as a navigation aid if it only contains one article. Jafeluv (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as SMALLCAT-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:21, 9 November 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:British music chart television programs

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename and redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:British music chart television programs to Category:British music chart television programmes
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word "program" should be spelled as "programmes", as this is a British category. azumanga (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename. As the category is a sub-cat of Category:British music television programmes it makes sense to keep them consistent. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per C1, empty category. Category was emptied and the new category was created. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't empty when I logged my Rename. Probably now should be a Merge, but the new cat should not have been created in this pre-emptive way, even if it achieves the correct solution. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:55, 5 November 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.

Arab World
<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. Jafeluv (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * economy of arab world


 * tourism in arab world


 * airports in arab world


 * aviation in arab world


 * buildings and structures in arab world


 * transport in arab world


 * sport in arab world


 * military of arab world


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories appear to have been recently created to parallel categories that exist on the Arabic Wikipedia. However, none of these topics have Arab World-specific articles on the English site, and I don't think there's any reason we would want to group these topics by being in the Arab World as opposed to just grouping them by country. It's an unnecessary layer of categorization, though useful for promotion of pan-Arabism. We get these types of categories created from time to time, probably because they exist on the Arabic WP: eg1, eg2. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – we already have Category:Economy of the Arab League etc (which are OK IMO). Arab League is a well-defined grouping, whereas Arab World is less so (it seems to embrace more countries than the League, eg Chad might well be in AW). Occuli (talk) 10:40, 2 November 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:American Latter Day Saint educators
<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: Upmerge. Jafeluv (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:American Latter Day Saint educators to Category:American Latter Day Saints and Category:American educators
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. This appears to be grouping people who are American Latter Day Saints and who are also American educators. It is not limited to those American people who are educators in Latter Day Saint-related topics. As such, it is a non-notable intersection of religion and occupation. There is a category for for those who are specifically educators within the LDS Church's Church Educational System. I suggest a double-upmerge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Up Merge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 9 November 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.