Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 28



Category:Riots by country

 * 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 all to "Riots and civil disorder". This combination combines both terms that have support and meets the grammatical point raised by multiple users. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Riots by country to Category:Civil disorders by country


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category has both "Riots in Foo" and "Riots and civil unrest in Foo" categories. It may be better to use an uniform scheme. A riot is a form of civil disorder, but civil disorder may manifest in other forms than riots, and articles nominally about riots usually detail a wider civil disorder they were part of. By the way, Civil unrest redirects to "Civil disorder", so I'm also proposing to uniform the categories with the article name. Cambalachero (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that the original categories should still be kept, albeit as redirects.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose civil disorders, since grammatically incorrect. According to the CALD, disorder in this sense is uncountable and refers to the situation rather than the event. "Civil disorder in Foo" doesn't seem right, either. Probably has to be "Instances of civil disorder in Foo", but that feels too clunky. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I note that the nominator has failed to tag the following cats. An oversight or an intentional omission? --Mais oui! (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Riots in England to Category:Civil disorders in England


 * Category:Riots in Northern Ireland to Category:Civil disorders in Northern Ireland


 * Category:Riots in Scotland to Category:Civil disorders in Scotland


 * Category:Riots in Wales to Category:Civil disorders in Wales

An oversight. They are not categorized within the "Riots by country" category Cambalachero (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * rename all to  'riots and civil disorders' pattern as some of the country categories are already named. 'Riot' is a well known, historically used term and should not be abandoned.  It is in the name of many underlying articles. Hmains (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom This is the kind of well-reasoned argument for uniformity that I wish I saw on CfD more often. As stated above, these categories usually contain articles on events that are not strictly speaking riots, so the broader name is useful and necessary. Regarding "disorders" being uncountable, I will bow to the prescriptive grammarians if that is actually the case, but for what it's worth, the word "disorders" make sense to me colloquially (American English, Midwestern speaker.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * rename to "Riots and civil disorder in Foo". The term "disorders" is a nonsense - there is no such word in standard English in this context. a rename to "Incidents of civil disorder by country" is better, but the currently proposed name is horrible, ungrammatical, and just plain wrong. However, since several of them are already in the form "Riots and x in Foo", why not just change the lot to that (replacing the redirected word "unrest", which I note with some relief is not "Civil unrests"!) Grutness...wha?  01:31, 2 September 2011 (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:Marble Hill, South Australia

 * 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: Category has already been deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * marble hill, south australia


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. OC small. This place has a population of 479 so not likely to have many articles.  The only one now is the main one on the place.  The images should be moved to commons or to a more general image category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "OC small" mean? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Over categorization for a category that is not likely to justify retention based on its small size. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave things as they are. The population is irrelevant. "Marble Hill" is also the name of the Governor's summer residence which was partially destroyed by bushfire in 1955, and is now preserved as a historic monument to those who died in the 1955 bushfires. There is much interest in the site, its surrounds and its history. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Comment removed, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge per nom. Images can be moved to commons (or merged to an image category), and it's unlikely to be further populated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into what? I don't understand. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Marble Hill, South Australia wouldn't need to be merged anywhere, since the article is well-categorized. The images could be merged into Category:Houses in Adelaide, or, if created via the discussion below, Category:Images of houses in Adelaide. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. However, that's not what I meant. You wrote "Delete/merge per nom." My poorly stated question should have been, "Merge what into what? Sorry, I don't understand." My apologies for such a poorly worded question. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It made sense to me. My question was written with the understanding that I was answering the question "merge what into what?" I described where category-wise the contents of the nominated category should be merged into. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2011 (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:Houses in Adelaide, Non-free images

 * 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 delete under G7. —  ξ xplicit  02:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Houses in Adelaide, Non-free images to Category:Houses in Adelaide
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. It looks like this category was created for the express purpose of allowing the free images of houses in Australia to appear as images in . See edit summary here. I'm not sure that this is a worthwhile subcategorization. It should either be upmerged as nominated or a general could be created.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Don't merge - just delete the category. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose deletion Category:Houses in Adelaide, Non-free images
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category was created in good faith for a good purpose. Apparently the gods-of-wiki are unable to tolerate anything done a little different. To save my time and grief (I really need to get a life outside wikipedia), lets end the discussion and delete the damn thing. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "WP:I just don't like it" has never been a good enough reason for anything. Please explain your POV.
 * Why are you "not sure that this is a worthwhile subcategorization"?
 * Why "should (it) be upmerged"?
 * Why "should ... a general could be created"?
 * Why is &  a better solution than  & ?
 * How is &  different to  & ?
 * Despite your statement: "It's not that I "didn't like" what you did; I was just cleaning up things per our normal practices. I don't think I did anything unusual or exceptional.", you seem to be extremely zealous in your "usual" and "un-exceptional" behaviour, and I'm finding it really hard to observe WP:AGF with respect to your behaviour. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The easiest way to answer your multiple question is to simply state that the category you have created is unusual in terms of the vast category tree that currently exists. It is not the usual way of categorizing images. If an image category is created on WP, it is typically a far more general category, such as . There are not enough images in houses in Adelaide to justify breaking this down into non-free images. In any case, eventually all of the free images will be migrated to Commons, which will make a free/non-free image category distinction for houses in Adelaide unnecessary. (I've tried to explain general WP practices respecting images to you lately, but it's been a steep teaching curve, since you seem unfamiliar with the basics of, for example, not creating WP pages of description pages from Commons. It would be helpful if you did some research into how Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons deal with images.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "The easiest way to answer your multiple question is to simply state that the category you have created is unusual in terms of the vast category tree that currently exists. It is not the usual way of categorizing images." - Thank you. If you had said that in the first place, we would not be having any of these discussions.
 * "(I've tried to explain general WP practices respecting images to you lately, but it's been a steep teaching curve, since you seem unfamiliar with the basics of, for example, not creating WP pages of description pages from Commons. It would be helpful if you did some research into how Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons deal with images.) - Nonsense.
 * "I've tried to explain general WP practices respecting images to you lately" - You have done a poor job, and have mainly devoted your effort to information that is irrelevant to the subjects I have raised and questions I have asked. I have told you I am well aware of this irrelevant information.
 * since you seem unfamiliar with the basics of, for example, not creating WP pages of description pages from Commons. - As you should be well aware, and would be well aware if you spent less time "being right" and more time reading what I wrote, thinking about what I wrote, and answering my questions, I am quite familiar with the basics. I explained to you, at length, three times, what I was trying to do. You ignored it. I had to ask you a number of questions two or three times before you answered them.
 * "It would be helpful if you did some research into how Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons deal with images." - No. It wouldn't. As you have been informed, I am quite familiar with these topics. You might have noticed that this page is about categories, not images. Had you reflected on the discussion rather than simply reacted in an obstructionist manner, you would have realised that this whole episode is about categories , not images. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Deep sigh.) This is where I give up trying. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

a) Good idea. It's quite clear that you aren't paying attention to the matter at hand, only to the matters that you want to pay attention to, which are largely irrelevant to the matter at hand. b) Yes, I've given up too. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Leave things as they are. The current situation does the job, and is doing the job  right now . Your proposed merge and creation of a new category will require large numbers of changes. I see no benefit in doing this, particularly given that you provide no reason for the change beyond "WP:I just don't like it". Pdfpdf (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A "large number of changes"? Not really. We could upmerge the single image, re-add __NOGALLERY__ to the category, and we are done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More nonsense. The single non-free image is not the point. The point is all the free-use images which will have to be either recategorised to the new "images" category, or moved to commons. Are you volunteering to do either? If not, then just leave things as they are. I repeat, what's there is working right now . The only thing you are proposing is more work for other people. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, either I or the closer will carry out the consensus of the discussion. It's not terribly accurate to say "it's working", since it was just created and already users are questioning it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2011 (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:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent

 * 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 Category:Iranian Azeris to Category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent, noting also the latter is the predominant format in Category:Iranian people by ethnic or national origin. Revisit the name if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Duplicative category of Category:Iranian Azeris
 * Nominator's rationale User:Takabeg created this new category today, which appears to be entirely duplicative of the existing cat Category:Iranian Azeris (they even have the same description). Discussion with the creator failed to explain why another category was necessary, so either one or the either should be deleted and the contents merged, or some clear-cut distinction between them should be made if both are to be kept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Categorization, we must provide reliably sources. Most of them cannot be verified as "Iranian Azeri". Lotfi A. Zadeh's father was Azeri, mother was Russian. Even he said that he is Azeri in the interview with a biased magazine, it's difficult to find neutral sources to verify his adopting Iranian Azeriness According to text of the article Hossein Alizadeh, he was born in 1951 in Tehran to Azeri and Persian parents. There is no reason to emphasize one side (mother or father) and to ignore other side (mother or father). When we research sources, we understand that it's impossible to make Ali Reza Pahlavi I, Princess Ashraf Pahlavi, Farah Pahlavi, Farahnaz Pahlavi, Leila Pahlavi etc. When the category is deleted, the only thing we can do is to remove Category:Iranian Azeris from those article. Takabeg (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your response does not address the question. Please explain why we need two categories, Category:Iranian Azeris and Category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent. What is the difference between them?  What type of person would be eligible for one and not for the other? Those are relevant topics, not Lofti Zadeh's particular situation or the Pahlavis.  Please answer those questions, in a straight-forward manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, if the comunity agrees that only 1 cat is necessary, I'm just as happy for the surviving cat to be Category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent (which should probably be Category:Iranians of Azerbaijani descent, the "people" being unnecessary), which seems more in line with the format of other similar cats. My point is that unless Takabeg can explain the need for 2 cats, 1 is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When we read the article such as Azerbaijani American, we can understand Category:Azerbaijani people and its sub-categories, Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people and its sub-categories are very problematic. We must clarify these categories by nationality or ethnicity. We have to sovle these problems. By the way, User:Beyond My Ken insistently try to delete Hossein Alizadeh's Persianness. Why ? Takabeg (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not make this about me, I have no dog in this fight. I have simply been undoing your changes until this discussion comes to some conclusion. In what way are these categories "problematic"?  What is the "nationality" versus "ethnicity" dilemma here?  Please do not assume that I have an agenda and am being disingenuous, these questions need to be answered because I truly do not understand why there should be two categories where one would seem to be sufficient. So far, your answers here and in the discussion on your talk page linked above seem (to me, anyway) to be something less than informative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's very clear Category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent and Category:Iranian Azeris are different, and some users try to make him/her an Iranian Azeris, even one of his/her parents is non-Azeri. Takabeg (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what I am telling you is that it is not clear, and that you need to explain the difference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In short, your blind reverts damage neutrality of articles and are very harmful for encyclopedia. Takabeg (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, this is not about me, answer the questions I've posed so a decision can be reached. "Because I said so" may work with a 3 year-old child, but it will not pass muster here.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In the hope that we might get some fresh input, I've posted neutral notices about this discussion on WikiProject Iran and WikiProject Azerbaijan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Takabeg, thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I'm not sure about the difference between the two categories - could you please sum them up? I personally prefer "Iranian Azeris" as that's what is naturally said by most people, instead of the longer "Iranian people of Azerbaijani descend". It could also be "Azerbaijanis of/from Iran". Meanwhile, Prof. Lotfi Asker Zadeh was born in Baku, not Tehran, and immigrated from Azerbaijan to Iran later in his life, where he studied, and then immigrated (again) to USA, where he lives to this day. He, as well as Farrah Pahlavi and her children, and others like them, are Azerbaijani-Americans. Would be glad to help out as much as possible, please count on me. --Saygi1 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Saygi1. I know Lotfi's father was an Azeri and mother was a Russian. It's not difficult for us to consider Lofti is a descent of Azeri and Russian. But it's disputed whether he is an Azeri (Iranian Azeri) or not. Generally Farah is accepted as an Azeri origin. So her children can be considered as Azeri descent. But it's difficult for us to prove their Azeriness (Iranian Azeri). Maybe some Azerbaijani friends will become unsatisfied with Category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent, this is more comprehensive than Category:Iranian Azeris. Takabeg (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Takabeg: Asking similarly-minded editors to participate in consensus discussion in order to "win" is a violation of Wikipedia policy, which is something you have been told before. Please stop, and do not canvass other editors.  You may, as I have done, post neutrally-worded notification on relevant WikiProject talk pages, but you may not ask other editors who you hope will back you up to come here and !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not canvassing. I asked opinion to "both side" (User:Saygi1 & User:Alborz Fallah, you can see Talk:Azerbaijani American). I understand that you don't understand what is encyclopedia. First of all, you'd better read Wikipedia is not about winning. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. I strongly recommend for you. Takabeg (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please keep iyour personal remarks to yourself. You may think what you like (even so, you are sadly mistaken) but remarks here and in other consensus discussions should be addressed to the isssues at hand and not be about the editors. You have addressed a number of remarks my way implying that I am pushing a POV, that I revert for the sake of reverting, etc. None of these is true, but even if they were, they do not help to advance the discussion. Stay focused, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to . They are essentially the same thing, and we have generally moved in WP categories from using the short forms like "Nigerian Americans" to the more descriptive "American people of Nigerian descent". I think it would be helpful to move in this same direction here. Yes, one could parse out slight differences in the two, but categories are a blunt tool to do so and I think the pre-existing category should remain. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the "pre-existing" category is "Iranian Azeris", the new one is "Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent" -- but I've come to agree with the opinion you stated: one cat is all that's necessary, and that can be Takabeg's new one, but everyone in the current cat should be moved to the new cat and the old one deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, yes—I had it back to front, but I think the new one can stay and the old one can be merged into it. We can safely say without too many issues that all Iranian Azeris are Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent, though the reverse may not be as true. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Good Olfactory. If we have to merge them, is neutral and more comprehensive. But I guess that someone cannot accept. Because for someone (especially those who adopt such approach) they are not descent. Takabeg (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I said I was in favor of merging to . Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too (if we have to chose one of them). Takabeg (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the new category, per the creator's rationale (and depopulate the older one to the newer one, as lack of sources dictate). Being of an ethnicity and of an ethnicity's descent (i.e. having ancestry for that ethnicity) are two distinct things, but it's almost always impossible to determine from sources which of the two is truer with a given individual (as the distinction is on a continuum.)  (Sources for ancestrial or ethnic claims are scarce to begin, and reliable (i.e. neutral ones, ones from reputable publications, and those that consider [either social or DNA] science to support the claim) virtuall do not exist.  [Even for backing up the most obvious self-evident claim, such as that Michael Jordan is African-American, given common knowledge of the history of the Carolinas and black African migration, etc. / lack of migration there from New Guinea and other places with 'Black' populations - WP:Orginal Research].  Self-evident claims are far more likely not to have sources, moreover, for obvious reasons.  Ultimately categories like this will need to be scrapped as populating them will be impossible.  In the meanwhile, I do agree too that there should be a merger of contents (but) with a new naming pattern along the lines of Category:Iranian people who are Azeri or of Azerbaijani descent, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to . They are essentially the same thing, and "Iranian Azeris" is far more used and less tongue-twisting than the longer and far less used "Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent". --Saygi1 (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Good Ol’factory: As long as I understand with this edit, I think user misunderstand difference between nationality and ethnicity. About a half of Iranian citizens are Persian (Farsi). I think that the usage of Category:Iranian people of Persian descent can protect Wikipedia's neutrality. Because we must not support Iranian integrative nationalism, Persian nationalism, Azerbaijani separatist nationalism with WP:NPOV. Takabeg (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Takabeg, the thing is the Pahlavi's (the shah family) were not of Persian origin - Reza Shah Pahlavi was mostly of Mazandarani ethnic origin, which is distinct from Persian. So you would need to classify him as Category:Iranian people of Mazandarani descent. --Saygi1 (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I forgot Shomali :) But it's true that there are many Iranian citizens of Persian descent. Takabeg (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete another way to divide people by categorizing them, which Wikipedia seems intent on doing. When dealing with multi-ethnic states, this becomes more problematic; for example, what do Americans of Canadian ancestry have in common after some number of generations, and are the various foreign settlers who were given Mexican citizenship (John Sutter, e.g.) become Americans of Mexican descent when the USA takes California from Mexico? Only Wikipedia debates this crap. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2011 (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:Channel Islands novels

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Channel Islands novels to Category:Novels set in the Channel Islands
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains novels set in the Channel Islands rather than novels written by Channel Islands authors. e.g Toilers of the Sea by Victor Hugo. The appropriate parent is therefore Category:Novels set in Europe by country Tim! (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, but wouldn't the right parent cat be Category:Novels set in England? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Channel Islands are British Crown Dependencies but not part of the United Kingdom. Tim! (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems incorrect, however, to name the Channel Islands as a country when they are not. (The subcat, Category:Novels set in Guernsey, is likewise currently a subcat of a country-level cat, which is incorrect and does not accord with the other members of the category.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom (eg. they do not elect MPs to sit in the Commons). Although some editors occasionally add Channel Islands-related (and Bermuda-related etc) cats to "British" cats, these are removed if found, as it has been (perhaps wrongly?) accepted that the word "British" in, eg. Category:British novelists is shorthand for 'novelists from the United Kingdom' rather than 'novelists who have a British passport' (eg. Channel Island novelists). IMHO the word "British" in many Wikipedia cats is highly confusing, because a British Subject, prior to 1949, could refer to vast numbers of people around the globe that were not from the UK. But I digress... --Mais oui! (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2011 (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:Filthcast

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * filthcast


 * filthcast artists


 * barcode recordings


 * barcode recordings albums


 * drum and bass podcasts


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Small group of articles relating only to Filthcast podcast. Breno talk 04:19, 28 August 2011 (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.