Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 4



Category:Terrestrial stations on satellite radio

 * 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 to Category:Satellite radio stations. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Terrestrial stations on satellite radio to Category:Satellite radio stations
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT that doesn't aid navigation by being split off from its parent cat, and isn't very likely to be expanded. The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge as proposed. The distinction exists but it's not that important and it doesn't justify isolating these two articles in a subacategory where they'll be harder to find. Pichpich (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2012 (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:YouTube to TV

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting youtube to tv


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete only one member in the category and although it's conceivable that this category could grow, I don't think this would constitute a defining characteristic, especially if the origin is restricted to YouTube and not other web content platforms. If kept, the name has to change. I would propose Category:Television series first broadcast on YouTube. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, mainly on the basis that there probably aren't enough of these at the moment to justify a category. Even if there were, it would need a better name, like the one suggested by the nominator. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A better name can be found if there come to be multiple articles that fit this idea, and the wonder is we do not even have to say "delete without prejudice".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (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:Andy's Summer Playhouse staff/alumni

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting andy's summer playhouse staff/alumni


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete The category is named after a youth theatre in New Hampshire. While I'm sure every participant and every teacher has fond memories of their experience there, it does not constitute a significant part of their career and in fact Andy's Summer Playhouse is only linked in one of the 33 biographies in the category currently. (The exception is Elizabeth Orton Jones but Andy's Summer Playhouse was a significant part of her life and this was noted in many sources) If kept, the category should at least be renamed to avoid the slash, for example Category:People associated with Andy's Summer Playhouse Pichpich (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, essentially per nom. The fact that this isn't mentioned in most of these biographies shows that it isn't significant enough to categorise them by. Robofish (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this does not seem to fit the standard for use. I shudder to think what some people's category counts would be if we categorized them by ever small playhouse they worked with ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2012 (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:Jiangxi 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 (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 22:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Jiangxi politicians to Category:Politicians from Jiangxi
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistency with similar categories (e.g., Category:Politicians from Beijing, Category:Politicians from Shanghai), as well as less ambiguity. --Nlu (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2012 (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:United States military sex scandals

 * 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 to Category:United States military scandals. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting united states military sex scandals


 * Nominator's rationale: Category with only one article that does not fit any of the exceptions at WP:SMALLCAT. Recommend upmerge of the article in question and deletion of the category. (NB category used to be a lot more populated; almost everything in it has been moved to Category:Sexual assault in the United States military, while those remaining articles which were also crimes and not "sex scandals" were moved to Category:United States military scandals or Category:War rape.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I think "scandal" is probably too subjective for categorising by. And looking over Category:Scandals, reminds me other recent CfD concerning "alleged" police brutality. I think a group nom may be a good next step in the near future. - jc37 20:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems like an unnecessary subcategory. Category:United States military scandals is fine as it is and doesn't need subdivision. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:United States military scandals. I am not even convinced this is a good name, it seems to POV, but maybe since people generally call them scandals, we should follow that precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per JPL. While "scandals" may be POV, it's what these are called in the sources; if sources are "POV" that's not something we can help. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films directed by Robert Abel

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename  to Category:Films directed by Robert Abel (animator). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Films directed by Robert Abel to Category:Films directed by Robert Abel (animator)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the corresponding article Robert Abel (animator). It's standard practice to add the disambiguation in the category title even if the other Robert Abels have not directed films. Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Even though the rationale is sound, I don't think it's needed. The other Robert Abels are an author, cricketer and NASCAR driver. In the unlikely event one of them directed a film, then yes, the rename would be needed. Or the other rationale of another Robert Abels being a film director, but I think it's explained by the hatnote on the category.  Lugnuts  And the horse 18:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - the category doesn't tell you which Robert Abel it was otherwise. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if you see the catmore link? Are you still confused then?  Lugnuts  And the horse 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't see the catmore/catmain when the category is at the bottom of a page you're reading. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support – it is standard practice to add the disambiguation in the category title, as it removes the need to agonise over the likelihood of other Abels ever directing films. Oculi (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this is a good idea. Category names should match article names, thus it should follow the precendent of the article name in disambiguating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (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:People from Sassocorvaro

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Sassocorvaro to Category:People from the Province of Pesaro e Urbino
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge Sassocorvaro has less than 3500 inhabitants so the category is likely to remain quite small. The article will be easier to find in the larger category. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2012 (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:Notable immigrants to Chile

 * 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. All contents are in subcategories of Category:Immigrants to Chile as needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting notable immigrants to chile


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Obviously, the use of the word "notable" in the title is a fatal flaw as it renders the category completely subjective. There's nothing to merge since the articles are already in the appropriate "Foo emigrants to Chile" category. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Immigrants to Chile, to which I have just added this category ... but do it it manually, so that articles are diffused into any subcats. This category is superfluous, because only notable people have biographical articles on Wikipedia. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure my sentence was that clear but I oppose the merge because the articles are already diffused in the appropriate subcategories. Pichpich (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I would normally have supported BHG, but her target Category:Immigrants to Chile is in fact really a container category for Immigrants to Chile by country of origin, with only two articles directly in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and then diffuse where neccesary. Immigrants to x is not a container category per se.  We do not diffuse all immigrants, only when there are enough to justify doing so.  At least in theory our small x emigrants to y categories are because at present most people who emigrated who have articles in wikipedia have not been categorized based on this.  Thus, immigration categories are at present in build mode.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. As nom points out the articles in this category are already difussed in the proposed merge target so this is not necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete since as has been pointed out there is no need to merge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (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:AfC Defcon

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:AfC Defcon to Category:Wikipedia administration templates
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as it's unlikely that this category will ever grow. There's no sense in isolating this template in its own little category. Pichpich (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge I created this category and got the purpose of it wrong. I agree per nomination for the merging of this category. John F. Lewis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 4 September 2012 (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:Outdoor sculptures by Tony Smith

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename  to Category:Sculptures by Tony Smith. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Outdoor sculptures by Tony Smith to Category:Sculptures by Tony Smith
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to the wider scope. While the sculptures currently in the category are indeed outdoor sculptures, Smith did not exclusively produce public art. If some of his "indoor" sculptures ever get articles, we probably wouldn't want a separate parent category. Moreover, Smith would be the only one with an "outdoor sculptures" category which may make it harder for readers to find the category. Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename But I think it should be Category:Artworks by Tony Smith --RichardMcCoy (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That would have to be Category:Works by Tony Smith because there's no "Artworks by artist" scheme (and I don't think it's a good idea to start one). Pichpich (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Cat is a subcat of Category:Sculptures by artist. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom; I would be surprised if no versions of these are not/have never been exhibited inside. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename for standardisation. There are two works with images at commons:Category:Tony Smith which were photographed indoors, but they do not have articles yet. I have added the nominated category to Category:Outdoor sculptures in the United States, and it can stay there even if it gets renamed, as long as there are no articles on Smith's indoor sculptures. If such articles are ever created, I would have no objection to re-creating a sub-cat for his outdoor sculptures, to keep a place within Category:Outdoor sculptures. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I think I would; the idea that large sculptures produced in small editions (as Smith's mostly are) are specifically created to be either inside or outside works is pretty dubious imo. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to standardize. We do not try to describe scultures in category names as this does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2012 (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:Olympic 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: rename to Category:Films about the Olympic Games. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Olympic films to Category:Films about the Olympic Games
 * Nominator's rationale: I feel that the title could be re-formulated to provide a more explicit description of the common theme (with "Olympic Games" replacing "Olympics" to match the main article). Many of the subcategories under Category:Films by topic use the "about" title structure. Category:Olympic Games in film is another possibility (mirroring the parent category, Category:Olympic games in fiction).  Super Mario  Man  15:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per the above rationale.  Lugnuts  And the horse 18:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. Obviously this category has to be renamed. I would much prefer the nominator’s alternative suggestion of Category:Olympic Games in film, which would allow entries like Olympic Games (film) or Pentathlon (film) to continue to be in the category because neither are “about THE Olympic Games," but fiction based on the Olympic Games (as are most other members of the category).--Richhoncho (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename; I would favour the narrower name Category:Films about the Olympic Games, excluding Olympic Games (film) which is only a local kids' athletic competition named after the main event. I would add a category explanation to include films in which a notable part is set at the Olympic Games, including Pentathlon (film) which apparently starts and finishes there. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very witty. The Pentathlon plot does indeed start and finish at two different Olympics, but the plot also covers, Gold medals, East Germany, Neo-Nazis, Terrorism, Alcoholism, Los Angeles, Peace Rallies, Rabbis, Olympic trainers - if the plot synopsis was longer I am sure the film could be categorised as being "about" many many other things. I am convinced that "about" is not the way to go on these sort of categories. Equally, if we allow anything to be added that mentions in passing Olympic Games we might as well just delete the category for all the encyclopedic worth it would have.Category:Olympic Games in film is more definative, but I daresay a better solution can be found. I do like your suggestion of text in the category, but who reads it before the edit war about what should be included? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The category definition can at least be invoked to settle an edit war on an article. How about Category:Films set at the Olympic Games, with the same explanation as I suggested above? – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Response. I would not oppose Films set at the Olympic Games, how does the nominator feel about that? Does it fit with other film categories? it's "x about y" that I object to, meaningless, open to the widest possible interpretation and undefining in context for categories. Molehills about 20 feet high! --Richhoncho (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename Having read the above, my first choice would be the slightly clunky Category:Films set at the Olympic Games. It narrows the scope a little bit and to a certain extent, it clarifies it (in the sense that there's a limit to how bad of an edit war people can have about where a film is set). My second choice is Category:Films about the Olympic Games whose scope is quite clear but also much narrower and in a sense less interesting. Third choice is Category:Olympic Games in film which is so broad and vague that the category would be drowned in films that include a scene where someone watching the pentathlon on TV. 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. This category is supposed to be a subject, not a setting cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2012 (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:Anti-Islam

 * 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.

There was a strong consensus in favour of merging these two categories, but no clear consensus in favour of which direction the merge should follow. So the outcome which best reflects the discussion is to proceed with a merge, and let further discussion reconsider the name if desired. In the absence of agreement, it seems to me that the most persuasive argument was that to adopt the format of the other sub-categories of Category:Opposition to religion, which is "Anti-Foo". Please note that since there is no consensus for this particular name, editors should free to immediately nominate Category:Anti-Islam for renaming, whether on its own or as part of a wider group nomination to include,  etc. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Opposition to Islam to Category:Anti-Islam.


 * Propose deleting anti-islam


 * Nominator's rationale: Either "no such thing" (what is "an/the anti-islam"?) or needs some noun. A simple adjective or adjectival phrase is a bad name for a category. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Opposition to Islam. These two categories are impossible to distuinguish from one another, and adding category blurbs instructing that one or the other is to be interpreted as Islamophobia and discrimination, prejudice, etc. is nothing but terribly confusing (see talk page and edit history of both categories, i.e. opposition to islam). There is an existing hierarchy, Category:Opposition to religion, wherein Islam has its place along the other major world religions. If a subset is needed for particularly vile and unreasoned opposition (e.g. persecution), that might be created as long as it's not a re-creation of the recently deleted Category:Islamophobia. But first thing's first. Let's get rid of the nominated category. __meco (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Meco. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and Strong Merge "Category:Opposition to Islam" to "Category:anti-Islam." Look at Category:Opposition to religion and you'll find all the sub-categories starting with "anti". If we are to replace "anti" with "opposition" in the titles it has to be a global change in conjunction with the other religious categories. As there is no Category:Opposition to Christianity but only Category:anti-Christianity we should do the same with Islam. (See also Category:Opposition to Hinduism vs. Category:anti-Hinduism) Jason from nyc (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Those others really should be renamed. But it needs to start somewhere. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, they, too, should be renamed. There is no such religion as "anti-Christianity" and I've never heard of anybody who says "I'm an anti-Buddhist". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What we do have that has historical merit that I know of are anti-Masonry and anti-Mormonism. __meco (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points. I'm less concerned with the name; I'm more concerned with the merge. As an amusing note, anti-Christianity shouldn't be confused with a supporter of the anti-Christ. Perhaps "anti" is indeed too strong for the general categories. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps when it comes to these names we should be anti-anti. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is in line with the naming of the similar categories for other religions. I'm open to a general renaming, but until then we should try to keep the category names consistent. Also please note that Category:Opposition to Islam is intended as a non-offensive (but obviously very confusing) replacement for Category:Islamophobia so they should obviously not be merged. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Intended? By whom? __meco (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read Deletion review/Log/2012 August 11, " Note that the outcome of the CFD was a rename of categories, not a pure deletion.". // Liftarn (talk)
 * Rename, but to what? It would have to be to something that conveys the appropriate meaning, not simply usurping neutral terms which has been attempted with the present category as well as Category:Opposition to Islam, as the edit histories of these two categories shows without the shadow of a doubt. __meco (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. Originally it was called islamophobia, but since not all islamophobes embrace the term I guess it's out of the question. Something like "anti-Muslim sentiment" could work. It shows the distinction from being against Islam, but is still neutral enough to be accepted. // Liftarn (talk)


 * Keep. I agree that this should be merged with Category:Opposition to Islam, but I think 'Anti-Islam' is the better title and the merge should be in the opposite direction: that category should be merged into this one. Whichever way it goes though, we don't need both categories. The description text on Category:Opposition to Islam attempts to separate them by stating that that category is for 'prejudice or racism against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims', while this one is for 'non-racist criticism of the religion of Islam'. But I think that's splitting hairs, or at least making a distinction that's too subjective for the blunt tool of categories: there's no objective way of determining whether a particular manifestation of anti-Islam behaviour was motivated by racism or not. Robofish (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why we base it on what reliable sources say. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Delete the category claims that the Spanish inquistion is "anti-Islam". This seems odd when it focused more of its energies on crypto-Jews than Muslims.  This is functioning as a super container category to link things which really are only vaguely related.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment if you want to suggest a merger, you should nominate the potentially merged category pages to allert people to the fact that they are under discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I've never seen that practiced before. Is that common? (Never mind, for now, whether it would be useful). __meco (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment When a page is being merged into another page, that page is usually tagged. Since above people have suggested merging pages into this page, it seems that such mergers should be tagged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2012 (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:Red Wanting Blue

 * 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 via author's concurrance (G7). The Bushranger One ping only 21:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting red wanting blue


 * Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a band with no albums articles, no songs articles and no band member articles. Definitely fails WP:OC and WP:SMALLCAT. Pichpich (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I am the creator. I created it in error while trying to create a Wikimedia category. I tried to delete it but couldn't (evidently). Fine with me. If more articles eventually emerge it can be recreated at that time. Smm201`0 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs about 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting songs about films


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information amongst other guidelines. Three members, two are parodies (by Yankovic) and the third references a film as a motif to a breakup. The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.
 * It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at Category:Lists of novels.Richhoncho (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a very useful way of categorising songs; these songs have essentially nothing in common with each other except in the loosest sense. Robofish (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this strikes me as a classic example of indiscriminate knowledge gathering.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2012 (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:Ambassadors of France to countries in Africa

 * 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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Ambassadors of France to countries in Africa to Category:Ambassadors of France
 * Propose merging Category:Ambassadors of France to countries in Asia to Category:Ambassadors of France
 * Propose merging Category:Ambassadors of France to countries in North America to Category:Ambassadors of France
 * Propose merging Category:Ambassadors of France to countries in South America to Category:Ambassadors of France
 * Nominator's rationale: I should really have nominated these with Category:Ambassadors of France to European countries which was discussed recently and merged to Category:Ambassadors of France. In any case, the rationale for merging is the same: I don't see much benefit in isolating the Ambassadors per continent especially since there are (if my count is correct) less than 50 national subcategories, i.e. categories of the form Category:Ambassadors of France to Fooland. Pichpich (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy merge per C2C - non-standard breakouts that should be noncontroversially merged. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:00, 4 September 2012 (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:People from Sandy, Oregon
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Sandy, Oregon to Category:People from Clackamas County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Sweet Home, Oregon to Category:People from Linn County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Selma, Oregon to Category:People from Josephine County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Phoenix, Oregon to Category:People from Jackson County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Powell Butte, Oregon to Category:People from Crook County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Rogue River, Oregon to Category:People from Jackson County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Merlin, Oregon to Category:People from Josephine County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Canyonville, Oregon to Category:People from Douglas County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Eagle Point, Oregon to Category:People from Jackson County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Estacada, Oregon to Category:People from Clackamas County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Gladstone, Oregon to Category:People from Clackamas County, Oregon
 * Propose merging Category:People from Merrill, Oregon to Category:People from Klamath County, Oregon
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT All have four or less entries ...William 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The policy cited is for categories with no potential for growth; these categories may certainly grow as additional bios are expanded. Additionally, having four or even three members of a category seems robust enough even without growth. --Esprqii (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they probably won't grow. WP:COMMONSENSE - if a town is below a certain size there are not likely to be many bios from it. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support all except Rogue River and Estacada. Four is enough, I think, but those three and down should be merged. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To complicate matters, the Rogue River one is down to three because one article made no mention of the town. Pichpich (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support at least for the most obvious cases. It's a little hard to draw a line but certainly those with only one or two articles should be upmerged. I would prefer merging all of them but if there's a consensus to spare the ones with three or four biographies, I'll go along. Pichpich (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge all per nominator. Categories are primarily a navigational device, and splitting up a category into lots of small sub-cats like these impedes navigation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge all per nominator. Oculi (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2012 (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:Gary Johnson
<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: no consensus, defaulting to keep. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting gary johnson


 * Nominator's rationale: Only four articles (one about his political positions could be added as well), but easily navigable through a footer. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep Discouraged doesn't mean forbidden. The argument about navigating via a footer fails WP:CLN which supports navigation via multiple methods.  Lugnuts  And the horse 18:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OC - this category is not needed at this time. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there are three articles primarily about this person, and the other two currently in the category have a strong enough connection to stay. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- There is just enough to warrant having a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough subarticles to warrant an eponymous category. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. There are enough articles for this category.--TM 16:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete to small to justify an eponymous category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep - borderline case, but I think there are enough articles here to support a category. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2012 (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:Doctor Who companion media
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Works about Doctor Who. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Doctor Who companion media to Category:Doctor Who
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no explanation of what is meant by "companion media" and there are no other parents of this category. Tim! (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Rename to Category:Doctor Who media. I don't see a reason to split out the companion associated media at this time.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to . The term "companion media" is used here in the sense of "associated products", not in the sense of "media concerning Doctor Who's companions". -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to . I would have fallen for the same misunderstanding as Vegaswikian. I don't support, as books & TV series are "media" but clearly they are primary sub-topics here and should not be moved lower down the hierarchy. I don't know of a very clear precedent for this sort of thing; Trekkies have Category:Star Trek in other media but that's not quite right either. It's spin-off media, but we can't use that term because it's not media about the spinoff series from Doctor Who! The strong point of Tim's original suggestion is that this is a sub-cat for "other media", and we don't do categories for "other"; but it's well-enough populated to separate it from the top category, and I think using "DW-related media" might just work. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Works about Doctor Who, per Category:Works about television (Dalekmania is already there), and a plethora of other examples under Category:Works about the arts. If necessary, add (franchise) for further disambiguation. - jc37 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Works about Doctor Who. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Works about Doctor Who, that's a better idea. It should then become a sub-cat of Category:Works about television, and pages about in-universe media can be recategorised, e.g. in . – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a further consensus at the proper rename target. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Comment. My opinion at this time is that there is clear consensus to keep this as a subcategory.  I made an early suggestion.  However I am not stuck with that name.  If there is a better name, I will accept the closers choice. I don't see the different opinions on a name as a reason for the closer to not pick one. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Works about Doctor Who, per the arguments above. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2012 (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:Glee (TV series) music
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename  to Category:Glee (TV series) albums. No consensus on whether to have a separate category for songs. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Glee (TV series) music to Category:Glee (TV series) albums and possibly split further
 * Nominator's rationale: It is unclear to me that we should have a category that attempts to have all the music from Glee in it. Clearly, an album category is warranted. There's probably a value to a category that contains song lists and original songs like "Get It Right." But I can't see a reason to have "Don't Stop Believin'" in this category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I frankly don't see the purpose in changing the category. The obvious reason to having "Don't Stop Believin' in the category is that the Glee version of the song went Platinum: it's the biggest seller of any Glee single, and it's something of an anthem for the show. To structure the categories so it can't be included would seem to subvert the entire purpose of having categories. (I don't believe "Cry" needs to included, but that's neither here nor there.) If the category changes to albums only, it orphans the song lists and the three original songs, and possibly the EPs as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – treat the show like a band and split into Category:Glee (TV series) albums and Category:Glee (TV series) songs (ie songs recorded by Glee). Could retain Category:Glee (TV series) music as a container cat. Oculi (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, and per other subcats of Category:Television soundtracks. We don't categorise songs by what show they may appear in, any more than we do actors. See also cover version and cover band. - jc37 20:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a different case, as a few songs have been originated by the show, charted, and in one case became a Gold record. If the albums are worth categorizing, then the original songs certainly are, and perhaps those few significant other ones (Platinum or Gold records) as well. I agree that the simple act of a cover and Hot 100 charting is not appropriate usage of categories, given that Glee has over 200 at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2012 (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:Monorchid people
<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, there really is no point in dragging out this series of discussions further. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting monorchid people


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a category of people who have only one testicle. I don't think that's a worthwhile means of categorizing people. There are certainly BLP concerns here. We already have Category:Testicular cancer survivors, which would cover a lot of the same ground. Zagal e jo^^^ 03:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * SEE ALSO: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_7 Frank  &#124;  talk  13:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * KeepThis category complements Category:Castrated people, the existence of which also serves as justifying precedent and destroys the suggestion that 'BLP concerns' are incapable of being addressed. It is distinguished from the subject matter of cancer by causes arising from injury and from cryptorchidism.114.73.68.157 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a huge difference between castration and this. Ask any eunuch. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite so, which is why it demands its own category of recognition, distinct from Category:Amputees and the one you have mentioned. To get rid of categories sends the wrong message of amputees, monorchids, castrated people, etc being not acknowledged, not counted, and not respected for their relative uniqueness and achievement of notabilityOxycut (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it's not a soapbox, and it's not a place to "acknowledge" or "count" somebody for being unique. Categories are for things that are defining. This is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you would talk about respect, yet describe monorchid people as "soloballers" which hardly sounds respectful. Pichpich (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How's that disrespectful? I've ridden on a unicycle and never objected to being identified as a solowheeler. Offhand, informal or evocative terminology isn't an attempt to insult but it can aid identification and means of understanding for the uninitiated, that's all.Oxycut (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately he's dead but I would just like to imagine Bruce Lee's reaction when you come up to him and say "wazzup soloballer!". But to get back to the point, if you can't see how "soloballer" is wildly inappropriate, I'm not sure I can continue this conversation. Pichpich (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bruce Lee gets even greater respect because of what he did, he did as a solo. Involvement in combat sports puts one at risk of going from a duo to a solo, and the fact of a person being solo is not just trivia. It's a risk factor which is the enhansed risk of going from a solo to a nil. If you don't acknowledge Bruce's status as solo, it's a diminishment of the full developed character of his personhood and of the fullness of his achievement. That goes for any solo. What it bespeaks us to avoid is duonormativity and solo-erasure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...welp. That pretty much says it all, I think... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Hitler only had one ball, but we don't need to be categorising people by this . - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We categorise Gambian amputees. There is a greater diversity of monorchids than there are of those.Oxycut (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, being an amputee is defining. Lacking a testicle is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't distort this. It's about having a testicle, and that clearly defines the individual as a male. Where is this criteria of 'defining' pulled from? George W Bush has more than 50 categories and only one is his defining characteristic that he's been US President.Oxycut (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet we don't have Category:People who are male, interesting that. Also you're still making WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - if there is any "distorting" it's coming from you. You are not helping your case here - you're only hurting it. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You just made an OTHERSTUFF argument about nonexistence of a category, without acknowledging that we indeed have male catgories for dancers, actors, comedians, athletes, etc . We have Category:Tang Dynasty eunuchs. The issue of the testicle is not seen to be irrelevant, but strangely the standards are changed when the count is not as many as two and not as few as zero.Oxycut (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's not clear the category serves any purpose other than trivia. WP:BLPCAT applies, I think, in that just because someone has this condition doesn't mean it is relevant to their notability. No, it's not a religious belief or sexual orientation, but...it also isn't necessarily related to notability either. Frank  &#124;  talk  21:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The category demonstrates the diversity of the monorchid community: a head of state, a cycling legend, an acclaimed actor, a behavioural exemplar/role model, etc
 * You know, if you're going to call Hitler a role model, I'm not even going to bother responding to your other arguments. Zagal e jo^^^ 22:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then count him as another head of state along with the martial artist, sportspeole, Senator, Opposition Leader &c that are in the groupOxycut (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as being intrinsically a contentious categorization for which strong sourcing would be absolutely required, and is absent. Collect (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sourcing that is required is present here.Oxycut (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete typically, this is not a defining characteristic. It should be easy to understand that having only one leg often defines part of your life whereas having only one testicle (or one kidney for that matter) typically does not. Pichpich (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you admit, then, that its even mentioned (not as trivia) that Kerry Packer went solokidney and Senator Frank Church went soloball. It's a big thing in a person's life and it can make the front page of the newspaper.Oxycut (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no such terms as "solokidney" and "soloball". Please see WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. As for those things, there is a difference between worthy of mention and notable for/defining. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCAT admits things "relevant to [a person's] public life or notability" under a standard of "public self-identification" when it comes to religious adherence and sexuality — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Bingo... - The Bushranger One ping only 05:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – not a defining characteristic, per Pichpich. Oculi (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I hear what you're saying however we do have Category:Quadruple amputees etc, which destroys any logic that the practice here has been per your preference. What are your alternative and compromise suggestions in light of that?Oxycut (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also being a quadruple amputee is immediately defining and an obvious disability. Having a single testicle is only something people know about if you tell them or they're your spouse. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Take the example of Lance Armstrong. It's not -defining- that he fits within Category:People from Plano, Texas because he's also categorised as being from two other places. Him being in Category:American adoptees also in no way establishes his notability to have an article here. Him being a duo who got to place sixth at the Olympics in 1996 when aged 25 is not even half his story. The larger part is how he became solo and then achieved his greatest victories and then established the Lance Armstrong Foundation which supports other solos. It's not trivia. In many public talks he has owned up to his solo status as a key part of his inspirational tale. Oxycut (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet for some reason, Lance Armstrong's introduces himself as "I'm Lance Armstrong and I'm a cancer survivor" not "I'm Lance Armstrong and I only have one testicle". (and I'm pretty sure he rarely says "I'm Lance Armstrong and I'm a soloballer"). Actually if you can find the words "we support solos" or "we support soloballers" anywhere in the publications of the Lance Armstrong Foundation (which by the way is not focused on testicular cancer only), I promise to reconsider. Frankly you're just trolling at this stage. Pichpich (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefacing an interview he gave: "Armstrong underwent two surgeries, one to remove his cancerous testicle and another to remove two cancerous lesions on his brain". Presuming the upholding of medical confidentiality, it should be understand that the man himself is the source of such informationOxycut (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet it is not defining. Also, I concur with Pichpich's assessment and will be responding no further here. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete—As I have stated in the Sept. 7 discussion on the duplicate Category:Monorchism: "The fact that various men have been born with a single testicle, had one surgically excised for a variety of reasons (torsion, agenesis, herniae, etc.), or suffered scrotal trauma is not defining for those men. The strong BLP issues and RS issues associated with these three categories add additional problems." Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: Oxycut has now been indef blocked for trolling. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Non-defining.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2012 (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.