Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 25



Category:Standard gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom

 * 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 as proposed (no hyphen). -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Standard gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom to Category:Standard gauge locomotives of Great Britain
 * Nominator's rationale: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not have a "standard gauge". GB uses the very common 4'8 1/2" standard gauge, but Ireland, both North and South, uses the Irish broad gauge instead. Like most railway categories, this is better structured around "GB" as the geographic term, not "UK". See the existing and long-established Category:Locomotives of Great Britain et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further discussion is needed related to the hyphen.
 * Support Sure, I missed the other discussion, and the reasoning is sensible. I would support a speedy rename in this case. Slambo (Speak)  15:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just came across an exception to the rule for Ireland: Hibernia (locomotive). As noted on the railway company's page, the D&KR was built to standard gauge in the 1830s and then regauged to Irish gauge in the 1850s, which would lead me to believe that there were other locomotives and rolling stock classes that were also built to standard gauge for Ireland. So I retract the speedy support, and I'm starting to question if the name change is really appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- This is clearly a case where GB is the appropriate country name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with correction: It should be Category:Standard-gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom; hyphenate compound modifiers. Adding this hyphen is a routine speedy CfR rationale, so just get it right the first time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The phrase "standard gauge" is not normally presented with a hyphen and is in widespread use in the industry without a hyphen (examples include:, , ,  and ), so I would oppose using a hyphen in the renamed category. Slambo (Speak)  13:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The reason that his has been relisted is a pedantic issue over hyphenation. The hyphen is technically correct, but unusual.  Category:Standard gauge locomotives of Great Britain is perfectly acceptable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think now that we're a few weeks after the relisting, it is safe to close this discussion, but as I am involved in the discussion another admin should do it. I've been waiting to recategorize a large number of articles in the parent category that would fit into this target category because of this discussion. Slambo (Speak)  14:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support without the hyphen per the normal use of the term. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2016 (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:Electric cooperatives

 * 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.

to Category:Energy cooperatives in the United States (new) and Category:Power companies of the United States (deferred PanchoS (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC))
 * The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging:
 * Category:Electric cooperatives to Category:Energy cooperatives and Category:Electric power companies
 * Category:Electric cooperatives of the United States with Category:Electric generation and transmission cooperatives in the United States
 * Category:Electric cooperatives of Minnesota‎ to Category:Energy cooperatives in the United States (see above), Category:Companies based in Minnesota and Category:Energy in Minnesota
 * Nominator's rationale: It seems most energy cooperatives produce electric power, mostly from renewable sources, while at least Elektra Birseck Münchenstein is also involved in District heating. All in all, at this point it seems we should subdivide these articles by country rather than by energy type. Articles may be additionally categorized by the type of energy they produce or the energy sources they are using, but this category scheme is about the company structure. U.S. states however seem to be too fine grained at the moment. --PanchoS (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Alt rename Category:Electric cooperatives of Minnesota to Category:Utility cooperatives in Minnesota, Category:Electric cooperatives of the United States and Category:Energy in Minnesota. Keep the rest. There's an existing category scheme at Category:Utility cooperatives that perfectly fits both member articles. --PanchoS (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merging US Category/Support Upmerging Minnesota but to different target/Would Also Upmerge "generation & transmission"/Neutral on parent The electric cooperatives in the US were mostly created during the Great Depression as a result of the Rural Electrification Act. Like most electric utilities in the US, they have only recently focused on renewable non-hydro energy and they are overwhelmingly electric focused.
 * Minnesota is too small of a category and should be upmerged but to Category:Electric generation and transmission cooperatives in the United States probably came about because cooperatives are exempt from the separation of transmission and generation with deregulation but that names is too long. I'm not familiar with the international cooperatives so I'll defer to other editors there. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we have any potential common ground here? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe my nomination is trying to do too many things at once. We seem to be agreeing on the Minnesota category, so let's check that one off. The rest needs further considerations, so I'm withdrawing the other ones. --PanchoS (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually we should restart this nomination altogether.
 * That's a good find. By my count, Category:Utility cooperatives has 68 Electric and 4 telephone articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, "electric cooperatives" is a widely used term and concept with a long history, while "utility cooperatives" isn't. I'm even unsure if "Cooperative utilities" wouldn't be the better name for the latter. Therefore I agree with you we should refine categorization for these per-state categories rather than upmerging them to "utility cooperatives". At the same time, I checked the member directory of NRECA and it seems that for most states (except New England and California), there should be a sufficient number of electric cooperatives, plus at least 200+ historic ones, so with some more coverage, a complete per-state breakdown should be viable. There are also 66 Electric generation and transmission cooperatives in the US, so no need to upmerge that one either. In the end, it all comes down to renaming the individual per-state categories, but that's a completely different endeavour to the original nomination, so I'm withdrawing this nomination here. --PanchoS (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4th Proposal
 * Category:Utility cooperatives
 * Current loose articles (mostly phone companies)
 * Category:Electric cooperatives (This would also have it's other current parents)
 * Current loose articles
 * Category:Electric cooperatives of the United States
 * Upmerge Category:Electric cooperatives of Minnesota (less than 5 articles)
 * Upmerge Category:Electric generation and transmission cooperatives in the United States (redundant and too wordy)
 * Rename/Reparent Category:Utility cooperatives in Arkansas, Category:Utility cooperatives in North Dakota and Category:Utility cooperatives in Texas to "Category:Electric cooperatives of..." and moved under Category:Electric cooperatives of the United States
 * Merge all other subcategories of Category:Utility cooperatives (Small and all electric)
 * Current loose articles
 * RevelationDirect (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Venue We should probably move this conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy since we're pushing the bounds of CFD. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your input!


 * 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:Seattle restaurateurs

 * 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: double merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Seattle restaurateurs into Category:Businesspeople from Seattle
 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategorization. Has just three entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile the number is five, but I think this is still too narrow categorization. Also merge to Category:American restaurateurs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2016 (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:Taxation collaboration candidates

 * 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 (closing two simultaniously). From reading Fayenatic london's comment, it seems the only way to delete these categories is via a group nomination of all categories that use the aforementioned parameter. No prejudice against a new discussion that incorporates all these categories. -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting taxation collaboration candidates


 * Nominator's rationale: The only page in this category is there because it was a candidate for collaboration in 2009 by a collaboration that went inactive in 2009 (note: strangely, this category was created in 2016). DexDor(talk) 21:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Admin note: I think the only way to empty these categories is to remove the COTM (collaboration of the month) parameter from the WikiProject banner. This parameter seems to call Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/collaboration, which probably shouldn't be changed unless there are no other such categories left, and this search finds 25: Special:Search/Category:Collaboration_candidates – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:55, 3 August 2016 (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:Aviation collaboration candidates

 * 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 (closing two simultaniously). From reading Fayenatic london's comment, it seems the only way to delete these categories is via a group nomination of all categories that use the aforementioned parameter. No prejudice against a new discussion that incorporates all these categories. -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting aviation collaboration candidates


 * Propose deleting Category:Past aviation collaborations
 * Nominator's rationale: That a page was (a candidate for) a collaboration (sometime before 2008 when WikiProject Aviation/Collaboration became inactive) is hardly a characteristic that needs a category. It's just adding to an unnecessarily bloated category structure and long lists of categories on talk pages DexDor(talk) 21:18, 25 July 2016 (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:Terrorist incidents by target

 * 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. -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Terrorist incidents by target to Category:Attacks by target
 * Nominator's rationale: Not all subcategories related to the terror, but all are the attacks. 95.133.149.157 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, to better accommodate the content, though "attacks" is very ambiguous. --PanchoS (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Split, not rename, as the terrorist incident sub-cats should stay within Category:Terrorist incidents. The proposed target name could become a new parent of this one, within Category:Attacks. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per previous comments. If I'm correct, User:Fayenatic london's alternative isn't that different from the original nomination. The split alternative is equivalent to renaming as proposed + reparenting the nominated category to Category:Attacks (instead of Category:Terrorist incidents) + adding Category:Terrorist incidents as a parent to Category:Terrorist incidents against transport. That seems all perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's odd, I thought I saw multiple sub-cats in here that began with "Terrorist incidents...". I agree that we don't need to keep the nominated category if it only has one sub-cat named in that form. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so, too. Didn't check any of them, but in the meantime, some categories might have been recategorized or split. But in the end, a rename doesn't preclude a later split, which I'm not opposed to. I'm not even a big fan of the "attacks" scheme, but it would simply be incorrect to have non-terrorist attacks in a terrorist attacks category. The proposed rename simply aims to fix this urgent problem ASAP, while deferring deeper changes to future nominations. PanchoS (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, here they are. In both cases I think it's OK to leave them only in the sub-cat Category:Terrorist incidents against transport; so we don't need to keep the nominated category. even though these edits are justifiable, it would be helpful if you would leave an informative note when removing contents from a category that is subject to a current CfD discussion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I hadn't realized it would lead to this amount of confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:46, 3 August 2016 (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:N.W Letlalo Street.

 * 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: procedural close, category has already been deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting n.w letlalo street.


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty category that was created as a mistake. — swpb T 18:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Since you recently created this, any administrator can delete it for you. It doesn't need to come her to CfD. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted per WP:CSD. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:35, 26 July 2016 (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:Greenlandic political party stubs

 * 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 category and upmerge template. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting greenlandic political party stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Less than 20 total articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category at this point.  Delete category and upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Greenland politics stubs. The northern European cat is incorrect and may derive from Greenland's status as a Danish possession.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2016 (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:Anarchism by form

 * 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: renamed to Option A. -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Anarchism by form to Category:Anarchist schools of thought
 * Category:Anarchists by form to a) Category:Anarchists by school of thought or b) Category:Anarchists by orientation
 * Nominator's rationale: As previously raised on Category talk:Anarchism by form, "by form" is a weird way of referring to anarchist schools of thought. "Genre", "style" or "thread", as proposed there, however don't convince me either. Unless someone comes up with a better proposal, we should follow the main article. The "anarchists" subcategory may be either accordingly renamed (a), or it may follow (b). I'm unsure which is better. --PanchoS (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support (lean toward option A). Matches the main article and much clearer than "by form" RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Qualified support -- The present names will not do. The Anarchist nom looks OK, but the sub-categorisation of Anarchists is not necessarily by school of thought, possibly Category:Anarchists by type would be clearer.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename, either both by schools of thought, or both by type. If renamed by schools of thought, some subcategories like Category:Crypto-anarchists have to be reparented to Category:Anarchists which wouldn't be a bad move anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2016 (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:93s BC conflicts
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 93s bc conflicts


 * Nominator's rationale: Too specific to likely be populated with anything else. — swpb T 14:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:90s BC conflicts. Even with that, we will still have only 2 categories, so further upmerge may be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per JPL. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PLain delete -- The name is a typo (and is a cat-redirect to Category:93 BC conflicts. However JPL & RevDir have a point.  Category:93 BC has births, deaths, and conflicts subcats, each with one article.  This needs to be dealt with as part of a much wider upmerge of small categories for ancient periods.  Someone was working on that a few months ago, but gave up at about 4th century BC.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * the births, deaths, crimes and some other BC categories were upmerged last year at a series of CfDs, but the former were in breach of WP:Categorization of people. It went to DRV, then there was an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people, after which the births and deaths categories were painstakingly reinstated. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just delete the misnamed redirect: this was plainly misnamed, and has already been moved. Don't merge this alone, as other decades have a full set of year categories, e.g. Category:80s BC conflicts. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:51, 1 August 2016 (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:Acanthodii stubs
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting acanthodii stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Pretty much all articles tagged and still only 14 total. Propose upmerging tempalte and deleting category. Dawynn (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is an unusual case. List of acanthodians has a long list of red links for potential articles on 107 genera.  The problem is that most of these have not even reached the stage of becoming articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Stub categories are for existing stubs. Upmerging the template and waiting for 60 stubs to recreate this category is the typical thing to do when we're so far away from enough articles. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Prehistoric fish stubs and redirect the template. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:56, 4 August 2016 (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:Energy producers
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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: procedural close, categories have already been deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting energy producers


 * Propose deleting Category:Energy Producers
 * Nominator's rationale: Newly created category with only one entry. Does not needed for the category tree of energy companies, no clear criteria for inclusion. Beagel (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. The single member article doesn't even produce energy, so I tagged both categories for speedy deletion. --PanchoS (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete -- Now empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Category:Songs written by Courtney Harrell
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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: relisted here. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting songs written by courtney harrell


 * Nominator's rationale: No article on category subject, see no reason to have a cat on their works. MSJapan (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The songwriter(s) are a defining attribute of the song, that is not dependent whether the songwriter is notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Every single one of her five songs is written by at least one other person who is not the artist performing the song, so I have a real issue with saying "the fact that Courtney Harrell wrote this song is a defining feature of this song." There's got to be some sort of lower limit where this becomes WP:TRIVIA. I'd also note WP:NONDEF as "something we wouldn't mention in the lede or is not mentioned often in sources" also fits here. MSJapan (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per MSJapan. This writer has a page at AllMusic and Discogs, but I can't find any sources that might allow us to create an article about her. IMHO, co-writing songs as one of many does not confer sufficient notability to make that contribution defining. Her self-promotional page  highlights three songs, none of which have not achieved articles in Wikipedia (e.g. theme single from Think Like a Man); although she claims "Grammy honors", this is only for contributing to the writing of one song on F.A.M.E. (album), and not the one which won "Best Song". The best that I can find is this for the Kelly Rowland song "You Changed", but it has no article and I can't see a way to work that citation into the article on the album. Having a category seems in effect promotional (but I do not denigrate the good faith work of Richhoncho, who created it).  – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


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

Category:Songs written by Clarence Coffee Jr.
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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. Reasonable arguments for and against, but there's clearly no consensus to delete. It's worth noting that we typically do categorize by songwriters, so this would be an exception if deleted. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting songs written by clarence coffee jr.


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, WP:TRIVIAL. We don't have an article on the subject of the category, so I don't see why we need the cat. MSJapan (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The songwriter(s) are a defining attribute of the song, that is not dependent whether the songwriter is notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I agree with Richhoncho up to a point, but Fun (Pitbull song) is attributed in the infobox to 9 writers; moreover none is mentioned in the text. We don't know what CC Jr contributed. Oculi (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I take Occuli's point, but Coffee is credited as a songwriter irrespective of any amount of contribution - and he could have made a major contribution, or hardly anything at all - as some so called "singer-songwriters" do (not mentioning any names!), but are included in the songwriter categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps, with the level of contribution being "undefinable", the songwriter is maybe not a defining characteristic after all? I'd also note WP:NONDEF as "something we wouldn't mention in the lede or is not mentioned often in sources" also fits here. MSJapan (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Semantics. It is defined that Coffee contributed to the writing of the song. As soon as two or more people write a song together we have no idea or concept of who wrote what. Are you now suggesting that co-written songs should not be defined by their songwriters? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The article on the songwriting/production team The Monsters and the Strangerz does at least contain minimal biographical details about this writer, and this makes it worth having the category as an aid to navigation. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:54, 3 August 2016 (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:Fictional victims of motor vehicle accidents
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting fictional victims of motor vehicle accidents


 * Nominator's rationale: That a fictional character has been in a car accident is generally a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic - many fictional characters have hundreds of things happen to them. Note: the category text is "This category refers to fictional characters that are victims of a motor vehicle accident and may or may not have suffered minor or serious injuries and disfigurments or had died from the accident." and the category has been created with no parent categories. DexDor(talk) 05:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-defining trait <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 06:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — swpb T 14:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete With the amount of counter and ever expanding developments seen in comic book characters and characters from folklore among others, this has potential to be trivial. Even a character who has a defining loss of limb, limp, no use of legs, in a wheel chair as a result of an auto accident, may in some cases in one story line/type of media appearance have that as the back story, and in another a different backstory to explain this defining condition that does not involve an automobile at all. In fact with how some characters get reset in time, I would not be surprised if we could find a fictional character who is in a wheel chair in one story because they were in an auto accident and in another story because they were in a carriage or horse drawn coach accident.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  21:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Mr. Toad wasn't in it! He is now. Talk about notable. It also has parent categories. Poop-poop! – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:26, 1 August 2016 (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 military personnel by state
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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: inconclusive. To satisfy those wanting consistency (myself included), I'm going to renominate these in the "Option A/B" format so we can hopefully get consensus to either move the other states to this format or these states to the other format. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum: That discussion is located at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 14. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Military personnel from Connecticut to Category:American military personnel from Connecticut
 * Category:Military personnel from New York to Category:American military personnel from New York
 * Category:Military personnel from New York City to Category:American military personnel from New York City
 * Category:Military personnel from Oregon to Category:American military personnel from Oregon
 * Category:California military personnel to Category:American military personnel from California
 * Category:United States military veterans from Indiana to Category:American military personnel from Indiana
 * Nominator's rationale: :to match the parent category Category:American military personnel by state and the five subcategories for the states of Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, West Virginia and Wisconsin (why not for more states?). Some personnel in the California and New York City categories are not American military personnel, so will need to be moved. Hugo999 (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Also a useful new category would be Category:20th-century American military personnel, to match Category:20th-century French military personnel etc, and so that the category Category:American military personnel of the Korean War is no longer a subcategory of Category:20th-century United States government officials. Likewise for other centuries. Hugo999 (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC) This now done Hugo999 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - I got a talk page ping. I don't think I have an history with these categories, but these renames make a lot of sense. Fences  &amp;  Windows  07:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to target in general, and only include those who served in the US military, not those born in Missouri, who went to England and joined the RAF or to France to join the French Foreign Legion. I do also think NYC is a step too far, and so think that we should upmerge that to the New York cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge all to US military category. With how the US military is shuffled between locations, place of origin is non-defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: These categories are each part of a state category for people originating from that state (which does not track subsequent movements) : People from Foo by occupation Hugo999 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Hugo999: Categories of people by place should reflect notable residence, not necessarily place of birth or origin—see Categorization of people. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To include in discussion Category:Montana military personnel to Category:American military personnel from Montana; also add other parent categories and move Kuilix elsewhere Hugo999 (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename all as nominated, to conform to the parents Category:American military personnel and Category:People from [U.S. state]. I agree with Johnpacklambert that this triple-intersection of nationality, occupation, and place is non-defining. However, since some of the nominated categories have multiple subcategories (especially Connecticut and Indiana), we first need to figure out where the subcategories would go (or, for that matter, if they should be deleted or kept). -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it is proposed to upmerge the categories for Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, West Virginia and Wisconsin the creators of those "by state" categories will have to be advised and a notice put on the category, as I did not include them originally. And should all the other categories have a new notice to indicate that upmerging rather than renaming is now proposed? Hugo999 (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose; if they are from Connecticut, etc, it can generally be assumed that they are American. We don't have e.g., just . If the intention is to restrict it to members of the US military as in JPL's deleted comment, it wouldn't be clear enough from this name, but I would oppose that anyway. Even if there are a few such exceptional cases, the fit is close enough under the WP:SUBCAT rule to stay as a subcat of American military personnel. Rename , Michigan and Minnesota instead. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, adding "American" is unnecessary when it concerns American states. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The category Category:Military personnel from New York City includes a New York-born British Army general and loyalist. Five of the subcategories of Category:American military personnel by state start with "American"; Category:American military personnel from Maryland, Category:American military personnel from Michigan, Category:American military personnel from Minnesota, Category:American military personnel from West Virginia, Category:American military personnel from Wisconsin, hence C2C. Hugo999 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral Leaving it as Military Personnel from Connecticut or changing it to American Military Personnel From Connecticut does not matter to me.  Just ensure there is a unique category to identify military personnel from the state.  It is very helpful in researching military history from my state. Hobbamock (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2016 (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:2115 films
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 or merge, in any case the category had been emptied already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-closure note: the member was 100 Years (film). See Template talk:Film date for follow-up. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose discussing 2115 films


 * Nominator's rationale: What do users make of this? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The film was made in 2015. Just because the current plans call for it not being released for 100 years does not change the fact that it is a work of 2015, not 2115.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the scheme a categorization by creation date or release date? I always thought it was the latter. That said, categorizing for a release date 99 years in the future seems a bit too much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The film should (perhaps) be in the category Category:Films set in the 2110s Hugo999 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment All films are put in the category of year of release, regardless of when the film was actually made. For example, films that are first released on New Year's Day are obviously made the previous year, but we'll cat them in the year it was screened. For this one, it would be a good idea to remove the film date template in the infobox (this drives the category) and simply leave it in the upcoming films category. Then recreate the category in approx. 96/97 years from now...  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A huge meteorite is expected to strike the Earth in 2106, potentially wiping out humanity, so having a category for film releases in 2115 is jumping the gun. Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to . I've always opposed categorizing by any future release date, which is WP:CRYSTALBALL not only in this particular case. --PanchoS (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to . The one film has been made, but is locked in a safe, with a view to it being released in 2115.  Whether it will be is pure WP:CRYSTAL.  If the category is being driven by a template, then the template needs amending; or perhaps remote categories need salting to prevent creation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to . In this case the film has been created, it has not been released, and it is rather unlikely to ever be released. We can generally place some belief in release schedules covering the next year or two. Not the next century. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2016 (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:Fictional wealthy characters
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 and salt. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting fictional wealthy characters


 * Nominator's rationale: The similarly named Category:Wealthy fictional characters was deleted in 2006, then again in 2007, and endorsed at DRV. I'm only bring it here instead of speedily deleting it under G4 because of the time frame involved since the last discussion on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete the term "wealthy" is just too undefined to work here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per previous discussions, and the criteria for "wealthy" is unclear in this instance <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 13:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent and per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2016 (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.