Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 29: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Otto4711 (talk | contribs)
59,599 edits
Line 93: Line 93:
:*You've made a great argument for the notability of the ''cemetery''. What you have once again failed to do, as you ''always'' fail to do, is grasp that ''notability is not the standard for categorization''. You keep addressing an argument that at its core has nothing to do with the actual discussion. I asked you once if you would advise how many times it will take repeating before you understand the difference between notability and definingness before you would grasp it. Obviously we have yet yo reach that threshold number. The notion that my comments can legitimately be paraphrased as an argument that the lack of a vampire is an argument against the notability of Abney Park or for the deletion of the category is so far beneath even your powers of argumentation that I'm amazed you even dared to try it. Perhaps the reason you're not going to respond to the possible lack of input of the deceased as to where they are buried is that every time it's been brought up in the past you've been unable to address it and your inability to address it continues here. As for this canard about what does or doesn't get included in a standard biography, all kinds of things get mentioned in standard biographies that we don't categorize for. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 05:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:*You've made a great argument for the notability of the ''cemetery''. What you have once again failed to do, as you ''always'' fail to do, is grasp that ''notability is not the standard for categorization''. You keep addressing an argument that at its core has nothing to do with the actual discussion. I asked you once if you would advise how many times it will take repeating before you understand the difference between notability and definingness before you would grasp it. Obviously we have yet yo reach that threshold number. The notion that my comments can legitimately be paraphrased as an argument that the lack of a vampire is an argument against the notability of Abney Park or for the deletion of the category is so far beneath even your powers of argumentation that I'm amazed you even dared to try it. Perhaps the reason you're not going to respond to the possible lack of input of the deceased as to where they are buried is that every time it's been brought up in the past you've been unable to address it and your inability to address it continues here. As for this canard about what does or doesn't get included in a standard biography, all kinds of things get mentioned in standard biographies that we don't categorize for. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 05:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::*First off, I will remind you that you were the one who brought up the issue of notability in pointing out that "There seems to be less such [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]] about Abney Park Cemetery", which is an argument for the lack of notability of the cemetery itself that could be directly cut-and-pasted to the AfD for the cemetery. Apparently a lack of a vampire also has something to do with why this category should be deleted, and I await your explanation of the relevance of this supernatural void in justifying the deletion of this category, especially with Halloween just a day away. I've already addressed the fact that burial location is a strong defining characteristic and that burial at Abney Park Cemetery is a stronger claim than most in terms of definingness. Huge numbers of people make rather specific plans for their burial, from the design of the coffin to the specific location within a cemetery where they want to be buried overlooking the babbling brook. Sure, there are people who have the decision made for them, but so what. There is no policy logic that requires an individual to play an active decision-making role in their place of burial or any other characteristic. We have probably thousands of articles in [[:Category:Prisoners and detainees]] and I know very few who have "chosen" to be a prisoner or detainee, let alone anyone at all who picked their own prison or the location of their cell. For that matter, we keep track of year of death, despite the fact that only suicides and perhaps execution victims have any role in deciding the year they die. No one decides their year of birth. Most people retain their birth religion, "imposed" on them with no choice. And we are discussing above a few dozen categories by race or ethnicity and I know of not a single person in the history of the world who has ever decided to join with the [[Crimean Tatars]], become a [[Dagestan]]i or sign up as a [[Sherpa]]. It would appear that the precedent that an individual need play no role in becoming part of a category is self-evident. Abney Park Cemetery is a burial location that has been deliberately selected, is a notable cemetery and a strong defining characteristic of the individuals buried there, regardless of their year of birth, year of death or whether or not they are a Sherpa. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 12:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::*First off, I will remind you that you were the one who brought up the issue of notability in pointing out that "There seems to be less such [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]] about Abney Park Cemetery", which is an argument for the lack of notability of the cemetery itself that could be directly cut-and-pasted to the AfD for the cemetery. Apparently a lack of a vampire also has something to do with why this category should be deleted, and I await your explanation of the relevance of this supernatural void in justifying the deletion of this category, especially with Halloween just a day away. I've already addressed the fact that burial location is a strong defining characteristic and that burial at Abney Park Cemetery is a stronger claim than most in terms of definingness. Huge numbers of people make rather specific plans for their burial, from the design of the coffin to the specific location within a cemetery where they want to be buried overlooking the babbling brook. Sure, there are people who have the decision made for them, but so what. There is no policy logic that requires an individual to play an active decision-making role in their place of burial or any other characteristic. We have probably thousands of articles in [[:Category:Prisoners and detainees]] and I know very few who have "chosen" to be a prisoner or detainee, let alone anyone at all who picked their own prison or the location of their cell. For that matter, we keep track of year of death, despite the fact that only suicides and perhaps execution victims have any role in deciding the year they die. No one decides their year of birth. Most people retain their birth religion, "imposed" on them with no choice. And we are discussing above a few dozen categories by race or ethnicity and I know of not a single person in the history of the world who has ever decided to join with the [[Crimean Tatars]], become a [[Dagestan]]i or sign up as a [[Sherpa]]. It would appear that the precedent that an individual need play no role in becoming part of a category is self-evident. Abney Park Cemetery is a burial location that has been deliberately selected, is a notable cemetery and a strong defining characteristic of the individuals buried there, regardless of their year of birth, year of death or whether or not they are a Sherpa. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 12:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::*Actually, no, I didn't bring up the notability argument. Ephebi did. My comment about the sourcing for Abney Park was incidental, since as I've pointed out time after ''time'' after '''time''' after '''''time''''' notability is not the standard for categorization. If you want to argue this bullshit ephemera and engage in your typical distortions, feel free to continue coming off like an ass. As for the remainder of your comments, per [[WP:WAX]] I find them as ridiculous as I always do, especially given that I have expressed any number of times that I believe that Wikipedia's mania for categorizing based on race and ethnicity is out of control. If you find such categories to be overcategorization, please feel free to nominate them for deletion. Otherwise, I wish that you and the other people who don't seem to understand that pointing at a category other than the one being discussed and whinging "what about ''this'' category? What about ''that'' one over there?" and expecting that it's suddenly going to be anything other than pointless would find something else to whinge about because the argument is tiresome. Yes, some people do make elaborate funeral plans. Some people don't have those funeral plans carried out by their next of kin or the State. So to add another stake through the heart of your argument (ooh, another vampire reference, go nuts!), what the notion of funeral plans comes down to is categorization by the prospective decendent's opinion about said arrangements, which is another form of overcategorization. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 12:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


==== OJ Simpson ====
==== OJ Simpson ====

Revision as of 12:44, 30 October 2008

< October 28 October 30 >

October 29

Category:Major league baseball replacement players

Propose renaming Category:Major league baseball replacement players to Category:Major League Baseball replacement players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Major League Baseball should be capitalized to be consistent with the article Major League Baseball. Jackal4 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Windows Seven

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: Moved to Category:Windows 7. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Windows Seven to Category:Windows 7
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The software is named Windows 7, not Windows Seven. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you pronounce Josh's statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two names are pronounced the same, but spelled differently. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, do you know of anyone who responds to the "Windows Seven" spelling by saying "I hate it when you spell the name this way"?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it does annoy me. Are you suggesting that this isn't a spelling issue, because "7" isn't a letter? - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we had Windows 5 and Windows 6, then we could have Windows 7 after that. But, I do think that the final name of Windows 7 sounds surprising becuase Windows versions 4 through 6 got special names. Georgia guy (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2008 (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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Since JarlaxleArtemis = Grawp, and we know exactly what to do when we see Grawp, I propose we delete this under WP:DENY NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:DENY is just an essay which I don't particularly agree with. I really don't see a reason to delete here. There will always be at least one n00b out there who probably doesn't know who Grawplaxle Artemis is (they should probably read this as well!), so this category is useful in that sense at least. I don't think that simple identification like this is "building a shrine to a vandal". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wasn't this just nominated? While I don't oppose merely due to renomination, I think that perhaps the past noms should be noted? (Note that "technically" the venue for this is WP:UCFD, but I don't think that the venue should matter all that much in this case.) - jc37 07:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tatars

Propose renaming Category:Tatars to Category:Tatar
Nominator's rationale: this page serves as a collector for all things TartarTatar (people, language, history, nation) Mayumashu (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategory pages of Category:People by race or ethnicity

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per convention naming pattern for sub-category pages under Category:People by race or ethnicity. This follows up on the discussion about Category:Silesian people from a few days ago. Mayumashu (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In light of the fact that we are having what amounts to a centralized discussion to establish an all-encompassing naming convention, I want to focus attention on the inherent ambiguity of the word "people", which can be construed in two very different ways: as both the plural of "person" and as a collective noun referring to an entire ethnic group. That being the case, I believe that serious consideration should be given to using the word "individuals" instead of "people", since that would eliminate the ambiguity in these category names. This issue has been raised in previous CFDs by a couple of other editors and myself, but hasn't been given a serious, focussed discussion. Cgingold (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly means both. I don t see, however, why both cannot collect on one page. Mayumashu (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any thoughts on the issue I raised re ambiguity? Cgingold (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to affect the whole of Category:People by race or ethnicity if not Category:People itself and I can but quail at its enormity. And suggest that in the meantime we rename these few in line with the others. Occuli (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burials in London, England

Delete: Category:Burials in London, England - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Duplication - categories for burials in the UK are already grouped under Category:Cemeteries in London. This new category adds nothing but results in a duplication and confusion of entries, e.g. see Category:Burials at West Norwood Cemetery . Ephebi (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've identified the problem; "London" is not a burial ground - it doesn't make sense to me to say that someone is "buried at London". A huge number of new "Buried in Foo" categories have recently been created by User:EstherLois and I'd like to understand what they mean. ... PS "Burials at London cemeteries" would make sense, but brings us back to the original duplication problem. That's why I say Delete. Ephebi (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no duplication problem and User:EstherLois is merely using the established wording arrived at via previous cfds; eg Category:Burials in New York City. Occuli (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long discussion some time ago about terminology when a consensus established "Burials at Foo cemetery" over many other options. See this CfD. Ephebi (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People buried in Abney Park Cemetery

Rename Category:People buried in Abney Park Cemetery to Category:Burials at Abney Park Cemetery
Nominator's rationale: Standardisation - burials in cemeteries are normally categorised using the convention Burials at .... See earlier CfD Ephebi (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename per nom Where someone is buried is a strong defining characteristic of an individual and a characteristic noted in most professional biographies. I don't know what other sources participants are reading, but Abney Park Cemetery is a notable cemetery, accompanied by an article that makes a rather strong case for the notability of the cemetery. Abney Park Cemtery is one of the Magnificent Seven, a group in the first wave of cemeteries constructed outside the center of London in the middle of the 19th century. While I would argue that all notable cemeteries should have categories devoted to their notable burials, Abney Park Cemetery stands even higher than your average cemetery in terms of its claim to notability. I challenge any participant to read the Abney Park Cemetery article and argue that a lack of a vampire is a credible argument for deletion of a category, and I won't even bother to respond to the possible lack of input from the deceased as a rationalization for deletion. If the article is insufficient in establishing a claim for notability under Wikipedia standards, I look forward to the AfD for Abney Park Cemetery. As burial at any of the Magnificent Seven is a strong defining characteristic, I support the retention of this category with a revised title, as recommended by the nominator. Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've made a great argument for the notability of the cemetery. What you have once again failed to do, as you always fail to do, is grasp that notability is not the standard for categorization. You keep addressing an argument that at its core has nothing to do with the actual discussion. I asked you once if you would advise how many times it will take repeating before you understand the difference between notability and definingness before you would grasp it. Obviously we have yet yo reach that threshold number. The notion that my comments can legitimately be paraphrased as an argument that the lack of a vampire is an argument against the notability of Abney Park or for the deletion of the category is so far beneath even your powers of argumentation that I'm amazed you even dared to try it. Perhaps the reason you're not going to respond to the possible lack of input of the deceased as to where they are buried is that every time it's been brought up in the past you've been unable to address it and your inability to address it continues here. As for this canard about what does or doesn't get included in a standard biography, all kinds of things get mentioned in standard biographies that we don't categorize for. Otto4711 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, I will remind you that you were the one who brought up the issue of notability in pointing out that "There seems to be less such reliable sourcing about Abney Park Cemetery", which is an argument for the lack of notability of the cemetery itself that could be directly cut-and-pasted to the AfD for the cemetery. Apparently a lack of a vampire also has something to do with why this category should be deleted, and I await your explanation of the relevance of this supernatural void in justifying the deletion of this category, especially with Halloween just a day away. I've already addressed the fact that burial location is a strong defining characteristic and that burial at Abney Park Cemetery is a stronger claim than most in terms of definingness. Huge numbers of people make rather specific plans for their burial, from the design of the coffin to the specific location within a cemetery where they want to be buried overlooking the babbling brook. Sure, there are people who have the decision made for them, but so what. There is no policy logic that requires an individual to play an active decision-making role in their place of burial or any other characteristic. We have probably thousands of articles in Category:Prisoners and detainees and I know very few who have "chosen" to be a prisoner or detainee, let alone anyone at all who picked their own prison or the location of their cell. For that matter, we keep track of year of death, despite the fact that only suicides and perhaps execution victims have any role in deciding the year they die. No one decides their year of birth. Most people retain their birth religion, "imposed" on them with no choice. And we are discussing above a few dozen categories by race or ethnicity and I know of not a single person in the history of the world who has ever decided to join with the Crimean Tatars, become a Dagestani or sign up as a Sherpa. It would appear that the precedent that an individual need play no role in becoming part of a category is self-evident. Abney Park Cemetery is a burial location that has been deliberately selected, is a notable cemetery and a strong defining characteristic of the individuals buried there, regardless of their year of birth, year of death or whether or not they are a Sherpa. Alansohn (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, I didn't bring up the notability argument. Ephebi did. My comment about the sourcing for Abney Park was incidental, since as I've pointed out time after time after time after time notability is not the standard for categorization. If you want to argue this bullshit ephemera and engage in your typical distortions, feel free to continue coming off like an ass. As for the remainder of your comments, per WP:WAX I find them as ridiculous as I always do, especially given that I have expressed any number of times that I believe that Wikipedia's mania for categorizing based on race and ethnicity is out of control. If you find such categories to be overcategorization, please feel free to nominate them for deletion. Otherwise, I wish that you and the other people who don't seem to understand that pointing at a category other than the one being discussed and whinging "what about this category? What about that one over there?" and expecting that it's suddenly going to be anything other than pointless would find something else to whinge about because the argument is tiresome. Yes, some people do make elaborate funeral plans. Some people don't have those funeral plans carried out by their next of kin or the State. So to add another stake through the heart of your argument (ooh, another vampire reference, go nuts!), what the notion of funeral plans comes down to is categorization by the prospective decendent's opinion about said arrangements, which is another form of overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OJ Simpson

Category:O. J. Simpson - Template:Lc1
Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Discuss - the parent cat was recently CFDed with a result of "consensus that two categories aren't necessary, no consensus as to what to do with them. Suggest renomination." Possible outcomes that I see are: 1) Delete Category:O. J. Simpson, retain Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial; 2) Upmerge the trial category to the parent; 3) Delete the parent category, rename the murder trial category to Category:O. J. Simpson trials to capture O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case; 4) Something I haven't thought of. I have a preference for deleting the parent, as merging the categories takes the murder trial category out of the parent . I have no incredibly strong opinion on the idea of renaming to "trials" to capture the robbery article, but as I said at the last CFD, I don't find it terribly necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of complicated. Retaining both categories means that there would be two articles in the main "trials" category, Simpson's article and the Vegas robbery article. That seems unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:O. J. Simpson - this will enable articles relating to his distinguished sporting career to be included as well as ones to his subsequent (alleged) criminal one. I see no objection to this appearing in multiple categories including trial ones, despite trial not being part of the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- jc37 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region categories

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Categories are at two different forms of the name of this region, article is at a third, varying essentially according to degree of seemingly ad hoc anglicisation. I don't have a particular preference for which, as long as we end up with something consistent, for which there's reasonable evidence for common use in English. Alai (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using "Magellan and Chilean Antartica Region" form as the best English translation of the Spanish name. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until all Chilean regions uses the same form. Currently the word Región is spelled in English at all articles and at most articles (with the exception of Santiago Metropolitan Region and Magallanes) the short version of the Spanish form is used. This is the current "maintream" translation in wikipedia. If Magallanes Region got an english name then Los Ríos and Los Lagos Region should be renamed to River Region and Lake Region? The same logic should be aplied to all Chilean regions. Dentren | Talk 11:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take it you're "opposing" the option favoured by Peterkingiron immediately above. Note, however that the nomination is for three inconsistent entities, all at different forms of the name. Presumably you're not opposing moving all of them -- right? Alai (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long vs Short version of the name: why should Magellan Region be spelled with its full name as Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region and not Aisén Region as Aisén Region of General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo ?
  • To include or not the roman numerals: XIV Los Ríos Region or Los Ríos Region.
  • English or Spanish spelling? Which parts of the name should be spelled in English and which in Spanish? Dentren | Talk 08:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, for heaven's sakes. If you want to have a discussion there about a wider convention, fair enough, but don't be using "adjourn and move for change of venue" as a rationale for a blanket oppose of all attempts to achieve a modicum of internal consistency in the meantime. Alai (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's of any assistance to the closer, I'd be happy with either the "Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region" or the "Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region" form for all. Alai (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I support the use of the English name (choice number 2 in each of the categories listed), for purposes of standardization in the English Wikipedia. We use Spain and not España for the country, but we have an English-language version of the country name. My only question is if there is support for the use of "Magellan and Chilean Antarctica Region" as the appropriate English name. Alansohn (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian groups and movements

Category:Christian groups and movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Propose Deletion - Superfluous, serves no useful purpose.
Nominator's Rationale: This quasi-catchall category gathers together an array of other categories which are properly parented and function quite well without this one. I don't see any compelling reason for that particular assortment of categories to be grouped together. And I am unable to discern any way in which this category improves navigation -- to the contrary, it adds some unneeded clutter to the roster of sub-categories of Category:Christianity. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Donizetti

Category:Donizetti - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small and eponymous category, completely unnecessary. If retained it should be renamed to the composer's full name. Otto4711 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably better to put a direct link on the cat page ("see also" or "further information"), rather than actually putting the article into a category for compositions. Cgingold (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic book creators

Merge Category:Comic book creators to Category:Comics creators

The consensus in the past at CfD, and at WikiProject Comics, is to default to "comics". - jc37 10:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sargent Shriver

Category:Sargent Shriver - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - the lead article and image in no way warrant an eponymous category. Otto4711 (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay-for-pay models

Suggest merging Category:Gay-for-pay models to Category:People appearing in gay pornography
Nominator's rationale: Merge - category is redundant, raises WP:BLP issues and the phrasing can be seen as pejorative. Otto4711 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hilarious Instruments

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: SPEEDY DELETE as nonsense, meaningless, vandalism, or WP:SNOW, take your pick. Postdlf (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hilarious Instruments - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Category is useful only for insulting musicians that play these instruments. —Kww(talk) 02:35, 29 October 2008 (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:Australian Student Liberal Organisations

Category:Australian Student Liberal Organisations - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Not worthy of its own category then we'd need categories for all political student organisations. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_29&oldid=248603370"