Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 14

< May 13	May 15 >

May 14

Category:Shimizu Commercial High School footballers

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The contents of the category are already listified at Shimuzu Commerical High School. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify Nominator's rationale: Shimuzu Commercial is a high school famous for turning out footballers and this list is of importance to Football in Japan, but category pages form "networks" (not the right word, exactly) and to keep this page would justify having like pages for each high school, for each sport, very much overcategorization Mayumashu (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, at least until there is an article on this phenomenon (or on the school). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. have started stub Shimizu Commercial High School with list Mayumashu (talk) 03:33, 19 May 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:Roy Orbison

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 as overcategorization by name per multiple precedents. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate self-named category for a singer; not necessary per WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having 3 subcategories containing articles directly related to the person (for albums, videos, and songs) seems like a great reason in this case to have an "eponymous category" as it "make[s] it easy for users to browse through similar articles.": see CAT guideline #1. This reminds me a bit of the recent Shania Twain CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shania Twain category has more than twice the material that this one does. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the words "a bit". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Roy Orbison along with his associated template serve as an appropriate navigational hub. The material pertaining to Orbison is not so complex that it can't and isn't easily interlinked through his article (which includes links to his discography and other associated articles in addition to the aforementioned template) and no one interested in Orbison and his material is going to have any difficulty getting to it through his article. Hundreds of similar categories for musicians, actors, politicians, etc. have been deleted and this is no different from them. Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category gives a good starting place to the subcategories. Further there's no rule against categories being named for musicians, see Category:Categories named after musicians.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people and explain why this category doesn't fall under that guideline. When a main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub then a category named after that person is to be avoided. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well nothing in Category:Roy Orbison videos or Category:Roy Orbison songs appears to be in the template. Neither is Barbara Orbison. A total of 57+ articles are in it and the subcats. You might be able to find all those looking through his article, but a category can be easier. Lastly I don't think we're following that guideline very strictly elsewhere why start now?--T. Anthony (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have been following that guideline fairly strictly, since well over 200 eponymous categories for musicians have been deleted in the last year. All of Orbison's songs are linked through the main article through the link to Roy Orbison discography and the videos are linked as well. So is Barbara's article. Otto4711 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty skeptical of that, but I'll withdraw as I don't know enough about the issue.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CAT guideline #1, and per WP:CLT (templates and categories are complementary). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eponymous category per WP:OC. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:05, 26 May 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.

Final Fantasy character categories

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 both. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Final Fantasy VII characters
Category:Final Fantasy X characters
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The categories are currently empty. Per discussion at the WikiProject Final Fantasy, the few articles that were in them have been moved to Category:Final Fantasy VII and Category:Final Fantasy X respectively, and Category:Final Fantasy characters. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete the wikiproject handling them has emptied them on purpose in order to delete --Enric Naval (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The categories have been empty for a week now, should this discussion be closed? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:36, 22 May 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:Female golfers

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. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't usually categorize by gender, and there is no corresponding Category:Male golfers. If the Golfers By Tour category is sufficient to identify male golfers, it should work just as well for female golfers. Powers ^T 16:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to be well populated. Also there are multiple categories for female athletes in Category:Sportswomen by sport (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well that's odd, too; why is there a Category:Sportswomen but no Category:Sportsmen? Powers ^T 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally have a separate category for sportswomen when it's a sport where men and women usually compete separately, as in golf. I can't imagine how not having a separate category for women would make browsing or finding articles about specific golfers more easy. (OK, that's a lot of double-negative-mixed-with-comparatives grammar-wise, but hopefully you can get my meaning...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of possible categorizations we don't use despite the fact that they would make browsing easier. Also, if categorization by gender is desirable, why is there no Category:Male golfers? Powers ^T 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just saying — this category is consistent the structure of other sportspeople category structures, and I personally find the distinction helpful. There are many ways that women golfers differ than male golfers, so a categorization scheme that differentiates between the two seems reasonable and I see no compelling reason to delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess I don't see what this category tells one that Category:LPGA Tour golfers or similar doesn't. We don't put Category:Male football players on biographies that are already categorized as Category:Buffalo Bills players, after all. Powers ^T 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest that there be cat pages for both genders equally for all sports (but not all occupations, unless, as with most sports (equestrian being one exception), they are done in a gender separate capacity Mayumashu (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Golf is a gendered sport, and this category reflects the way that the sport organises itself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I could understand the category as a supercategory for the various women's tour categories, but it still seems redundant with the tour categories to place individual golfers here. Powers ^T 14:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If articles should be moved to appropriate gendered subcats, then go ahead and do that per WP:SUBCAT. But failure to move articles to sub-categories is no reason to delete the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well that's a possible solution at which I arrived after seeing the opposition to my original proposal, not the original reason behind my proposal. Powers ^T 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as golf is a gendered sport, and as a subcat of Category:Sportswomen by sport. (It would seem reasonable to have the parallel system Sportsmen by sport.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tennis is a gendered sport too, but we don't categorize by gender there. Powers ^T 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be right about tennis - Amélie Mauresmo and Martina Hingis seem to be in no female categories at all. (There are both Category:Women and Category:Men. Occupations open to men seem sadly limited - Category:Men by occupation.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mauresmo is in Category:Lesbian sportspeople which should be somewhere in the Category:Women tree (but isn't currently), but your point is taken. Powers ^T 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do categorise by gender if an occupation is dominated by a single gender, and the vast majority of well-known golfers are male. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about the "vast" majority, but all right -- still, though, we don't have gender subcategories for ~~Category:Football (soccer) players,~~ Category:Players of American football, Category:Cheerleaders, or Category:Jockeys, all of which are dominated by a single gender. Powers ^T 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Striking soccer; missed it the first go-round. Powers ^T 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there are male cheerleaders or female American football players then we should indeed have categories for them. We should certainly have a Category:Female jockeys. The point is to highlight people from the other gender in a field dominated by one gender. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And how do we determine domination? For example, while the average Joe on the street might be able to name more male golfers than female golfers, I would argue that the numbers are not overwhelming in either direction (comparable to tennis, ice skating, or gymnastics, I would say; the average Joe on the street could name far more female gymnasts than male gymnasts, but that doesn't mean we need Category:Male gymnasts). Powers ^T 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. When we see golf on television what we see is almost invariably male golf (if we choose to watch such a tedious "sport" in the first place). That is not the case with, say, tennis, where we see both genders equally. There may be plenty of female golfers, but the high-profile side of the sport is definitely male-dominated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a gendered sport. The fact that some other gendered sports do not have female categories yet, does by no means undermine this being a meaningful category. gidonb (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but we already categorize by tour, and the tours serve to identify gender. So what purpose does this category serve? Powers ^T 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but that is not the main purpose of the tour categories. In a gendered sport, the gender should be spelled out. gidonb (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you're saying that individual biography articles should be in both Category:LPGA Tour golfers and Category:Female golfers, of which the former is a subcategory? Powers ^T 13:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is not so complicated. Under "female golf" come "female golfers", "female golf tournaments", "female golf leagues", and "female golf teams". Under specific female tournaments and teams can also come their respective players. gidonb (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry but I don't see any of those subcategories under Category:Women's golf except Category:Female golfers. Right now, there are individuals categorized with Category:Female golfers as well as Category:LPGA Tour golfers. Since the latter is a subcategory of the former, it seems the former is redundant. Do you agree? Powers ^T 19:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously I disagree. LPGA Tour golfers is for members of an organization or participants of a competition. Female golfers is for all female golfers and can next be broken into nationalities and the like. gidonb (talk) 21:15, 25 May 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:Saudi record labels

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 rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Saudi record labels to Category:Saudi Arabian record labels

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the format of the rest of Category:Record labels by country. Otto4711 (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Using "Saudi Arabian" is becoming the WP norm. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have Category:Saudi culture, Category:Saudi law, and Category:Saudi society in addition to this one. Category:Saudi Arabian people should be changed to Category:Saudi people to match the other four. Powers ^T 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per GO. Either is correct according to List of adjectival forms of place names; I'm not sure what the nom's point is. But SA seems a bit clearer, and at least as common, though a great number of cat names seem to avoid using any adjective. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saudi is the first listed demonym at the Saudi Arabia article. Lugnuts (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while Saudi and Saudi Arabian are both correct, when there are unambiguous equally correct names the shorter takes preference. See for example Category:Saudi culture, Category:Saudi law, Category:Saudi cuisine, Category:Saudi media, and Category:Saudi music (although Saudi Arabian still seems in the majority). Gidonb 19:24, 22 May 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:Argentina record labels

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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Argentina record labels to Category:Argentine record labels

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To the adjectival to match the rest of Category:Record labels by country. Otto4711 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 15 May 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 WikiProjects

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 for anything to be done at the present. Dividing into sub-categories doesn't require CfD anyway. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects to Category:Wikipedia maintenance WikiProjects

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category sits at the top level category Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects. The name of this category is confusing. All WikiProjects are in Wikipedia: prefix namespace. That confusion is shown by the subcategories presently under Wikipedia WikiProjects. Since a purpose of this category is to contain Wikipedia WikiProjects defined in terms of a particular Wikipedia maintenance task, that is what this category name should reflect. If there are other WikiProject Wikipedia-specific matters not covered by a subject area (such as architecture) or not covered by Wikipedia maintenance WikiProjects, then another top level category under Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects can be created to cover that situation. GregManninLB (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "something". It actually took me a minute to realise that this was a grouping of WikiProjects that aren't focused towards mainspace topics. But it's such a mixture, I'm not sure as to what we should call it. Perhaps (as a start) if it was split between Project maintenance and "User maintenance" (pardon the phrasing). Whatever the case, I think that the categorisation's a good idea, just that we need some clearer inclusion criteria, and clearer naming. - jc37 22:10, 12 May 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 13:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we follow the schema listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject and divide this into two separate categories, Category:Maintenance WikiProjects and Category:Contents system WikiProjects (the latter name may need more than a little tweaking). Grutness...wha? 00:30, 15 May 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:Saudi Arabian Heavy Industry

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Category's empty anyway. Wizardman 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Heavy industry in Saudi Arabia. This is the standard formulation for categories of this general type. Cgingold (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - following the removal of articles that don't belong (for vehicles and products) there are three articles remaining. All of them can easily be categorized in Category:Companies of Saudi Arabia and I believe all of them already are. None of the articles appear to contain sourced information that they are "heavy industries" and the article Heavy industry indicates that there is no single objective definition as to what constitutes "heavy industry." This is not part of a wider Category:Heavy industry by country scheme; the only other one I'm finding is Category:Heavy industry companies of Norway. There really is no need for this category. Otto4711 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I read through the remaining articles and the article text does not support them being in this category so I removed it. The category is now empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 19 May 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:Russian-South Koreans

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 Category:South Koreans of Russian descent per consensus. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not of great utility. Only one member. This, that and the other _[talk] 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a rather niche category. I don't see it being populated with many more articles. Not to say there aren't any Russian-South Koreans, but I doubt there would be too many article on notable Russian-South Koreans on the English Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rename to Category:South Koreans of Russian descent. The legitimacy of cat pages isn t determined by the number of member pages (one is enough) and there are hundreds of like cat pages. Suggested renaming is far clearer in conveying what is meant for listing on the page Mayumashu (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mayumashu. This is the usual response to this kind of category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcategorization of ethnicity. Are there any other present WP article that could be included here? --Soman (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:South Koreans of Russian descent per Mayumashu. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:South Koreans of Russian descent per Mayumashu. -- --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "descent" is vague and undefining. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the clearer Category:South Koreans of Russian descent per Mayumashu. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 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:Neighborhoods in Mexico City

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, default to keep. Wizardman 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods in Mexico City to Category:Colonias of Mexico City

Nominator's rationale: "Neighborhood" is being used as an English translation of "colonia", but "colonia" is more strictly defined than "neighborhood", and not all the articles currently included in the category are actually colonias. The Spanish Wikipedia distinguishes between Categoría:Colonias de la Ciudad de México (Colonias of Mexico City) and Categoría:Localidades del Distrito Federal de México (Localities in the Federal District of Mexico). Ptcamn (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neighbourhood is rather vague, but much clearer for most English WP users. Leaning to keep. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 15 May 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:Live Phish

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: speedied as duplicate. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Dupe of Category:Live Phish series. Empty. — Music Maker 5376 03:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The category seems redundant with the Live Phish series already being used. And with it not populated, it is not needed at all. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
MusicMaker5376, if you mistakenly create a category and then almost immediately discover that it was an unnecessary duplicate of one that already exists, you don't need to list it here for a week of discussion first — you can just tag it for CSD under criterion G7. Consider it speedied. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 15 May 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:Canada's Sports Hall of Fame

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Canada's Sports Hall of Fame inductees. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canada's Sports Hall of Fame to Category:Inductees of Canada's Sports Hall of Fame

Nominator's rationale: Rename to this or suchlike. The category is used for the inductees, so I think it a misnomer to call it by its current name. Kolindigo (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kept rename to Category:Canada's Sports Hall of Fame inductees per apparent convention of Category:Halls of fame inductees. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good Olfactory's proposed renaming Mayumashu (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, but use Good Olfactory's proposed rename. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 15 May 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:Conway Public Schools

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. Wizardman 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category was created approximately 1-1/2 years ago and todate still contains only a single article of the same name. The category serves no purpose. The category was also categorized in such a way that no other article would ever meet the requirements of the current categorization. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think a single article warrants a category. The article would be better off in a parent category. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The article and the category are both currently in the same subcategories Category:School districts in Arkansas and Category:Conway, Arkansas

(note: the article is in one additional subcategory) Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Upmerge Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to upmerge. The category currently simply creates duplicate entries for its single article in the higher level categories (one as a sub category and one as an article Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:00, 15 May 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:My Normal characters

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 Deleted as a hoax (non-admin closure). brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Every single page in this category is nonsense/hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned Webbers. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:43, 14 May 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.