Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 3

< July 2	July 4 >

July 3

Category:Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk

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 Category:Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk to Category:Public transport in Akershus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Company is now defunct (replaced by Ruter) Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That alone is not a compelling argument to delete the category, cf. Category:Standard Oil, Category:Pan Am. Could you expand your "rationale" a bit? — CharlotteWebb 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarification; I am the creator of the category. Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk (SL) was a public transport administrator that was merged to form Ruter as of 1 Jaunary 2008. The category contains all the companies that were under contract with SL for operating public transport in Akershus. Because of this I feel that the category has served its purpose well, but that Category:Public transport in Akershus is a better way of organising the articles. Perhaps I should have nominated a merger instead. Sorry for the rather non-clarifying rationale. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the revised proposal to merge into Category:Public transport in Akershus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 8 July 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.

People from Bolivian cities

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. Kbdank71 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename - the disambiguation does not seem necessary. The latter two proposed categories are currently disambiguation pages which lead to categories for Bolivian "departments" (districts), but I think that in other similar cases the addition "(city)" has been deemed unnecesary. Eliyak T·C 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had the impression that previous discussions went the other way and favoured the addition of '(city)'. These are all ambiguous - see Sucre (disambiguation), Category:People from Oruro Department, Category:People from La Paz, Category:People from Cochabamba. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep use of the disambiguate tidy yet reduces ambiguity Mayumashu (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per roundhouse as disambiguating means of specifying city vs. larger geographical division. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep all for the good disambiguation reasons shown. The purpose of naming is to help the WP reader, not push some abstract theory to be in their way. Hmains (talk) 23:50, 6 July 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:Songs from Paris

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 in view of the creator's comment below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs from Paris to Category:Songs from Paris (musical)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the lead article Paris (musical) and reduce ambiguity that these are songs that originated in one or another city named Paris. Otto4711 (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I concur, although should be Category:Songs from Paris (1928 musical) The 2003 musical is utterly NN, and I'll prob nom for deletion soon. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:50, 3 July 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:Rappers with adjective names

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. Kbdank71 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Completely unnecessary category. I think this one explains itself. ;-) RFerreira (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization by shared naming format/style. Otto4711 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a bizarre category, and not very beefy either as Ginuwine is the sole member, and that's just ludacris! Would it be kurupt of me to ask a prolifik editor to finish it, or should we settle for swift deletion? — CharlotteWebb 17:11, 5 July 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:The Alcotts

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:Alcott family. Kbdank71 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as eponymous overcategorization. Category is not needed for two people and one place. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and WP:OC. Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - although there are at least 2 others, Louisa May Alcott and her mother Abby May. I expect Otto can work these into a 'navigational hub' somehow. It is bizarre to have a whole town as a subcat of 'The Alcotts', and the 2 articles 'in' the category are added in an unorthodox fashion. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but Rename to Category:Alcott family - I've just completed the work of cleaning up & filling out this category, which now has 7 articles in it (and two parent cats). Category:Concord, Massachusetts, of course, should be removed -- reversed would be more like it. Cgingold (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7 family members and a house is more like it, and is probably now a weak keep - nice work, Cgingold (although I had notified the creator already, and you didn't!). If kept, rename per Cgingold. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, quite right -- I saw that you had already done so, but forgot to come back and delete that. :) Cgingold (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Cgingold - seems now to be a viable subcat of Category:American families. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the articles are all extensively linked through each other and the category is still small with no apparent further growth potential. Listify the contents at Alcott family and delete the unnecessary category. Otto4711 (talk) 14:03, 4 July 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:Panjsheri People

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:Panjsheri People to Category:Panjsheri people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Panjsheri People to Category:Panjsheri people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Correct case. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This qualifies for Speedy Renaming. Cgingold (talk) 23:06, 3 July 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:Panjsheri Authors

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:Panjsheri Authors to Category:Panjsheri writers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Panjsheri Authors to Category:Panjsheri writers

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per naming conventions. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This qualifies for Speedy Renaming. Cgingold (talk) 23:07, 3 July 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:2001 Windows-only games

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. Kbdank71 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category seems redundant as there are many similar categories . MrMarmite (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you intend to nominate all of Category:Windows-only games by year, or has 2001 been nominated for a particular reason? Bencherlite ^Talk 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

was looking for some advice on how to do that in one fell swoop, but thought I would wait until feedback from this one MrMarmite (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be pointless over categorization. a) Why would anyone be interested that much if a game was available on another platform apart from Windows and b) what about games that start out as Windows only and then get ported to another platform much later. The fact that this category is then broken down further by year strikes me as even stranger. I would get rid of all the platform only categories ACarPark (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There many thousand Games are already sorted, we simply do not want to see to the consoles multi-platform shit, where the developers often saw only the money and the world market of all systems! --Fairseeder (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ambiguous. Which version of Windows? Do items stay in this category if a later version will run on something other then windows? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If something changes, the category also changes, this never was a problem. For every Windows version own category would be exaggerated, many windows has a compatible modus, this is not comparably with the porting on all systems. --Fairseeder (talk) 04:35, 10 July 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:Windows-only games

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. Kbdank71 14:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category seems redundant as there are many similar categories . MrMarmite (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Many people work for the subcategories in Category:Only-platform_software, where is the difference to the Category:Mac OS-only games and other? We sort here all exclusive titles out the multi platform titles which not everybody wants to see. --Fairseeder (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you wrote. Powers ^T 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That a game runs on Windows is defining and notable. That it only runs on Windows is not defining (meaning I don't see the use of browsing the category), and can be deduced from the lack of other-platform categories on the article (meaning it's not useful from the article level). Powers ^T 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be pointless over categorization. a) Why would anyone be interested that much if a game was available on another platform apart from Windows and b) what about games that start out as Windows only and then get ported to another platform much later. The fact that this category is then broken down further by year strikes me as even stranger ACarPark (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, it would almost have to be broken down by year, just due to the sheer number of Windows-only games released. Powers ^T 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ This is only few Games which are ported later and exactly then one must remove the category also again! Maybe 1 to 2% the Games, this is no problem! Multiplatform-titles have less the same developing expenditure, how exclusive title. This is no 100% high-class guarantee, however, another way, with maybe other result! --Fairseeder (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You already made your recommendation (however incoherent it might have been). You don't get to "vote" again. Powers ^T 14:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above--SkyWalker (talk) 06:41, 9 July 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:Health specialties

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. Kbdank71 20:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Rename to Category:Health fields.

Rationale: Unlike "medical specialties", I believe the term "health fields" is far more widely used than "health specialties" (this is borne out by G-hits). Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the lead article is at Health specialties but in its entirety it reads "Health specialties include topics such as mental health, public health, and sexual health." Otto4711 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I completely forgot to mention that so-called "main article" -- which I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn was written by the very same editor who created the category. Basically, I'm concerned that readers may not grasp that "health specialties" refers to major subject areas, not just narrow sub-divisions. Cgingold (talk) 23:04, 3 July 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:New Media

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 Category:New Media to Category:New media. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:New media. Duplicate category, creator clearly didn't check the parent cats before creating it. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per nom as caps error. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 4 July 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.

Fiorentina people

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 both as nominated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fiorentina managers to Category:ACF Fiorentina managers

Propose renaming Category:Fiorentina players to Category:ACF Fiorentina players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The club's name is ACF Fiorentina. The main category for the club is Category:ACF Fiorentina. Therefore, its subcategories should also be entitled Category:ACF Fiorentina managers and Category:ACF Fiorentina players. – Pee Jay 09:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 09:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the club hasn't always been known as ACF Fiorentina (for most of its life it has been AC Fiorentina) - the current name covers all eras, and is unambiguous. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide any past precedent for other categories not using the clubs current name for that reason? – Pee Jay 09:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dynamo Dresden players, for example - they have been known as SG Dynamo, 1. FC Dynamo, and now SG again. It's impossible to cover all name changes (like the Small Heath/Birmingham City example below), but when a club's "initials" change, and the name without them is unambiguous, then this works as a solution. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support As noted above, we don't bother having separate categories for players at clubs before they changed their names (e.g. Category:Small Heath Alliance F.C. players Category:Small Heath F.C. players and Category:Birmingham City F.C. players) - the current name should be used. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting separate categories, but if we can have a generic name that covers all stages of a club's existence, isn't that more accurate? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should go with generic names - an encyclopedia should be specific. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the generic name unambiguously represents the subject, then it's more encyclopedia, I wouldn't have thought (cf. WP:COMMONNAME). Being specific is fine, but this category doesn't cover the specifics of Fiorentina post-2002 (and nor should it), so its name can be changed to reflect that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is no such article as Fiorentina or AC Fiorentina - I believe categories should always match their parent article title exactly (e.g. Manchester United F.C. players, not Manchester United players). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, though? That doesn't strike me as a very compelling - nor, dare I say it, encyclopedic - reason. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does help to identify that the category and the article refer to the same subject. – Pee Jay 11:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category header and the category tree should do that. In any case, it's not as if the names are so different that it's unclear. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subcategories don't even match the parent category, or the other subcategory within the parent category. They should all be the same, regardless of the name we choose, but my opinion is that they should all match the current title of the main article. – Pee Jay 12:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency with ACF Fiorentina and Category:ACF Fiorentina. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency - considering I don't think anyone has the entire category tree memorized, it's nice to maintain consistency throughout. ugen64 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per general association football naming consensus. --Jimbo^[online] 20:29, 10 July 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:Albums in the 33⅓ series

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. Kbdank71 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not a defining characteristic of the articles so categorized. It seems like a blatant promotional category for the book. I have no idea why the previous CFD wasn't closed as delete as there are precedents and guidelines that support the deletion of this category. ☑ SamuelWantman 07:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undefining of the albums in question, as the nom says. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To use personification perhaps inappropriately, these albums have no idea these books about them exist.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:52, 5 July 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:UTSPH alumni

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

The result of the discussion was: rename Category:UTSPH alumni to Category:University of Texas School of Public Health alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UTSPH alumni to Category:University of Texas School of Public Health alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match main article University of Texas School of Public Health. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:40, 3 July 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:Jewish conservatives & Category:Jewish American conservatives

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, no merge. Jc37 brings up a valid point about needing sources, which is difficult if not impossible with categories; a referenced list would work better to satisfy BLP. Kbdank71 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion - Category:Jewish conservatives & Category:Jewish American conservatives

Nominator's rationale - these categories are far too broad and speculative (for example, would a category such as Category:Jewish liberals also be acceptable?). Category:Jewish conservatives is empty, and I suggest merging or transferring the names in Category:Jewish American conservatives in to Category:Jewish American Republicans (United States) if applicable. --Wassermann (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans have no monopoly in being conservatives.DGG (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge per DGG. This would be a gross political oversimplification. — CharlotteWebb 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge per DGG Why only Republicans? Are there no conservative Jewish Democrats? And where does Senator Liebermann fit? And what about Jewish convervatives in other countries, where there are no Republicans?--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: far too simple-minded of a category, the nominator is right to strive for a more objective standard of inclusion, but even that seems to carry a ticturn of folly- why do you even need such a category to begin with- what purpose does it serve the reader?--Mike Russell 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Listify with verifiable reliable sources, if wanted) - This is merely another "supports/opposes" issue category (see also WP:OC#OPINION). In this case, it's a subjective grouping of issues. What a "conservative" is, varies depending on location, and in some cases, per person. Conservatism: "It is difficult to define the term precisely because different cultures have different established values and, in consequence, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals." This just cries out for references/citations (see also WP:BLP), which, of course isn't possible in a category in this case (see also WP:CLS). - jc37 08:02, 9 July 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:People from Sapnish Fork, Utah

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 correct typo. Kbdank71 19:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Sapnish Fork, Utah to Category:People from Utah County, Utah

Nominator's rationale: Merge, was originally tagged for speedy correction of the spelling mistake ("Sapnish" to "Spanish"); see initial discussion below. Upon reflection, I support a merge to its parent, as the city Spanish Fork, Utah is relatively small, somewhere less than 25,000. If kept, rename to Category:People from Spanish Fork, Utah. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Sapnish Fork, Utah to Category:People from Spanish Fork, Utah. Spelling typo. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favour deletion of this as overcategorisation - but that would need a move from here to the main part of CFD. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename discussion ends here. Add new discussion immediately below.

Rename – part of Category:People by city in Utah. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:People from Spanish Fork, Utah to correct misspelling. It seems Utah likes to have its people categorized by city, even the smaller ones. Hmains (talk) 23:47, 6 July 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:Corinthos Family

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. Kbdank71 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Extremely narrow category for fictional family on General Hospital. The category is currently populated by a family tree and one article. A ni Mate 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC) A ni Mate 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merge the family tree into the article for the family if it's not there already and delete the category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is in fact a precedent for deleting categories for families of soap opera characters, see 2007-01-02 CFD. — CharlotteWebb 17:21, 5 July 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.