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 all. Category redirects will be made afterward. —
ξxplicit 19:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I may have missed some. The name of the province has been officially changed to
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the categories should reflect that.
Prezbo (
talk) 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Rubber-stamp support Should have been something that ought to have been done way before, but oh well - glad that someone's taken the initiative of not being lazy :) -
Mar4d (
talk) 05:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I hasd not heard of this name change. If the rename goes ahead, please leave the old versions as category redirects.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply
See the article
Names of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The name of the province was officially amended from "North-West Frontier Province" to "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa."
Mar4d (
talk) 09:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, but leave old titles as category redirects per Peterkingiron, because most sources will still use the old name. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 17:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Note long time after the fact - because the geography stub category was changed here - at the wrong process page, it's required twice the process work. PLEASE, in future follow the instructions!
Grutness...wha? 10:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Category:Organized crime syndicates
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. or repurpose or reparent - the current way the category is set up does not match its contents. The category description and its place in the heirarchy says it's about American mafia families, but the contents contain other American crime syndicates that are not Italian-American mafia, and the name itself has no indication that it's about the USA, and so some of the contents are not even American.
76.66.195.196 (
talk) 21:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
As it looks like the contents actually match the scope of the category's name, it seems to me the problem is instead with the category's unduly limited description and what its parent category is. You don't need CFD to fix those issues. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment the edit patrollers tend to give vandalism warnings for any action like that from an IP user. So it's pointless for me to fix a category, and then have to go to
WP:AN to get someone to tell some editpatroller that they're wrong and they're doing 3RRs for no good reason.
76.66.195.196 (
talk) 04:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm sure such mistakes happen, and IPs do get more scrutiny, but a constructive change is a constructive change regardless of who does it. Anyway, do you have any ideas as to what description and categorization of this category would be appropriate? I'd be happy to implement it if I think it's a good idea, and then we can just close this out here. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, it'd have to go under
Category:Organized crime groups, and the current description needs to get deleted. Since a syndicate is a group of groups, this would be a category for organizations composed of criminal organizations.
76.66.195.196 (
talk) 08:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Vice Chancellors of Germany
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 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:English metaphysicians
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 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:Metaphysicians
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:Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close.
Cgingold (
talk) 09:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This is an absurd proposal. No one calls a philosopher of metaphysics a metaphysicist. There had been a discussion about this a long time ago, and it was agreed to move "philosophers of metaphysics" to "metaphysicians". However the proposal to upmerge "English metaphysicians" (to metaphysicians) is fine with me.
Greg Bard 18:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Could you point to the discussion? I see a reference in WikiProject Metaphysics that it be done, but no discussion pointers. In any case, as there is dispute as to which names are acceptable, "philosophers of metaphysics" may actually be a better name. (Do you want to propose merging Metaphysics writers into this category, as requested there, or shall I? ) —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 19:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
No don't merge any metaphysics writer into metaphysicians. That category is reserved for baloney like esoterism, spiritualism, theosophy, mysticism, etcetera. The metaphysics category is intended for legitimate academic philosophy.
Greg Bard (
talk) 04:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Withdraw — defer to WikiProject for the preferred name. Although the name is absurd, it seems to be preferred by the WikiProject; both are considered primary by different online dictionaries, and I can't find anything definitive in a clearly reliable source. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 08:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Just for the record. When Arthur uses the word "absurd" it is completely meaningless. He just calls everything that doesn't please him aesthetically "absurd." In reality, there is nothing "absurd" about calling philosophers who specialize in metaphysics "metaphysicians". Just a little reality check.
Greg Bard (
talk) 20:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Peel towers
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:withdrawn by nominator. —
ξxplicit 23:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Contains only Pele Towers for this region; and there are Pele Towers in Cumbria, and Northumberland.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 14:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There are existing articles on
peel towers in England, such as
Embleton Tower, and they should be included in this category. No objection to splitting this category into English and Scottish subcats, but there's no point in leaving the English towers without a category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 15:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Perhaps I should have explained that
Category:Peel towers is currently within
Category:Scottish Borders which is why I think that one should be renamed. As the towers are restricted to the English-Scottish borders do we we need a global category (with sub-cats for Cumbria, Northumberland, and Scottish Borders) or would it be better served by a list?.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 07:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Create destination nom's category; move all contents to that; but keep existing category as a parent. We ought to have sister sub-cats for those in the two English border counties.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The Northumberland examples of "pele towers" appear to be categorised as castles, but a peel tower is not exactly a castle; more a refuge than a place of defence.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Withdraw. There seems to be more approval for a category structure than anything else. I will withdraw this nomination and then set up a structure for England and Scotland, with sub-cats for Cumbria, Northumberland, and Scottish Borders. I will include them within castles, mainly cause I cannot think of anywhere else to put them.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 13:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Canoeing competitions
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.
Courcelles (
talk) 09:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Category is being/has been used for both canoeing and kayaking competitions. Also, there is confusion due to differing North American and British use of the term canoe/canoeing - a rename would help avoid ambiguities and confusion.
Gjs238 (
talk) 13:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I don't like combined categories, but since we renamed one, we might as well rename this one.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
American hip hop groups, musicians and producers by location
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Like
rappers in earlier discussion, these musicians and groups don't need to be categorized by what coastline they're from, either.
Karppinen (
talk) 09:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. Not being an expert, but if any of these are legit subgenres of hip hop, then they shouldn't be deleted. If they're an attempt to categorize by location, then I agree. --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Oregon beauty pageant winners
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.
Courcelles (
talk) 09:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Specifically being from Oregon isn't that defining as a beauty pageant contestant. In the five years since this cat was created, no other state-based cats for pageant winners have been created, so such a system doesn't appear to have much value. Mbinebritalk ← 04:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
It looks instead like this is intended for winners of Oregon beauty pageants, like
Miss Oregon. But it's obviously ambiguous on that point, and either way it's read, it's the only state-specific category of its kind.
Category:Oregon beauty pageants already groups that information, by collecting the articles on the pageants themselves, which contain lists of winners. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Orchidaceae of Australasia
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It is an arbitrary geographical overlap. Note that I removed Caladenia from the category. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 04:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - We organise species by geographical unit, because that's the way the data is most commonly collected and reported. The Orchidaceae are the largest plant family, with ~10% of all species, so this would appear to be a reasonable category.
Guettarda (
talk) 04:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment isn't anything further than the Weber line, a non-arbitrary biogeographic grouping? And as some species have migrated over the Weber Line... it would be reasonable that not every instance is confined to the ancient Gondwanaland remnant.
76.66.195.196 (
talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Spectacular! cast
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.
Delete -- we do not allow performance by performer cats.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Prodigy albums
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 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.