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:Australian education organisations to Category:Educational organisations based in Australia per convention of Category:Educational organizations by country. Any resulting inappropriate categorisations should be distributed elsewhere around the category tree. --Xdamr^talk 14:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per representations ([1]) from User:Orderinchaos, Category:Australian education organisations is relisted for further consideration. --Xdamr^talk 14:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian education organisations to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: This is to bring in line the subcategories of Category:Educational organizations by country after a contested Cfr-speedy. Both Category:Educational organisations in Australia and Category:Educational organisations based in Australia would be okay for me. This might also be a good place to come up with concrete inclusion criteria for all of these categories. Do we want them to be used for any kind of organization? Both private and state-driven? Both for students and by students? Both for teachers and by teachers? Both for educational institutions and driven by these? And should the institutions be included themselves? PanchoS (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Educational organisations based in Australia, per convention of Category:Organizations by country. I see no need for any restrictions on inclusion: most national cats in this this category tree currently include a category for educational institutions (schools, colleges, universities, etc), for student groupings, and all sorts of similar stuff. Let em all in, and subcategorise as needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm perfectly fine with your proposal to "let em all in" ;-) I just wanted to make sure the inclusion criteria are being thought of. Still I don't think the "based in" clarification is necessary here as it is not necessary in most subdivisions of organi(z/s)ations. IMHO it's just making the category names more and more clunky. Finally there are not going to be many transnational organizations. However I won't insist on that – I'm happy if we're going to find a consensus on this, then I can nominate the missing categories for a new speedy-Cfd next. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on Australia Many of the organisations included are not "educational organisations" but are organisations which are involved in education as a key but not primary purpose - eg state archives, government departments, museums and the like. Someone even incongruously added student unions to this category and "student organizations" too (with American spelling), which don't even provide education. Only the tertiary and schools subcategories would actually belong in an "educational organisations" category. Looking at other ones listed, they seem to have a different purpose and may be acceptable. Orderinchaos 03:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one who did these “mean” things obviously was me. Now I filed a WP:CFDS so the invidious "z" probably won't bother you any longer.
To the point: Your position on the exclusion of organisations by and for students, teachers, professors, as long as they don't provide education themselves, implies you have an inclusion rationale in mind that differs from what BrownHairedGirl proposed and I agreed to. That is perfectly okay, we can certainly do it this way. However as we then were excluding quite a number of organisation types, another category might be necessary to hold them, maybe a supercategory "Educational organisations based in Australia" (basically, organisations involved in the educational sector) with this one here as a child category. Don't know if this makes sense or is just confusing.
Now let's reexamine your position from another perspective: Isn't it true that the state archives, government departments, museums etc. you mention and the schools that are included as well, are not just some kind of "education organisation" but that more specifically they are "educational institutions"? So why don't we separate them out as such, which would nicely integrate with Category:People by educational institution in Australia. See also, the Australian Department of Justice definition of "Educational Institution", which seems to cover quite exactly the use cases you have in mind. PanchoS (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I reinvented the wheel, as BrownHairedGirl mentioned exactly this distinction between mere organisations and, more specifically institutions. This would also perfectly integrate with Category:Educational institutions which I “polished up a bit”, meaning I added preexisting but disconnected categories such as Category:Educational institutions in the Philippines Category:Educational institutions in Prague, Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment, Category:Educational institutions by year of disestablishment, Category:Bahá'í educational institutions, Category:Orthodox Jewish educational institutions, Category:Educational institutions of the Moravian Church or Category:Academic institutions. I didn't touch the category currently discussed here to avoid acting preliminarily. However, I think that this move would make much sense. PanchoS (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little confused as to what you mean re parent category - as the category here would be the parent category and educational organisations would be the child (in fact, it already is in a way, as schools and tertiary institutions hang off this one.) My understanding of "educational organisations" would be "organisations whose business is, or who are involved in, education". Archives, govt departments and museums are *not* "educational institutions", they are either administrative or cultural institutions - an archivist or a librarian would not see their role as education, they would see it as preservation and collection; however, the facility may well employ an education officer or produce leaflets, and I'm assuming that's why whoever assembled the category included them. And that still leaves what to do about the student organisations, which provide non-educational services to people in education.

I am not sure at all what you mean re the DOJ link (it's a state govt in Victoria btw, and the definition is for the purpose of determining whether someone should be allowed to work with children or not) - it only seems to include schools and TAFEs, and explicitly excludes universities as universities generally don't have under-18s studying within them. It does not include any of the other categories. Orderinchaos 17:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per Orderinchaos. The category is clearly not limited to educational organisations and as such, renaming to anything like this would be misleading. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:53, 2 March 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.

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 all and merge into Category:Libertas. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertas in the Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Libertas in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Libertas in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Libertas in Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Libertas in Latvia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Libertas in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Libertas in Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Libertas in Slovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Libertas in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and merge just the main articles to Category:Libertas — While several articles on Libertas' activities (or in these cases non-activities) in specific countries have been smerged following a AfD, some others articles remain as Libertas was at least active in these countries. However Libertas.eu seems to be defunct as all its websites have been deleted. So all these categories do is hold members of loose one-time coalitions of minor parties for the 2009 European Parliament elections. From the present perspective, this seems to me an example of overcategorization (in 2009 it might have been thinkable that Libertas would emerge as a political power for years to come, so the creator was not necessarily wrong). Rather the information that the member parties joined the Libertas campaign in 2009 should be included in all parties' articles which I see didn't happen in some cases. — PanchoS (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems excessive having per-country articles when few of them will ever be more than one article. Orderinchaos 03:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The delete seems to support current circumstances and having all these categories seems no longer neccessary. Having only the one category as proposed by the nominator works best. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all to Category:Libertas. Libertas is/was a Europe-wide political party, which founght the 2009 European Parliament elections, without acheiving great success, against the entrenched party machines. If it becomes important enough and if there are enough articles to warrant multiple categories, they can be re-created, but for the moment, they are not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 7 March 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sampling of Kool & the Gangs songs are not defining characteristics of the songs placed into this category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kool&The Gang is one of the most sampled groups of all time, as you can see by the large number of songs in the category. Shaliya waya (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like the samples are indeed relevant if not defining at least for many of the listed songs. PanchoS (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They're a band mostly known to the modern public for the samples of their work rather than their original songs, so this seems logical. Orderinchaos 03:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sampling of Kool & the Gangs songs is a defining characteristics of the songs placed into this category. Lugnuts (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As precedent, what would have been a possible parent category, Category:Songs that sample previously recorded songs, was deleted per this CFD as trivial. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:31, 3 March 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 14:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bibliophiles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A bibliophile is a person who loves book, especially "for qualities of format." This essentially could be renamed Category:Book collectors. This category is being applied pretty much to anyone who was a book collector, whether or not said collecting is why they are notable. Isn't this essentially just categorizing people by hobby or interest?—in other words, by a trivial characteristic. (For example, John Maynard Keynes is in the category—collecting books is not mentioned in the lead of his article, and it's hardly a defining characteristic of the fellow. Also included in the category are people who are notable for being actors, politicians, criminals, sports writers, philosophers, nobility, novelists, military leaders, diplomats, religious leaders, and others.) In the past we've deleted categories for cat lovers, bird lovers, members of debating clubs, aviation spotters, Morrissey fans, D&D enthusiasts, and others, and I'm not clear on how this is any different. If we need a category for people whose relentless book collecting and the problems it caused is the reason of their notability, then Category:Bibliomaniacs may be more appropriately created: see bibliomania. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Split by gender, by century, by nationality and ethnic group, so that we have a big nest of categories leading us to Category:20th-century Greek male bibliophiles of Samoan descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, you're in a really good temper tonight ;-) You all are perfectly right in that this category is both trivial and undefinable. I'd say I'm a bibliophile and I certainly know hundreds more. If being bibliophile starts with the first book someone really, really likes, aren't there billions of bibliophiles? Support deletion per nom and selectively add people to Category:Book and manuscript collectors. — PanchoS (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I probably should declare an interest here: I routinely sleep with a book. Most nights, I take of all my clothes and get into bed with one ... and on the other nights I go to bed with more than one book. Does this make me a bibliophile? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel funny inside. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Then there is the similar Category:Book and manuscript collectors, which (BHG will be pleased to note) has an underlying tree of subcategories by nationality. Maybe a reasonable categorisation for Walter Benjamin (though his biography doesn't mention "Unpacking my library"), but others there are as feared in GO'F's above nomination. AllyD (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, yes, good to note. Perhaps we should deal with this one and then go from there. It's possible the by-nationality ones are actually categorizing people by their profession for which they are primarily notable, though I haven't had a chance to go through them yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or at the least Sort through before deleting While I agree (on a preliminary basis) with the nom & others, the category has under A Henry Spencer Ashbee who is only notable as a book collector and writer on the subject. Also see JMK's nephew Quentin Keynes. I would not support deletion without a good check through the articles, which I'm willing to do some of. There are also people like Shōichi Watanabe and Isaac Foot, whose articles very much mention it, & in the case of Watanabe seem mainly known for it, but were not apparently especially book collectors in the usual sense of collecting collectible, valuable or specialized books, but just had loads & loads of them & were famous for it, and/or wrote about their collections or bookish topics extensively. Ideally some sort of distinction should be preserved; maybe this category is better just drasticly cut down in size. Apart from Benjamin, also a "bibliophile", the book collector cats seem pretty clean to me - check out Owen Gingerich for example. Many "bibliophiles" are just miscategorized & should be collectors - Henry E. Huntington surely never had much time to actually read the things?

After some investigations, I am hardening in favour of keeping thius, suitably trimmed. Where else to put Bernhard von Mallinckrodt, Harry Buxton Forman, Stephen Blumberg etc? Though there is a case for Category:Book-related criminals. I have started trimming the category, mostly by transfers to the "collectors", & removing this from many people already in those cats, unless they also wrote extensively etc. The likes of Benjamin should go from both. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've stirred me up & I've set up Category:Convicted book-thieves! Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 2 March 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States student societies to Category:Student societies in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Australian student societies to Category:Student societies in Australia

Propose renaming Category:Belgian student societies to Category:Student societies in Belgium

Propose renaming Category:British student societies to Category:Student societies in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:German student societies to Category:Student societies in Germany

Propose renaming Category:Pakistani student societies to Category:Student societies in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: for consistency with Category:Student societies by country, "Category:Organi(s/z)ations based in ..." and most other "per country" categories.
Note that I had incorrectly emptied these category out of process. I apologize and am now taking this to the correct process for reevaluation. PanchoS (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. I was a little concerned that some of the "fooish" category might refer to societies of Fooish students outside Foo, e.g British students of Pakistani origin. But I haven't found any like that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Reasonable proposal. Orderinchaos 03:37, 2 March 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 14:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. More earthquake recentism leading to "newsy" categories. The places "affected by" the 2010 Chile earthquake are mentioned in 2010 Chile earthquake, and I therefore don't see a need to categorize the places so mentioned. There are a number of problems with doing so. First, "affected by" is an extremely vague phrasing which could mean almost anything—how does one know exactly where to draw the line in deciding what to include and what to exclude in this category? Do we include just those places mentioned in the article? If so, why don't we include the places that received tsunami warnings (these are mentioned in the article), which was pretty much every island in the Pacific Ocean? (The island I live on was "affected", because I was woken up in the middle of the GD night by the stupid tsunami siren.) Second, this is not defining for the places so categorized. Sure, it's in the news right now, but in the grand scope of time, is Santiago, Chile going to be defined as a "place affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake"? Not likely. We can delete it now, or we can delete it in 4 months from now. Either way, I can't see it lasting that long. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whilst I sort of agree with you, many of your arguments are spurious. I think we know what affected means. It's common sense, and the word often used in this context in the media;[2] your siren example is self-evidently preposterous. We are talking destruction, deaths. We are also talking about one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded, not some minor event. When you say "We can delete it now, or we can delete it in 4 months from now" you are rather assuming that the outcome you desire is inevitable; a tad dictatorial, no? When you say, "The places "affected by" the 2010 Chile earthquake are mentioned in 2010 Chile earthquake, and I therefore don't see a need to categorize the places so mentioned", does that mean that because the Luftwaffe bombing of St Mary the Boltons is mentioned in the article on the church that the church should not be included in Category:British churches bombed by the Luftwaffe? We'd have few categories left by your logic [later: I think I've got my logic upside down here, but I'll leave it as is]. And are you thinking of proposing that Category:Places affected by the 2010 Haiti earthquake and Category:Places affected by Hurricane Katrina be deleted too? Ericoides (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you missed the point of the example, which was meant to be "preposterous" in order to illustrate the ridiculousness of how the category is named, since the category could be broadly construed and applied without doing violence to the name of the category. I do think it's eventual deletion is inevitable. Making a prediction of where consensus will ultimately come down is not "dictatorial", because "what I think will happen" ≠ "consensus". It's making a prediction of what will happen in the future. (I said something similar about a different category recently, and another user interpreted or framed my comment as a "threat" to delete the category. Since there seems to be confusion about what is meant when someone says this, let's make it crystal clear: it was a prediction. Predictions are not threats, nor do they dictate what will in fact happen in the future.) As for your inclusionary criteria of "destruction, deaths"—what if destruction happens, but no deaths? What level of "destruction" is required? If deaths are required, how many? Is one enough? What if the death was from heart attack rather than falling debris or the like? What if a guy where I lived heard the tsunami warning siren and died of a stroke? It's just too vague. Yes, I agree the hurricane one and the other earthquake one should also be deleted, but that's not really a concern here. A place being "affected" by a natural disaster is not defined by that disaster (unless maybe it results in the ultimate abandonment of the settlement, for example). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that two people have "misunderstood" you, I think you might like to brush up on how to phrase a prediction. Likewise, applying a little common sense re "affected" might not go amiss. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who said that the other one was a misunderstanding? Given that it was by a user who consistently misinterprets statements of others, apparently for the sole purpose of fomenting trouble or linking users he disagrees with to controversies, and that he refused to retract the comments after being asked to by me and two other outside observers, and that it ultimately led to an effort by another editor to have past editing restrictions reinstated upon the misinterpreter, let's just say I have my doubts. As for your own "misunderstanding"—I find it curious that you would actually think I personally could dictate actions in WP that are otherwise taken by consensus. If that were the case, your "common sense" should have told you that if it were true I of course wouldn't bother starting a formal nomination. But you seem to have missed the idea that there is no "common sense". In other words, in citing "common sense", the tack you're essentially taking is encouraging us to ignore all rules, which implicitly acknowledges that the points I have raised are valid, not spurious, as claimed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As there's a little misunderstanding on an issue that is barely deserving of it, I'll make no further comment and do something productive instead. I trust it all works out for you. Ericoides (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure that I understand what you're referring to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, but review in a few months. I share the nominator's well-expressed concerns about the vagueness of the inclusion criteria for this category, and I have doubts about its longevity; Ericoides's response to that is rather unfair, because I read GO's comment on that simply as a recognition that categories such as this tend to be looked at a bit more dispassionately when the event concerned is not current news, and when there is greater perspective on the disaster.
  However, wikipedia's coverage of the earthquake is inevitably still at a very early stage, and a category like this has a useful function in helping build that coverage by grouping geographical articles which should include some coverage of the earthquake's effect. This helps both readers and editors, and also helps to facilitate new editors, because an event like this tends to attract new editors. This hybrid between maintenance-category and category-as-navigation-tool (the normal purpose of mainspace categories) is not one which we should be keeping in the long term, but it seems to me to be appropriate as a short-term device. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I have to agree that "affected by" does appear to be vague phrasing, therefore I would rather see a category created using another rationale. In addition, I would rather see if a large enough number of articles is generated to deserve another category. The article 2010 Chile earthquake already has sufficient categories for a number of articles, which might be generated from this one article: Category:2010 in Chile, Cat:2010 Chile earthquake, Cat:Earthquakes in Chile, Cat: Megathrust earthquakes, Cat: Tsunamis. Compare these categories to the one proposed for deletion, and again the wording is vague. These other categories are very clear in their definitions. Also the categories are relevant from the perspective of hindsight. It appears that this category may be the effect of perspective (or perspectives) slanted toward recent and events, see WP:Recentism. I don't think it qualifies as a name for a category, and I don't see a need for it. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to add to the above statement, which I wrote yesterday. After reading the other categories that this article is already placed in, it appears that the category being proposed is not needed. Anything that could possibly be placed in the proposed category can be placed in the one or some of the other categories already in exisitence. The proposed category is simply over-categorization, see WP:OCAT. This also appears to be arbitrary inclusion criteria WP:OC#Arbitrary. Thanks for your time. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You say "Anything that could possibly be placed in the proposed category can be placed in the one or some of the other categories already in exisitence. The proposed category is simply over-categorization." So where is Talcahuano (pop. 250,348 inhabitants, of whom 80% are now homeless) in any of the categories you mention? (To save you the bother of looking, it isn't in any of those categories, and can't be, given their parameters. Yet you maintain that the category proposed for deletion is "OCAT"?) Ericoides (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not positive, but I think Steve Quinn might have meant it could just be placed directly in Category:2010 Chile earthquake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per additional comments by Steve Quinn. Rename to directly affected. This should at least make it a category with finite limits and a verifiable scope. Orderinchaos 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep several towns/cities were destroyed (more than 70% destroyed) by the earthquake and resultant tsunami. This is therefore a defining characteristic in the history of these places. I can't see how this is OCAT, unless you want to fill those other categories with alot of entries from various earthquakes and tsunamis in the future, instead of being neatly delineated. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• People may also like to consider that the category forms a useful part of Template:2010 Chile earthquake (under the heading "Affected geography"). Ericoides (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. We may wnat to reconsider this in the future, when the long-term impact of the earthquake is more apparent. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 7 March 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.

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. --Xdamr^talk 14:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People in Messianic Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Totally arbitrary inclusion criteria. Some of the entries include Matthew the Evangelist, Mary (mother of Jesus), John the Apostle, Saint Joseph, James the Just, and even Yeshua (name). Upmerge any genuinely relevant articles to Category:Messianic Judaism or Category:Messianic Jews. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and label the category not for first-century Christian/Jews. Maybe add a link to Category:1st-century Christians. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After the biblical people are removed, there doesn't seem to be any distinction between this category and Category:Messianic Jews. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and merge. The contents should either be in Category:1st-century Christians or Category:Messianic Jews. The latter is to some extent a 20th/21st century phenomenon, but there have been conversions from Judaism to Christianity at other periods. It may be that we need a parent category to cover all of these. I think of Felix Mendelssohn and the so-called "New Christians" of Spain and Portugal of the early modern period. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 7 March 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.

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:Flexible circuit
• Category:Rollable electronics

--Xdamr^talk 14:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flexible circuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Flexible circuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can't see that this category serves any purpose. The sole article is Flexible electronics, which is already in Category:Flexible electronics. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would also delete Category:Flexible electronics Category:Rollable electronics. They all appear to be in the same area of electronics; although not being a specialist I cannot offer a proper opinion. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, my typo. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion of Category:Rollable electronics as another duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category: Flexible circuit, and Category:Rollable electronics. I am adding Category:Rollable electronics to this deletion proposal. These categories really do not serve any purpose, at this time. Also there is a Category:Flexible electronics which the single articles in these categories probably should be placed, rather than the above categories nominated for deletion Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 16:19, 1 March 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hans Bethe Prize recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorisation per WP:OC#Award_winners. There is already a list at Hans Bethe Prize, and this category appears to have been created as a kind of navigation template, which I have now created properly at {{Hans Bethe Prize recipients}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator's rationale. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Appears for all the world to have been an attempt to create a footer template in the wrong namespace. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no need to listify as list exists. Listifying is the usual answer for awards categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 7 March 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.

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. While there's no consensus into a double merge (Category:Independent bookstores of the United States), this can be done even without this CfD, and appears to me to be correct as long as Category:Independent bookstores of the United States isn't deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Independent bookstores based in Maryland to Category:Bookstores based in Maryland

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category has only one article, and it does not appear it'll have any others added any time soon. Even the target category is small. Given this, it is more ideal that they be a single category. Sebwite (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator. I really doubt that we should expect a rash of articles on notable independent bookstores anywhere, let alone in one US state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but also into the other parent, Category:Independent bookstores of the United States. Occuli (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator's rationale Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merge The merge candidate's single article is hardly an aid to navigation and the target is part of a broader structure. Alansohn (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into both parents. Category:Independent bookstores of the United States is small enough that I;'m mildly surprised it was ever broken down by a single state. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they need to be merged into the entire US list. For the category to have 4 seems fine to me; there may be occasional additions in the future, even some articles that already exist. And the category for a state does serve as a navigation aide, since people often search for something within a state. But surely, you do not need two separate but similar categories for just 4 articles! Sebwite (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- but I see no merit in retaining a separate "independent" bookstores tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 7 March 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.