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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The two song entries in this category are also performed by Tinchy Stryder. Therefore the category is not only non-defining, but a duplication of another category Richhoncho (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know this artist's work, but there seem to be far more songs mentioned in the Tinchy Stryder article than are categorised here. Presumably he may produce songs for other people and may perform songs produced by other people, so I don't understand the nominator's rationale.--Northernhenge (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's don't even credit Tinchy Stryder as the producer. And the article Tinchy Stryder lists his occupations as business manager, music video director and creative director but not producer. There's also no mention of any work of his as a producer. Pichpich (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator has now emptied this category and stated that Stryder is not a producer. As it is now empty the category should be deleted anyway. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2011 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The two song entries in this category are also performed by B.o.B. Therefore the category is not only non-defining, but a duplication of another category. Richhoncho (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though barely. B.o.B. does have a career as a producer. Ok, it's not that great a career since the overwhelming majority of his work is on his own albums but it's still something. There's no minimum size for subcategories of Category:Songs by producer, nor is there a rule saying that self-produced tracks don't count. Pichpich (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That does not preclude the category being deleted at this stage, but recreated when and if he is actually a "jobbing" producer with articles where he has produced artists other than himself. To keep the whole Songs by producer meaningful it is much better to delete categories that only include self-produced songs, don't you think? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very sound point. It's getting hard for me to argue that much would be lost if we deleted this... Pichpich (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to fall the other side of barely on this one. I can't find any evidence that the songs are defined by his production, or in fact any secondary sourced comment on the production. As Rich suggests, we can recreate if and when something more concrete appears. Uniplex (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2011 (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:Leavitt family of Hingham, Massachusetts[edit]
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. Although adding some disambiguation should be cinsidered if there is ever an other notable family by the same name, our standard is not to disambiguate the families until this is the case. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have no other Leavitt families that I can find.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing to say a different Leavitt family won't become notable in the future. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as main article. When a different leavitt family does become notable we can disambiguate then.Curb Chain (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2011 (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:Edwards family (American political)[edit]
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 מישהוOd Mishehu 14:28, 14 November 2011 (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. Consensus was that there is an issue with the current name, hence the rename. If this category should be deleted, that will need to be a new discussion focused on deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name reads as "Wikipedians with BULLSHIT degrees" in British English and is probably unacceptable to most British contributors. There has been discussion on the talk page since 2008 about renaming this category, but no action that I can see. I have removed myself from this category until some acceptable adjustment is implemented. The suggested new name is inclusive of all 8 identified abbreviations of Bachelor of Science, and is therefore mid-Atlantic. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: The claims that "the current name reads as 'Wikipedians with BULLSHIT degrees" is blatantly false, as the primary meaning at wiktionary:BS is "Bachelor of Science", not the slang "BULLSHIT". 64.134.151.7 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The claim is correct if you use British English. That is the point. BS is offensive in British English. The fact that wiktionary contributions have been blind to this critical difference is a major concern Ian Cairns (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This proposal is about BS, and _not_ about BA. However, BA = Bachelor of Arts on both sides of the Atlantic (as well as British Airways which doesn't award degrees anyway?); BSc = Bachelor of Science in the UK; BS = either Bachelor of Science in the USA or BULLSHIT in the UK. Just looking for a little mid-Atlantic agreement here. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move to name that is inclusive for people with both "BS" and "BSc" degrees, and is more clear to people unfamiliar with the acronym. +mt 21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am most familiar with B.Sc. as the accepted acronym, so this category name bothers me because it seems incorrect. I can't help but wonder why an acronym is used at all, when there are so many variants that all mean Bachelor of Science. In fact, I don't see why Category:Wikipedians with BA degrees isn't renamed to explicitly state Bachelor of Arts instead of using one of its four possible acronyms. However, it seems more urgent to change this category first, not just for clarity, but to reduce the probability that its interpretation is muddled with fecal jokes. --Qrystal (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: "bothers me because it seems incorrect" is not a valid rational, as "BS" is a correct abbreviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.151.7 (talk • contribs)
Comment: BS is the correct American abbreviation - it is unknown in UK academia, where BSc is used. BS means bullshit in the UK. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I'd back the expansion of BA as well. My alma mater awards ABs.- choster (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: Abbreviations for categories are valid and appropriate, and that a degree-granting institution "awards ABs" is irrelevant to a discussion about Bachelor of Science degrees. 64.134.151.7 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Abbreviations are sometimes geographically-limited. "BS" is a clear example. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. People don't know what BS means in an academic context as we would expect to see BSc, so we assume it means 'bullshit'. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: The false claim "People don't know what BS means in an academic context" is preposterous since "BS" is a valid defined abbreviation. 64.134.151.7 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The claim is correct if you are British, or speaking for British people. BS is defined in your sense in American English, not in British English. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whole a BA/BS in some specific subject related to an encyclopedia may be useful, a category like this one (unless as a parent-only categorey) serves no such purpose. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The RENAME rationale is invalid, as abbreviations are valid and appropriate and the primary meaning of BS is Bachelor of Scienc while wiktionary:BS clearly identifies bullshit is a slang meaning of BS, and the context of the category title is not about slang. 64.134.151.7 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As above, they are valid for American English, and incorrect / offensive for British English. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename to "Wikipedians by Bachelor of Science degree" (or equivalent) and maintain as a parent category only - This category, as is, is not a useful category for purposes of collaboration. It is unhelpful to know who merely has a BS degree, as there are numerous things one can get a BS in. Grouping such a large group of users together has no benefit. I could see keeping this as a parent category if renamed, maintaining categories such as "Wikipedians with a BS in Business", etc., but this is entirely unuseful as-is. If not deleted or turned into a parent category, I would probably agree with the rename in order to match the article name, Bachelor of Science. VegaDark (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ambiguity is bad, especially if it is easily solved. Tend to agree with the rationals given by the deletes and would like to see this as a parent category. AIRcorn(talk) 01:29, 10 November 2011 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a little too close to Category:Japanese families to avoid confusion. This is the only by-country "family" category, and needs some help making it clear that it's for concepts rather than individual families.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2011 (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.
Delete. I'm not really convinced that having served on a particular campaign committee is defining, even if it was Nixon's famous CREEP committee. If kept, I think Pichpich's suggestion would be the best name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Watergate figures as needed as the categorization is defining only for those connected to the Watergate scandal.- choster (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2011 (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:September 1947 United States Air Force Installations[edit]
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Better identifies the purpose of the category. Listify is also an option since the installations will not be changing and this may in fact not be defining for any of these facilities. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: The vague word "Initial" does not "better identif[y] the purpose" since it does not indicate whether the USAF installations are only those on the day the USAF was formed, those part of the USAF in September 1947, or those initial USAF installations that became part of the USAF after September 1947. 64.134.151.7 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, initial is better then the totally vague September 1947 which assumes someone looking at the category knows what happened then. So despite your objections, barring a clearer or better suggestion, the one I proposed is clear as to the contents of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Initial" is an inappropriate term for the title since initial USAF installations after September 1947 are not included in the category, and identifying the specific timeperiod scope of the category is much better than the term "initial". 64.134.151.7 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2011 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. While probably well intentioned, I'm not convinced that this category is really defining in its current form. It is also apparently poorly named based on the contents, is the Dead Sea a dry area? This might be salvageable, but deletion and then recreation with a better name and objective inclusion criteria is likely the smarter way to go. My guess is that inclusion criteria should be based on geographic features and not arbitrary criteria. So does Amsterdam Airport Schiphol belong if it is part of a wider area that might rightfully be includeable? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletealist already exists. Such a category is unclear.Curb Chain (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2011 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as per main article and because it could be understand as sports films for females, not the subject matterCurb Chain (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2011 (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.
