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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge as obvious duplicate. Pichpich (talk) 18:55, 20 September 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:WikiProject Avatar: The Last Airbender articles[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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Avatar: The Last Airbender is no longer a WikiProject. It is now a task force of WP:TV. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 18:12, 20 September 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:United States church-state separation case law[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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As with other subcategories of Category:United States constitutional case law, this should be named by the functional clause, not the theme or result it is popularly thought to be associated with. To be sure, the Establishment Clause is the constitutional source of the separation of church and state principle in the United States (along with the "no religious test" clause). But the Establishment Clause goes further, with many cases dealing with principles such as non-discrimination between sects, etc. which are not easily understood as separation. As there is no other "Establishment Clause," there is no need for the category to contain "U.S." (see, e.g. Category: Takings Clause case law). Savidan 17:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many jurisdictions have an equal protection clause (although given the current article title of Equal Protection Clause one could argue that the first should be changed, leaving aside the issue that equal protection against the federal government is enforced through the Fifth Amendment due process clause), and the U.S. has two due process clauses (in the 5th and 14th amendments). That explains those two category names. Neither contains more disambiguation than is needed. Savidan 02:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The current name assumes the mandate is "seperation of Church and state" which is not the actual case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- calling it "establishment" is obscure to non-cogniscenti. US is a vital part of the category, since this refers to the US constitution. If a similar issue arises elsewhere, we could have a paretn categoiry for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I would be more sensitive to these concerns, but here the category is not "separation of church and state in the United States" but a case law category. Since the only thing the category contains are legal precedents, I think we can risk a modicum of confusion to cure a serious inaccuracy. Savidan 20:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree the name change would be very ambiguous to those not in the legal profession. --Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 4 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:Speedy delete - G7: Author requests deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Humorous category but it's still a user category unrelated to the primary mission of Wikipedia. Pichpich (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing wrong with the category.Delete per nom. I would of thought that the humorous wikipedia pages would apply to cats. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 20:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC), 21:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is something wrong: it doesn't conform to what the relevant guideline says is an acceptable user category. Does this category have the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia? I don't see how you can make the argument unless you can tell me with a straight face that you a) expect people who actually have a very real and serious addiction problem to turn to you and b) consider that you have the fine expertise required to truly help them in a meaningful way. Pichpich (talk) 21:36, 20 September 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:United States mythology and folklore[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:Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge An american religion doesn't exist.Curb Chain (talk) 06:45, 21 September 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete I don't think the category is necessary and its definition is problematic. Indeed it's hard to objectively decide how close to "imminent major loss of human life" you have to get before you qualify for this category. In any case, the scope of categories like Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners is wide enough to include serious accidents, relatively minor incidents and everything in between. The "near disasters" category is relatively new and doesn't really fill a void. Pichpich (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the creator of the category. We have lots of categories about things that went wrong, I thought one about situations where people did the right thing and averted a disaster would be interesting to our readers. I think the test for inclusion in this category can be evaluated based on what reliable sources say about a candidate incident. The category that nominator cites is far broader than the one I propose and only covers incidents involving airliners. We could at least wait to see if the category proves unwieldy.--agr (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that point but I'm also concerned that some articles will become hard to find because they'll appear only in one of two categorization schemes that will be almost parallel. Pichpich (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think this is a very sensible nomination. The "accidents and incidents" tree is designed to contain all "incidents"—from large disasters, to incidents that could have been disasters but were averted, and everything in between. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any such "accidents and incidents" tree. The highest category is Category:Aviation accidents and incidents whose parents are Category:AccidentsCategory:Transport incidents. Not all disasters are transport related. And even if such a tree existed, it would not provide a reader an easy way to find the type of incidents where disaster was averted.--agr (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles in the category relate to transport incidents. What other non-transport "near disasters" would need to be included?, and how does one draw the line between a "disaster" and a "near disaster"? If one person dies, it's a "disaster", but if they only lose a limb or a finger, it's a "near disaster"? It's a completely subjective exercise. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't see how a "near disaster" would be reported as such. So many are near disaster; any multicasuality incident is a near disaster. Only to include one's that explicitly say this phrase is useless.Curb Chain (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category is subjective not only because opinion of "disaster" varies, but because that of "near" varies as well. Two axes leaves too much wiggle room.- choster (talk) 15:09, 21 September 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
155 aircraft categories with hyphenated date ranges
Nominator's rationale: Rename and leave redirects. These categories, proposed for Speedy renaming this week, are out of step with our guideline on date ranges, which in no uncertain terms prefers en-dashes to hyphens. This common-sense change for aircraft categories was proposed in December, and was shouted down by a "Won't someone please think of the children!" argument—despite a long-standing approach of leaving redirects in our thousands of hyphen/en-dash category changes. The battle over en-dashes seems to have quieted down, so I'm hoping we can just push these outliers through without breaking the internet.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIadded the South Korean categories as well. (These were recently speedily renamed from "Korean ..." to "South Korean ...", unfortunately there was an objection to changing the hyphens into dashes along with that speedy renaming so I removed that part of the request last time). cab (call) 13:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please add any more that you find.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Justin in the previous nomination, there are over 2,000 of these year range categories for aircraft. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then they can be renamed en masse on CFDW/Large. As far as I can tell, there are only six templates that need changing: {{airnd}}, {{airnt}}, {{airtd}}, {{airntd}}, {{civairnd}}, and {{milairnd}} (the rest are redirects). Through changing those and standard CFDW moves, that may get the bulk of them. I've created a list of the ones affected by the six templates; there are over 1700 of these.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Every other article and category on Wikipedia follows MOS:DASH and uses en dashes for year ranges. The only argument appears to be that the MoS is 'only a guideline'. While that's true, guidelines still need to have very good reasons to be ignored. You can't just show up at an AfD and say "Keep – WP:N is only a guideline". That said, I can understand the concern about typing en dashes, but as long as redirects are left in place, then there's no problem. Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm not a big fan of MOSDASH but I don't see any strong reason that these should be inconsistent with other year ranges, per Jenks24. If redirects are created, the renaming shouldn't cause much inconvenience to editors. cab (call) 13:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and leave redirects per nom – there is no great difficulty in producing en- or em-dashes anyway. Occuli (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and leave redirects. Good heavens, yes—there's no reason for these to be the only ones that are not changed to the standard formatting. Some adjustment of templates will be required, but once that is done, this won't cause any categorization problems, especially if the redirects are created from the hyphenated form, as they almost always are in cases such as this. Just not liking a particular guideline seems like a particularly bad (as in "totally subjective") reason not to proceed. (I do find it strange that this has even been such an issue in this context. If you want to fight it out—fight it out at the MOS page; we don't need to re-fight it every time someone attempts to implement a convention.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep against the odds. I hear all the others have been changed and it is easy to type the em dash with some trickery, it might be a guideline but you have to understand the truth etc etc we went through these discussions last time and it failed to gain a consensus for these categories. But as I am up against a brick wall of establishment it doesnt really matter what I say, no sign of assuming good faith here. And you guys wonder why it keeps being raised, perhaps because it is a daft idea. Categories are used for finding stuff not part of a degree course in typography, so we will change 2000 categories and create a shed full of redirects for no actual useful purpose in the real world, most of the readers dont actually care but as long as my Standard English Keyboard only has a hyphen I will oppose this daftness, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only categories that keep getting brought up on this issue are the ones that haven't changed to the en-dash. The many categories that have changed are not repeatedly brought up—and in fact no complaints at all regarding this issue have been registered at CFD since the changes, as far as I know. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:33, 22 September 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:No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only five articles--easily navigated by footer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WP:OC#SMALL clearly states: ...unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.... There are currently 272 such categories in Category:Categories named after American television series. Moreover, there are currently 6 articles, so the category must be growing. Furthermore, categories are preferred over footer templates, especially for something this straightforward. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:54, 24 September 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. — ξxplicit 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The rule for categories named after TV shows is that you need significant numbers of articles. Three articles is not enough for these types of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too few articles to justify category. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 30 September 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. — ξxplicit 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two articles is not enough when we are dealing with the category. There is no accepted plan to create categories for virtually every show, so the overcat exemption rule does not apply here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too few articles to justify category. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 30 September 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:no consensus, leaning toward keep. Five seems about the threshold for keeping, based on previous nominations (which are all over the map, it seems).--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep five is few, but maybe just sufficient for a keep. gidonb (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Occuli. The three members of this category are already linked and placed in context in the main article. Yea, for counting I dropped the main article and the episode list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 8 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.
Rename but I'm not convinced by the deletion rationale. Ok the category is small but do you know for sure that it won't grow? I see some value in the fact that it can be accessed through both Category:Types of existentialism and Category:Atheism. Is the category preventing people from efficiently finding the articles they seek? That's not my impression. Pichpich (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have no prejudice against its recreation if it has enough material to warrant it, but right now it doesn't. An infinite number of categories could exist... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about just this category which, pun unintended, exists. You haven't convinced me that it doesn't have room to grow even by populating using existing articles, say books about the subjects and I'm not sure I see the benefit in its deletion. Pichpich (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response Virtually any topic could have a populated category--that's not why categories exist. They exist in order to create ontological schemes for actually existing content on the encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty obvious that most topics would never lead to decently populated categories and I'm sure you know this. Your sole argument for deletion is that the category is too small. That's fine if you can show that this is an intrinsic problem and not the result of under-population. We don't delete underpopulated categories, we populate them. Pichpich (talk) 15:53, 25 September 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. — ξxplicit 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category that groups major college athletic conferences by an obscure criterion. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be a valid sporting award. Helps to make it easier to find it. Involves well know university football programs in the United States. --LauraHale (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To amplify my rationale above, this category is more or less a partial rehash of Category:NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision conferences. Sooner or later, all of the 11 FBS conferences are probably going to win a Bowl Challenge Cup. Also, the way this category is deployed, it renders a college football award over whole conferences, which are multi-faceted and regulate many different sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just an award that, at best, will contain up to 11 articles, each of which are already part of Category:NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision conferences (as Jweiss11 mentioned). It's a pretty redundant category that really doesn't aide navigation in any sense of the term. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This redundancy to the NCAA Divison I Football Bowl Subdivision conferences category makes this an example of overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 30 September 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per most creative works categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think Media and Works have the same definition. The first category appears to be the more clearly worded one to me. I'd opt for conciseness.--LauraHale (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the category contained two articles -- dr5 chrome and Black-and-white -- that are about the medium of black and white imaging. I've just added Monochrome photography, as well. However, Mike is right about using "works" for individual creative works in black and white. So if this CfD fails, I'd be inclined to create Category:Black-and-white works anyway, as a subcat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 23 September 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:Media with live action and animation[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per most categories about creative works.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think Media and Works have the same definition. The first category appears to be the more clearly worded one to me. I'd opt for conciseness.--LauraHale (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, media and works do not have the same definition: which is why we've spent literally weeks here at CfD renaming "media" articles which are actually about Category:Creative works, as is the case here. Rename per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Mike Selinker. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not as lightly populated as you might think. Contains five films and TV shows, and two redirects. I'm not sure it merits keeping, but regardless it should be renamed per most "Works about" categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think Media and Works have the same definition. The first category appears to be the more clearly worded one to me. I'd opt for conciseness.--LauraHale (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, media and works do not have the same definition: which is why we've spent literally weeks here at CfD renaming "media" articles which are actually about Category:Creative works, as is the case here. Rename per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 23 September 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A lightly populated category, which makes me wonder if it couldn't be broadened some.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think Media and Works have the same definition. The first category appears to be the more clearly worded one to me. I'd opt for conciseness.--LauraHale (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They don't, it's true. However, these categories are now part of a parallel track of Works/Media categories that we've converted a couple of hundred of by now, where the "media" have in fact all been creative works. For example, in this nomination about the American Revolution, "media" was switched to "works." This is like that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, media and works do not have the same definition: which is why we've spent literally weeks here at CfD renaming "media" articles which are actually about Category:Creative works, as is the case here. Rename per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 23 September 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:12, 29 September 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:Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (As creator) Or merge the other way, or rearrange. I don't think websites, journals and magazines are properly described as "works" in either legal or normal English. The contents should be re-arranged more appropriately. I have re-added the old "media" parent. These two trees are apparently being rammed together without much thought, but I don't think that works. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, websites, magazines etc are media platforms that contain a collection of "works". Is a tv channel a work? Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Imo, no, a TV channel could not be called an individual creative work. A single purpose website, like a web documentary, is a work, but a site that is merely a platform for content is indeed media. So I'd recommend keeping both, moving things like journals and magazines back to the "media" category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 23 September 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:Speedy rename C2B/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm a fan of that rule but it's the standard thing to do. Pichpich (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the admirable rule of matching the article for the artist. Occuli (talk) 17:30, 20 September 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Looks like speedy renaming material? Pichpich (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per above. --LauraHale (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : (creator) Ambiguous? Ambiguous to whom? Is FBI ambiguous? The category for the Directors of the Federal Bureau of InvestigationisCategory:Directors of the FBI, likewise the category for the Chiefs of the Secret Intelligence ServiceisCategory:Chiefs of MI6, which is even more ambiguous since the acronym used in the category is not even an official name but just a flag reference that stuck around. Acronyms are maintained in translations; you might not be familiar with the DAS, but to those in the intelligence community and Colombians in general, DAS is pretty unambiguous. mijotoba (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"DAS" can mean any one of the numerous meanings found at DAS, and the Colombian agency is not the primary meaning of "DAS" in English. The same is not the case with FBI, which has the primary meaning of Federal Bureau of Investigation. That's why FBI redirects there. Similarly, MI6 redirects to Secret Intelligence Service because the principal meaning of MI6 is the UK agency. Wikipedia is read by English speakers all over the world, and we rely on world-wide primary meanings, not the ones that might be the primary meaning in one particular country or region. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:22, 22 September 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.
