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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2009 (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:Minor League Teams
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge (category was empty at close). Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Minor League Teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:Ice Cube CD covers
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. A layer of categorisation that's superfluous. Upmerge to parent cat Category:Ice Cube. Tassedethe (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As Category:Ice Cube album covers and Category:Ice Cube single covers exist, this is no more than an extraneous category. — ξxplicit 06:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2009 (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:Presidential museums in Arkansas
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 and delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. How many Presidents of the U.S. have come from Arkansas? How many articles are in this category? Need I say more? :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge somehow. This is a minor triple intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Occuli. Breaking them down by state is not only unnecessary, but also a hindrance to navigation. The parent article can contain a sortable list. "Make it more local" is rarely a good guiding principle in categorization. Postdlf (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as too small. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2009 (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:ASIFA international animation film festivals
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 both. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ASIFA international animation film festivals to Category:ASIFA accredited animation film festivals
Nominator's rationale:Created along the lines of Template:Film festivals to group ASIFA accredited film festivals, I think the category should make it clearer that this is an accreditation -- rather than ASIFA running the festivals. Ideally, I think this should be a template along the lines of FIAPF. Until such time, ASIFA accreditation is an important one in the world animation festival circuit, so I do think it's worth retaining. (My vote has changed to delete, below). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:International Animated Film Association accredited animation film festivals if kept. Can someone explain why this accreditation is significant? International Animated Film Association doesn't seem to address this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ASIFA is the world animation body. But maybe the accreditation isn't as defining as I had assumed. Please go to http://asifa.net/ if you'd like more info and click on Festivals, then Rules. This displays the criteria for getting ASIFA accreditation and you can judge for yourself whether it's sufficiently defining. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the lead there, In this document ASIFA describes the basic conditions a festival must fullfill to enter our Festival Information System. Does not sound defining to me, sounds more like a listing service. If this is defining, then the information is really buried on the site and in the article here. So I really leaning to a delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am also now leaning to delete. While ASIFA is an important body, it doesn't sound like the accreditation is as hard to get or defining as I had at first assumed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a deletion discussion now? I vote Keep on the basis that ASIFA is the most important international animation society and only five festivals in the world are "accredited" (or at least, that was the case in 1996). The current website is a bit unclear on the topic. However, having a confusing website should not be grounds for deletion... Concerning renaming, why not Category:ASIFA-accredited animation film festivals? Esn (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit confused regarding the current situation with accreditation. How many festivals are accredited now? Are there any accredited festivals that are not international? Esn (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the website is that all the accredited festivals are international. And yes, I anticipated that my CfR was trending towards a CfD, although I don't see Vegaswikian saying so. I do know, though, that some editors wish to avoid the use of abbreviations and acronyms in category names where feasible, and I think that is behind his alternate preference. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm holding my delete opinion while I wait for a reason to not delete but so far I'm not seeing that in the discussion. Yes, my suggested name if kept is to expand the abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is kept, I'd support renaming to full version, rather than the abbreviated one I proposed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments. While the organization may be an important body, there has been nothing provided that identifies this designation as anything more then a qualification to be listed on their site. The fact that the website does not give us a clear reason to say this is notable is, for me, the final nail in the coffin. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin should note that the target category of the proposed rename Category:ASIFA accredited animation film festivals has been created by the creator of the nominated category, as a parent category. Which makes no sense. But that means that if the category is kept and renamed to my original proposal -- which is highly unlikely, given the options -- it's an upmerge. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Vegaswikian. It's not a very defining characteristic of these festivals, it seems. If kept, upmerge this one and rename the parent to Category:International Animated Film Association accredited animation film festivals to avoid the abbreviation and to match the main article International Animated Film Association. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category creator remains busy, though uncommunicative, removing the CfD template. I've restored it and placed a warning on his Talk page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is one template removal away from a block, and has now created the even less likely Category:ASIFA local animation film festivals, which I've also nominated for deletion renaming. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2009 (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:Ram Sampath
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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:No music composer in Bollywood has a cat for him/her self. This guy is ONLY known for the Krazzy 4 controversy. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Ram Sampath does not look as if it justifies a category. (The nom has emptied the category, which contained Dil Jale, Ram Sampath, Sona Mohapatra and Jumbo (film). The first does not mention RS, the 3rd mentions RS but not conclusively, the last is a film with music by RS. Krazzy 4 does mention RS. Anyway, I think the nom is correct.) Occuli (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Emtied out of order by User:Rsrikanth05. I have restored four articles. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough to this guy to have his own category. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The guy himself is only marginally notable. Salih(talk) 16:51, 24 September 2009 (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:Wolf albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match article Wolf (band). Tassedethe (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. (Tassedethe has remarkably eclectic tastes to judge from the wide range of categories presented daily for our consideration.) Occuli (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nom. I thought this was something awesome for a moment, as wolves coming into studios and making albums would be news. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2009 (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:Western short stories
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. In addition to the examples mentioned in the nom, there is also Category:Western (genre) novels. Seems like a clear pattern to follow. --RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2009 (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:Systems of formal logic
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. --Xdamrtalk 15:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They are the same. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably reverse merge (but I am not a specialist). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have a centralized discussion on the recent changes to several categories proposed by User:Gregbard at WikiProject Logic. Pcapping 03:41, 20 September 2009 (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:Anti-aircraft guns of the Soviet Union
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. --Xdamrtalk 15:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think the latter category should and could contain both the guns and missiles; and the former category is incomplete as well. But even if one would diligently fill it with all the relevant articles, imo it would be still better to have them at one place for greater navigability and "interconnectedness", i mean users will find pages which may interest them much more easily. -- Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 04:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not mergeCategory:Weapons of the Soviet Union properly includes the subcat Category:Anti-aircraft guns of the Soviet Union, but it could not properly include Category:Russian and Soviet Anti-aircraft weapons. This would leave an unnecessary hole in the Category:Weapons of the Soviet Union. To clarify this situation, it may be that Category:Russian and Soviet Anti-aircraft weapons should be deleted so that its Soviet and Russian subcats can be placed without question in just Soviet OR Russian parent cats. Only this category seems to combine Soviet and Russia weapons Hmains (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmm i see u cleaned them up removing all the duplicates from the latter category... however although in the strictest sense you are right i dont see why couldnt that cat be - somewhat liberally - included into soviet wpns... many of the modern russian weapons are actually soviet ones just they werent finished by the time of dissolution... others are also "offsprings" of them. so unifying russian military stuff with soviets are perfectly making sense for me. (and actually strict insistence on treating them separately is what feels somewhat... idk.. for me..... maybe a few decades later...)
i definitely think it[cat-wpns su] could. [include cat ru-su aawpns]. my proposal is to create a separate category „Russian Anti-aircraft weapons” AND keep the current one RUSSIAN AND sovviet blahblah; and informally put every brand new thing into the russian, and put every thing which was started (even as idea, or actual work) during su but finished/entered svc only afte 91, or is heavily based on such predecessors, into the "soviet-and-russian" cat, which resides in "soviet wpns". although i have to say im not sure that as of 2009 will we find any totally independent developments... -- Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 10:35, 21 September 2009 (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:Fictional balls
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. This is a difficult naming issue. It looks like 1) there is no consensus to delete the category, 2) the category should be renamed to clarify its contents, and 3) there is no consensus on what the category should be called. It is unclear whether renaming to Category:Fictional spheres or Category:Fictional balls and spheres would solve the problem, or whether it would be appropriate at all given the current scope of the category. By all means relist the category for renaming if you can come up with a solution. Jafeluv (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Besides the obvious wrong interpretation, very pointless and overly narrow category of fictional objections - only 14 articles included, of which 4 are redirects (two to Quidditch, a fictional game), and two two film articles. The rest are primarily film, vidoe game, and fictional character articles, not balls. Removing the non-fitting articles, would be down to 2-3. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I make it 5-6 (with one up just prodded), plus the redirects. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – defining characteristic of a fictional ball. (This was discussed before.) If not kept it should be upmerged to the 2 parents. Some of the redirects are perfectly valid (eg Quaffle, which redirects to a section about a fictional ball). Occuli (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept it will surely need disambiguating - Cinderella lost her shoe at a fictional ball. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Fictional spheres or Category:Fictional balls and spheres - I have no idea how many Cinderella-type fictional balls are notable enough for articles but changing the name prevents any possible confusion. Several of the included items are more properly identified as spheres. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename to Category:Fictional balls and spheres or just spheres, per Otto. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm uncertain about the proposed rename. Fictional planets could be included as fictional spheres, but that's well outside of the category's current scope. Ball, as in dance, is a much less common usage. Pburka (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, a perfectly reasonable grouping (particularly given Category:Balls), and I thought it was referring to a dance ball at first so a rename is called for. I disagree with the complaints about redirects being included, as this allows for the information to be categorized without lumping in broader articles that may discuss, but are not about, the category. We should do that more often. Postdlf (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is completely ambiguous. Could mean a dancing ball, a ball in a game or an obscenity. And neither of them is worth its own category. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the contents have only their shape in common. I can't imagine why anyone would want to navigate between fantasy orbs, fictional sports equipment, real football mascots and Rover (The Prisoner). The connection is much weaker than CFD:Fictional eggs and that one had to go! - Fayenatic(talk) 19:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering a remark about Lance Armstrong but thought it would not be well-received. Otto4711 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just always has to take things a step further, don't they? Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was ridiculously childish of me. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps no more so than my initial comment. :) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (1) we don't need shape classifications, (2) this is an ambiguous category, at best. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to clarify contents. Alansohn (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many of these are clearly not spheres. In fact many are mascots and we have categories for those. Is a mascot that is a representation of a ball a fictional ball? I question that since it is not a ball since it has feet and is not really a ball. Maybe this category would make sense if under some condition with a definition of a fictional ball. I don't see how adding sphere to the name helps us in this case. So kill this one but not prevent recreation if someone can figure out what the category needs to be and defines what the contents should be. I'm not convinced that an upmerge is needed since the real articles (not redirects) have good parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2009 (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.