Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 27

< June 26 June 28 >

June 27

Category:Royal Teenagers

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 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Royal Teenagers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to be categorizing members of royal families who are currently in their teenaged years. I suggest this is inappropriate categorization—it's a "current" category, which are usually avoided, but at the same time it's not clear from the name that it is a current category, and every royal person who is an adult was once a royal teenager. It would require continual maintenance by adding and removing entries as royalty enter or leave the teenaged years. Finally, it is arbitrary—categorizing people together who are aged 13–19 is a practice adopted more because of a quirk of the English names for these numerals (they end in "teen") rather than for any other reason. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Since all royals-by-birth were once royal teenagers, this category would contain squazillions of people if fully populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete Being a royal AND a teenager is not defining, plus all the above arguements. Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A category of little value. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief -- can you say Category:Royal Pain in the Ass? Cgingold (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above reasons. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Occitan wine

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 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Occitan wine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A made up term, for which an editor has created a category. No WP page exists for this term, no reliable sources use the term and the editor who created and then applied it has offered no sources to justify its existence, despite being asked for them N-HH talk/edits 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Occitania is a linguistic(-geographic) with no evidence of being used in the wine world; neither Oxford Companion to Wine nor frwiki even lists the term, so I can't see it as a useful category to our readers. Tomas e (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure original research. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Departments of Environmental Quality

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 to both parents. — ξxplicit 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Departments of Environmental Quality
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OC#TRIVIA. Created by a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Mac, this category appears reserved for US state government departments that have the phrase "...Department of Environmental Quality" in the name, as a proper title. However, that appears to be the only difference between this and its parent Category:State environmental protection agencies of the United States. If that's so, it's an utterly trivial difference. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- this assumes that no one else has a "Department of Environmental Quality" or something similar. However, if no one can point to any, I would support. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's likely other jurisdictions do have environmental agencies that happen to use the title "Department of Environmental Quality," but even if that's so, surely we wouldn't maintain a category on that trivial basis? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. As the creator of Category:Environmental protection agencies I've put a fair amount of thought into this topic, and I concur with Shawn's analysis. There's no substantive difference between these differently-named agencies, therefore no reason to separate out this particular sub-set. Cgingold (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vechta district

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 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Vechta district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It is redundant to the older Category:Vechta (district). De728631 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Monocrystalline silicon

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 5#Category:Monocrystalline silicon. — ξxplicit 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Monocrystalline silicon to Category:Crystalline silicon
Nominator's rationale: Another essentially empty category by banned User:Mac, there are no links to articles on Monocrystalline silicon in the target category's parent article Crystalline silicon. The only articles in the source cat are two electronics companies who may manufacture this type of single lattice silicon along with lots of other things. Upmerge to parent, although I would be interested to see others think the target cat Category:Crystalline silicon should be done away with as well, as it too is populated principally by companies who may manufacture this along with other things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Political parties that support youth rights

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 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Political parties that support youth rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Firstly the category seems a misnomer, since the criteria for inclusion is that parties in question support a lower voting age. Secondly this seems an arbitrary category to add as support for a lower voting age is just one of many political policies that the parties in the category have and it is a minor one at that. There is no reason to have parties categorised this way without having them classified by support for lower/higher taxes etc. Valenciano (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The title is very misleading so even if its not deleted there certainly needs to be a name change, but as stated in the nomination above, this is just one policy of many political parties. There could be hundreds of lists based on every area of policy , such lists would provide little use. It will also be an incomplete and there for inaccurate list as i doubt the person knows every single political party in every single country that supports lowering the voting age. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Confusing title, I did not know what it meant at first. It may be about lowering the voting age to 16, or something else, either way it should go. Snappy (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, highly ambigous. --Soman (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, heavily misnamed & arbitary --Killing Vector (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of the category removed the deletion template on the category earlier [1], I have undone the removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted this on the user's talkpage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-British Victorian Era ships

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
  • Category:Victorian era ships of France
    • Category:Victorian era naval ships of France
      • Category:Victorian era battleships of France
      • Category:Victorian era corvettes of France
      • Category:Victorian era frigates of France
  • Category:Victorian era ships of Germany
    • Category:Victorian era naval ships of Germany
      • Category:Victorian era corvettes of Germany
      • Category:Victorian era frigates of Germany
    • Category:Victorian era merchant ships of Germany
    • Category:Victorian era passenger ships of Germany
  • Category:Victorian era ships of the United States
    • Category:Victorian era naval ships of the United States
      • Category:Victorian era submarines of the United States
    • Category:Victorian era merchant ships of the United States
    • Category:Victorian era passenger ships of the United States
  • Category:Victorian era naval ships of China
    • Category:Victorian era battleships of China
  • Category:Victorian era naval ships of Japan
  • Category:Victorian era naval ships of Russia
    • Category:Victorian era battleships of Russia
  • Category:Victorian era submarines (this is an all-American category) subcats are American; contains one British entry
Nominator's rationale: Her Majesty ruled from 1837 to 1901. The "ships of the Victorian Era", taken broadly, cover everything from the survivors of the Napoleonic Wars to the Great White Fleet (its ships were built after H.M. had died, but followed the pre-dreadnought standard developed in the UK in the 1890s). That is, the category is nearly synomymous to Category:19th-century ships.
I do not question Britain's own Category:Victorian era ships of the United Kingdom, Category:Victorian era ships of Australia, Category:Victorian era ships of Canada. However, the Victorian categorization should not be applied to the rest of the world. Submarines of the Confederate States of America were a domestic American affair - of no concern to Her Majesty at all. Neither was the mighty Chinese turret ship Dingyuan. I recommend deletion of all non-British Victorian categories. As for the ships built in Britain for other nations - Category:Ships built in the United Kingdom is, in my opinion, sufficient. It may be argued that certain French, Rusian and German shipbuilding programs resulted from specific French-British, Russian-British, German-British standoffs of the Victorian Era, and thus fall into the scope of the Victorian politics. Identification of specific ships built through such programs is too subjective and uncertain (some were conceived as a deterrent against the British, but the threat was gone when they were completed, etc.).
Earlier, I raised the question at WP:SHIPS; only one person replied. Creator of the categories notified (he seems inactive for the past few months). East of Borschov East of Borschov (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support and more - I'm split on this. One one hand, it's nice to have consistency, such that all ships of a given vintage are in categories by vintage with the same naming schema. On the other hand, it makes no sens at all to talk about Victorian era Chinese anything. So, while I believe I'm for the removal of the listed categories, I think it should be extended to include all of the "Victorian era [X] ships [XYZ]" categories, including the ones Victoria ruled over. Consistency and conformity should rule here, so I suppose I'd have to support this plus. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete until a study is made of each category of each country to determine where these ship articles should reside. In each county, the 'victorian era...' category is part of a pattern, removal of which would leave these ships with no category pointing to their country or era. Provide another proposal than deletion. Hmains (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The passenger ship categories appear to lack any pattern, so SS Illinois (1873) is a Victorian ship of the U.S., but R.R. Thompson (sternwheeler) (1878) is not and neither is the infamous PS General Slocum (1891). Perhaps river boats did not deserve victorianization (except for Civil War combatants, see below) but it's not obvious. The military "Victorian categories" for France, Germany, Russia appear to be complete but they are not (that is, some ships of the period are categorized as Victorian, and many others are not). Category:Victorian era naval ships of the United States is limited only to Civil War ships, Holland U-booten and three 19th century ships). These are very counterintuitive categories, and I suspect that many article creators simply could not imagine that German cruisers and American whaling boats should've been categorized as "Victorian". East of Borschov (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Category:Victorian era also includes Category:Victorian era military equipment which suffers from the same problem. I agree with Hmains that we need a rename (or another plan) rather than a delete. Occuli (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This form of categorization is quite funny, I think—kind of an ultimate in Anglo-centrism. If we wanted to rename these instead of deleting, it could just be "19th-century ships of FOO" and so forth. The Victorian era was entirely within the 19th century, with the minor exception of its final 22 days (1–22 Jan 1901). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On top of being Anglo-centric, it is both arbitrary and odd to name an era of shipbuilding after the ruler of one nation, even if it just so happened to be the British Empire. Resolute 01:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to equivalent 19th century categories. Beyond the British empire, the use of Victorian era is inappropriate. The technical overlap with 20th century is too trifling to worry about. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment would use of the term Pax Britannica in the category names be an improvement? It covers more of the time span in question. Hmains (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. All of the ships I looked at are already in one of the Category:yyyy ships so that they fall into the by century categories. While I think the suggestion by Peterkingiron is in the right direction, I would rather upmerge to the broader ships by type categories and not to any 19th century categories. That is effectively the main category for these. So we keep the ships in a correct tree and we avoid the issue of which conflict they were in to correctly classify them. I really did want to say delete, but in looking at some of the entries this seems to be the only way some of these ships roll up into any by type category. So I fully concur with the need to remove these categories, the only issue is how. Note to the closer. With these last few comments, it may be better to relist to see if Peterkingiron and my suggestions help with creating a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No need to have lists of Victorian era ships for countries outside of the British Empire at that time. If these get deleted it should not be seen as justification to delete the ones relating to countries of the British Empire at the time as mentioned in the nominators rationale. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still say Merge all to equivalent 19th century categories. "Victorian" is an inappropriate term outside the Britain (& Empire) - where cats should be kept. None of these categories should exist, but if we delete out of hand, we are liable to lose a "period" category altogether and thus potentially useful data. In USA, the appropriate period break-point would be at the Civil War, in the middle of the Victorian era. If retained at all, the nominated categories should be cat-redirects, but on the whole it would be better to delete them after merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to equivalent 19th century categories per Peterkingiron, and upmerge to the ships by type categories as suggested by Vegaswikian. It seems to me that there are very sound reasons for either merger, so why not do both? Can anyone formulate a list of what the actual merges would be? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This era (1815-1914) does need a name as part of the category structure that divides up ships by era and these ships need to be in it. Pax Britannica is a name for that era, but if that is still too British, what other name is available and helpful here? And 1815-1914 is not equilvalent to the 19th century. Hmains (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are not ships of 1815-1914, but of the Victorian era, i.e. 1837-1901 (Victoria ruled for a long time, but not for 99 years). That fits neatly into the 19th century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Now! albums (N.Z.)

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. — ξxplicit 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Now! albums (N.Z.) to Category:Now That's What I Call Music! albums (New Zealand series)
Nominator's rationale: More intelligible dab —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Solar cell structures

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 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Solar cell structures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Here's another interesting one from banned User:Mac. This category has two pairs as sole category contents: Heterojunction and Homojunction; and Multijunction photovoltaic cell and Multijunction solar cell. The first two are kinds of semi-conductor junctions: nothing defining about their use in solar cells, from what I can see. The latter two could be competing articles written by two non-collaborative editors. Or Mac under a sock account we haven't caught yet. One was originally a redirect to the other, then User:Ncouniot came along and wrote the article for Multijunction photovoltaic cell as if the other did not exist. I think there's a case to merge these two articles but that's not our problem here. I do suggest deleting the category, per WP:OC#SMALL, as all the articles seem to be adequately categorized elsewhere, such as in Category:Photovoltaic technologies, and I would argue that all we have here is a single article on multijunction cells that's undergone a kind of solar fission. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom: but I have not checked that it should not be merge to (for example) Category:Photovoltaic technologies. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CIGS solar cells

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. — ξxplicit 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:CIGS solar cells to Category:Thin-film cell manufacturers
Nominator's rationale: Another from banned user Mac, the acronym in the title stands for Copper indium gallium selenide, which states (rather badly) that "CIGS belongs in the category of thin film solar cells." All of the other entries in this category are for manufacturers. Therefore, I believe we can simply merge this to one of Mac's other categories Category:Thin-film cell manufacturers Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or upmerge even further. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge per nom and no further. There are enough thin film cell manufacturers to justify that category. Hmains (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Photoelectrochemical micro categories

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 both. — ξxplicit 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Photoelectrochemical devices to Category:Photovoltaic technologies and also Category:Photochemistry
Propose merging Category:Photoelectrochemical science to Category:Solar energy science and also Category:Photochemistry
Nominator's rationale: Merge these two near-empty categories to well established prior categories. No category contents in the parent catergory, Devices. The Science sub-cat has only Photoelectrolysis. That's right, the science category is the sub category of the devices category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- we do not need all these splinter cats. This whole tree seems to need upmerging. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tennis people by American state

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 26. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Tennis people by American state to Category:American tennis people by state C2C. — ξxplicit 05:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I know the parent category does go by this pattern, but the pattern needs to be put to the test at a CfD as the fact of the matter is, not every tennis player who from a state in the States has American citizenship - Mike Belkin being one. Mayumashu (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tennis people by American state to Category:American tennis people by state
Nominator's rationale: Following the objection to the speedy request (above), I'm nominating Category:Tennis people by American state to be renamed to Category:American tennis people by state for consistency with other subcategories, including Category:American basketball players by state, Category:American players of American football by state and Category:American soccer players by state. It doesn't make sense to make the nominated category an exception. Considering this is a subcategory of Category:American sportspeople by state, tennis players surely shouldn't be categorized as American if they aren't. — ξxplicit 03:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Certain tennis individuals may not have American citizenship but have been resident of a particular state while have been active in tennis. This is important as some of these non-Americans do contribute to the state and culture of tennis in that state (and another subcategory can be Category:Tennis in Texas etc. I suggest the supracategory Category:American sportspeople by state be the one, instead, that is renamed ultimately renamed - its supracategory in fact is the aptly named Category:People by state in the United States - at this level of the tree, the name does not suggest that citizenship be a determinant for inclusion, and this should be the approach taken. Mayumashu (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. It is the category structure that should be changed. Category:Tennis people by American state should simply be removed from Category:American sportspeople by state. I would support a rename to Category:Tennis people by state in the United States. Occuli (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree with Occuli's suggested rename as it s more consistent with prevalent naming patterns, such as Category:People by city in the United States and not Category:People by American city, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge. The entire category structure of Category:American people by occupation by state follows a single pattern: "American (X) by state". It includes only Americans in their state of residence. If this category's subcategories contain non-Americans, those articles should be removed from the categories. There's no reason to subvert an entire working category structure for a single sport.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename either to "Tennis people by state in the United States" per Occuli or to "American tennis people by state" per nom and Mike Selinker. But the latter is easier and in keeping with the current category structure, while the former would suggest that we should re-do the whole category structure. cmadler (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Third generation photovoltaic cells

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 to Category:Photovoltaic technologies. Courcelles (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Third generation photovoltaic cells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Another from banned User:Mac, who has helped to vastly splinter and over-categorize the solar energy categories to where they become an impediment to users, rather than a help. In this case, reading the sole article Third generation photovoltaic cell, it seems clear that this third generation is a goal yet to be reached rather than a current reality, and so consequently we have no articles on different Third generation photovoltaic cells at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest merge to Category:Photovoltaic technologies. As I write there is the one article and a sub-cat. The whole tree needs upmerging to a single category (or a few). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_27&oldid=1138394143"