Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 8

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: I really hate leaving things as they are when it's clear that everyone in the discussion agrees that the current name is no good. However, without agreement on whether to delete or rename, I have to close this as no consensus. Kbdank71 18:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Jailed TDs to Category:Imprisoned Teachtaí Dála OR Category:Imprisoned members of Dáil Éireann

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The abbreviation is obscure outside of Ireland and Britain (or the "Irish Isles", as I like to call this collective group of islands, just to continue the neverending sh*tstorm). The first proposed name is probably cryptic to most as well. The second is another option, slightly clearer, but the parent category is Category:Teachtaí Dála, not Category:Members of Dáil Éireann. (Teachtaí Dála are members of Dáil Éireann.) I also suggest "imprisoned" is slightly better than "jailed". (Ultimately, I would even be OK with delete for this intersection if that's consensus.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm thinking delete because I'm less than sanguine about going down the path of categorizing by the intersection of profession and convict status. In most cases being of a particular profession is not related to being imprisoned and having been imprisoned does not necessarily have any impact on one's choice of profession (except such things as child molesters not being allowed to work in day care centers and the like).
• Comment - This category is too vague and has Freedom fighters (de Valera, Collins), TDs taking a principled stand on an issue (Higgins, Gregory) and common criminals (Burke, Lawlor) all in one group. Renaming isn't the solution, it needs sub cats. Snappy (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Appropriate categorys exist to record criminal convictions. This cat is too vague in terms of the history of Ireland given a not insignificant % of TD were imprisoned during the War of Independence and associated events with or without trial so you will have a fairly mixed group in here Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Imprisoned members of Dáil Éireann. That they were imprisoned for different reasons at different times does not detract from the utility of the category, though of course suitable sub-cats would help. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is too specific what members of Seanad Éireann who were jailed. Snappy (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't TDs, are they? Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So then we need a separate category for them too? Why not just have one for all members of the Oireachtas? Snappy (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Too vague and catch all. Snappy (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - (The original renaming proposal). However, given the issues raised by the responders, I think the cat should be converted to a list. I've given consideration to sub cats, but couldn't identify any with easily defined boundaries and without content overlap. A list can have inclusion information. -- Rye1967 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I support converting it to a list. Snappy (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nom. TD cannot be retained: it needs expansion. There is no reason why it should not be listified as well, which would enable details of date and crime to be added. However a category should be retained. Of the two nominations, I refer the second. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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/rename per nom. Kbdank71 16:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose deleting Category:Arab WMA winners

Propose renaming Category:World Music Award winners to Category:Lists of World Music Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Delete first, rename second. Category:World Music Award winners contains lists of the winners, and the subcategory. The subcategory is clearly inappropriate as an intersection of ethnicity and award. So I propose deleting the subcategory and retaining the main category as a container for the lists, so it needs to be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete/Rename per nom. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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, may be deleted if all of the templates in the category are deleted, leaving the category empty. Kbdank71 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:The Bill characters - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Articles included in this category have been included in a consolidated list which can be seen at The Bill character biographies (A-D). This category is not going to be required in the future. Deadly∀ssassin 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• KeepRename per Otto. Articles included in this category have been included in four consolidated lists, and there is also List of The Bill characters (which arranges them by rank, so is worthwhile as a separate article). That makes five articles which could still use this category. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rename - to Category:Lists of The Bill characters per the actual contents. Otto4711 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - the templates currently on the category are up for deletion see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Characters of The Bill (Detective Sergeants). The point about using it for the various lists is taken, however. --Deadly∀ssassin 04:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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: upmerge and delete. Kbdank71 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wii games that use the Gamecube controller - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization and trivia at best. This is an optional method to play the Wii games. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep It is a useful category for users trying to find out which Wii games allow them to use Gamecube controllers. Also note that in some case, the GCN controller is the preferred to the Wii remote (e.g. Super Smash Bros. Brawl). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Listify and delete Not trivia as I understand the term. However, the category has a high degree of overlap with its parent. Since its members need to appear in the parent for navigational efficiency, the information would ideally be presented as a list, not a category. Note that similar arguments apply to Category:Wii Wi-Fi games and Category:Wii Zapper games. - Stepheng3 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Kbdank71 16:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Caprivi to Category:Caprivi Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Move in order to standardize Cat:Regions of Namibia categories.Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge per nom. Twri has not been active much in the last month. If desired, this can always be renominated to find a "better" solution if the merge target is still controversial. Kbdank71 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest merging Category:Other complete problems to Category:Computational problems

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This appears to be a type of "miscellaneous" or "not otherwise specified" type of category where problems that don't fit into any of the other subcategories of Category:Computational problems can go. Categories like this are inappropriate. Since there's nothing similar that connects the included articles themselves to each other in ways that categories normally do, it should be deleted and the contents upmerged to the parent category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. it "appears" to you probably because you are not familiar with the topic. It is not "miscellaneous" for the Category:Computational problems The correct "upmerge", or, rather move would be nonexisting category:Problems complete for particular complexity classes, but is is rather unnecessary level in hierarchy now IMO. Twri (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Both the existing name and the proposed names appear ambiguous to me. The proposed one may be accurate for the community but for a non geek, that wording appears to be ambiguous. Is there a solution that would make everyone happy and not be ambiguous? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Upmerge per nom. The title is ambiguous. Per the category introduction, 'This category is to cover completeness for complexity classes less common than P, NP, PSPACE, etc.' the inclusion criteria would appear to be ambiguous or POV and inclusion appears to be based on not being something which is not a normal criteria for a category. The problem here is with the name itself and not if someone is familiar with the topic. That affects the inclusion criteria. If a compromise is needed to keep these separate then maybe Category:Computational problems (other complete problems) which is not ambiguous could be used. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Vegaswikian has said above. I agree that I'm not overly familiar with the topic, but taking the name plus the definition into account, it still seems to me like the category is being defined by what it is not, which would indeed make it like a "remainders" or a "not otherwise specified" category. Unless someone with expertise can explain how to fix up the definition and the category name to resolve these problems, my rationale for nomination still stands. Just saying "you are not familiar with the topic" doesn't really help anything. I'm not clear from Twri's comment if s/he is advocating keeping things unchanged ("oppose"), deletion ("is rather unnecessary level in heirarchy now"), or renaming ("the correct ... move would be ..."). I've invited the user back to clarify. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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 per the parent category, Category:Military operations by type. This should not be a problem for adding interagency operations, as the military is involved. Kbdank71 16:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Humanitarian operations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Rename to Category:Humanitarian military operations.

Discussion - The current name of this category is somewhat misleading. I mistakenly added it to an article, under the impression that it was intended for all types of "Humanitarian operations". I then discovered that it was clearly meant to be used only for military operations of a humanitarian character -- one of the parents is Category:Military operations by type, and all but one of the articles (Milk for Spain) are about military operations (evidently another editor was mislead by the name, too). The proposed name will clarify the category's intent. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as is. It is very rare that a humanitarian operation just involves the military. They are almost always Interagency operations, involving both military & non-military organizations. Just because an operation is labeled "Operation" does not mean it is only a military operation. Thus, IMHO, classifying an operation as "Humanitarian military operation" is too narrow in scope & does not correctly categorize these types of operations. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Too confusing otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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 per creator request. (There's not really a viable case to be made for reverse merge since it is a historical position and the official name was "Governor of Bombay"; it was never called "Governor of Mumbai". The position ceased to exist in 1962 and was replaced by the position of Governor of Maharashtra. Bombay wasn't renamed Mumbai until 1996.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Governors of Mumbai - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't know why was this category created. Category:Governors of Bombay already exists. There is nothing as Governors of Mumbai. Kensplanet^T_C 12:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete- I created the redundant category while on new page patrol without realizing the other one already exists. Speedy if possible. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reverse merge to Category:Governors of Mumbai, as Mumbai is the preferred spelling of the city and the name of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Post-Roman Scotland to Category:Late Iron Age Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at Category talk:Post-Roman Scotland. New cat to become a subcat of both Category:Iron Age Scotland and Category:Medieval Scotland. Note: the parent article for this period of Scottish history is named Scotland in the Early Middle Ages, so perhaps that might be an alternative cat title? 'Post-Roman', 'Late Iron Age' and 'Early Middle Ages' all appear to be largely synonymous in the Scottish context.Mais oui! (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support per MO. Most of (modern day) Scotland was never under Rome. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support per both. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support The Roman occupation of Scotland was brief and is (I think) not used for an archaeologial period. I understand the target to be the term used for the period equivalent to Roman and Dark Age in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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 to match the article. Ok, there might be confusion between Tokyu Corporation and Tokyu Group, but as noted, the articles have been named as such since September of 2007, and the neither talk page shows any complaints from confused readers or editors. The hatnotes on each category probably go a long way to explaining what the main articles are. If, in the future, we find that people are starting to get confused, we can always rename things back. Kbdank71 18:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Tokyo Kyuko Electric Railway to Category:Tokyu Corporation

Propose renaming Category:Lines of Tokyo Kyuko Electric Railway to Category:Lines of Tokyu Corporation

Propose renaming Category:Stations of Tokyo Kyuko Electric Railway to Category:Stations of Tokyu Corporation

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The official English name of the company is "Tokyu Corporation". Tokyo Kyuko Electric Railway is just a direct translation of the Japanese name, which appears to have been used by a well-meaning editor in the past. DAJF (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Additional note: The main Tokyo Kyuko Electric Railway article was moved to Tokyu Corporation in 2007.

• Comment. Can anyone explain why there is a difference in the translation and the official English name? On the surface the translation would appear to be preferred. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not that uncommon for official English names of Japanese companies to differ from their official Japanese trading names (or their direct translations). In the railway industry, JR Central is another company that springs to mind, as the Japanese name, "JR Tokai", does not actually translate to "Central" in English. The discussion for the page move from Tokyo Kyuko Electric Railway to Tokyu Corporation can be read at Talk:Tokyu Corporation, which might offer some guidance. I don't see why a fictitious company name arbitrarily made up by a Wikipedia editor should be preferable over the official English name used by the company itself - provided of course it complies with Wikipedia capitalization guidelines (which are not an issue here). It also does not make sense to have articles talking about "Tokyu Corporation" listed in a category called "Tokyo Kyuko Electric Railway". --DAJF (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose on similar grounds to my comment in the article renaming discussion; but, more pointedly, a category named Category:Tokyu Group is too easily confused with Category:Tokyu Corporation. Category names need to stand-alone and although the direct translation is not official, it at least conveys the purpose of the category correctly. Neier (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Although Neier is correct, that there might be confusion if/when the Keio Group article and category are created, that doesn't prevent the name change of these categories now. Besides, there might not be confusion, and the article/category might never get written. Kbdank71 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Keio Electric Railway to Category:Keio Corporation

Propose renaming Category:Lines of Keio Electric Railway to Category:Lines of Keio Corporation

Propose renaming Category:Stations of Keio Electric Railway to Category:Stations of Keio Corporation

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The official English name of the company is "Keio Corporation". Keio Electric Railway is just a direct translation of the Japanese name (Keio dentetsu), which appears to have been used by a well-meaning editor in the past. DAJF (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Additional note: The main Keio Electric Railway article was moved to Keio Corporation back in 2005.

• Oppose per Tokyu comments above, although in this case, the articles/category for the parent group (Keio Group) are not yet created here. There is still a reasonable chance that there would be confusion once the other articles and categories are created. Neier (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:American people by political orientation - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category can only contain vague, polemical and divise cats - it contains no articles; and all, or almost all, of its subcats should go with it. Category:American liberals was deleted here, Category:American conservatives was deleted two days later. Both were right, and the rest of these should also go. Some sub-subcats are for membership of organizations, which is much better defined. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• keep this is part of an established pattern in Category:People by nationality and political orientation. There is no valid reason to delete this or the others, unless everything about American political people is to be deleted. Something anti-American here? Maybe beause they don't fit an idealized European model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs)
• Keep The "conservatives" and "liberals" categories were deleted mainly because "conservative" and "liberal" have multiple and conflicting definitions, and can be subjectively applied to people in the center depending on the observer. The remaining subcategories, however, are much narrower and more readily defined (except populists, being considered for deletion; and anti-communists, proposed for deletion earlier). Indeed, someone who is an anarchist or a white nationalist may achieve notability because they belong to such a non-mainstream movement.-choster (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per well-put explanation by choster. I'd say that about covers it. I do think we need to add a head note for readers and other editors explaining why there are no sub-cats for liberals and conservatives. Cgingold (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as useful groupings by a strong defining characteristic. While I disagree vehemently with the deletion of the Category:Conservatives, the rationalization used there was the claim that reliable and verifiable sources describing the individuals could not possibly bridge the fact that there are various subtle variations worldwide in the exact definition of the term that cannot possibly be bridged. By more finely breaking down the category to refer to refer to only one specific country, that concern is addressed. Once these categories under discussion are retained, Category:American conservatives and Category:American liberals should both be recreated as the most comprehensive categories within this structure. The inevitable argument that there is some borderline case where a particular politician's political beliefs do not fit exactly within one arbitrary definition of political beliefs should be addressed solely by including or excluding that one entry from the category, and should not be used as a justification to delete an effective navigational structure for a strong defining characteristic. We should apply this based on self-description and the evidence provided by reliable and verifiable sources, just as we do for Category:LGBT people from the United States and Category:African Americans, despite the presence of Barack Obama as a possible borderline case. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Barack Obama is borderline LGBT?! Otto4711 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Those 1970s were a crazy time. Alansohn (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Christ was he ever drunk that night. I bet he can't remember a thing. Otto4711 (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Choster. The deletion of the conservatives and liberals categories was because of problems specific to those labels/characterizations, and doesn't necessarily impugn all categorizations by political orientation which may be far less vague and ambiguous. Nor does preservation of this parent category, or any other particular categorization by nationality and political orientation, prevent us from judging that particular political orientations do not function as categories, as we have determined in prior CFDs. At a minimum, this category should remain as long as it has any subcategories, which should be dealt with in individual discussions if anyone believes those other subcategories are also problematic. Postdlf (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Kbdank71 15:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:USA Top Model winners - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Contest is of highly disputable notability. A Google search brings up nothing, although the contest's (bottom-dollar) site claims it's existed for years, and it's very hard to believe some of the industry's biggest models would participate in such a contest - or any contest at all at this point in their careers. The page for Alessandra Ambrosio - supposedly a winner - even features a photo of the wrong model.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - First, The photo you are referring to is an older photo of Ambrosio the tag even says Ambrosio on it, I guess your hate & deperate hate for a cetrain ethnicity of models is what made you jump into conclusions.

Second, The user who nominated the category was angry because he can't remove Karolina Kurkova from the list, when the links were added he decided he wants to remove the whole category. Davatrata (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Three points: First - You're accusation of racism on my part is totally uncalled-for. Please read WP:CIVILITY. Second - I "can't" remove KK from the list? There isn't a single reliable secondary source to be found to support the notability of this USA Top Model contest (or to prove that any of these models participated in it) and its inclusion in the articles, which gives me - and any other editor - the right to remove it. Third - if the photo was of Ambrosio, it wouldn't have to have been replaced, which has happened.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Its up to them to decide who it is not me or you. I have a big problem with you promoting Marissa Miller & defaming Czech models articles are stripped for your sick racist pleasure. Second, I have a full log of all your posts on Marissa Miller forums you left your stink all over the forum. I will get on this don't worry you picked on Kurkova from day one. What photo change? its still the same photo I saw today this is really pathetic! Davatrata (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a point to make in reference to this contest's notability, please divulge it. I've stated my points, and all you do in return is insult me with false (and ironic) accusations. Not to mention, this suggestion that you're stalking me on other forums is rather alarming.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you have a personal grudge with the Kovas! Even a 6 yrs old kid can tell that your edits are focused on promoting Marissa Miller & defaming the Kovas, you insisted on removing specifics that were mentioned in their articles. You also have no shame in promoting Marissa Miller while defaming the Kovas in the same breath...When I faced you with direct links you simply deicded to defame the title she won. You are the only loser who is questioninng how notable the contest is, just because your paint job Marissa Miller is not on it --- it doesn't lose credibility!

• Another fact you hate!

She is also one of the youngest models to grace the cover of Vogue get used to it. Davatrata (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete (possbily listify). Not an important enough contest/award to have a category for. A list would be appropriate if the contest satisfies WP:N, which I'm not sure it does. PS Let's not have anyone accuse anyone else of bad faith here. This is just a garden-variety nomination, in my opinion, and I doubt there's any nefarious motives at work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - minor award/contest, not important enough for categorization. And some thorazine for Davatrata. Otto4711 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete until this contest becomes notable. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - smaller awards are kept on other models pages so I don't see why this should be removed. Praguenow (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't seen that to be the case, but other awards (with or without categories) I've seen mentioned in fashion model articles have reliable secondary sources to support their notability and that the model has actually won them, while this competition has no sources at all referencing it or otherwise proving it's existed for longer than since it was recently added to Wiki articles. If it's been around for so long, why are we only now hearing about it when it has had some big name "winners"? As another editor - who doesn't seem aware of this discussion - said in her edit summary in removing the content from Ambrosio's article, it all just just seems "fishy."  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Whether other minor awards have or haven't been categorized is irrelevant to this discussion as each category is considered independently. I don't recall seeing other modeling awards up for CFD previously; do you have links to previous discussions in which minor modeling awards were nominated and kept? Per WP:OC#AWARD, generally awards other than very prestigious ones are listified rather than categorized and given the apparent lack of reliable sourcing about this award I would say that it is minor indeed. Otto4711 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Listify and Delete -- This is not a POV category, but an award category. The usual solution with these is to convert them to a list. This has the advantage that they can be placed in date order of what I presume is an annual award. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge, recreation permissible if other articles are found/written. Kbdank71 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest merging Category:Australian country-rock groups to Category:Australian country music groups

Nominator's rationale: Category:Australian country music groups barely has any in it (because nobody's yet bothered to write about most of the notable Aussie groups — kidding), and this only has one act in. Suggest a merge until the parent category gets bigger. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an important category in terms of WP:MUSIC (or something like it) and the main should probably remain a category list. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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: while a rename seems to be in order, there is no consensus for a target. If desired, this can be relisted to get further input. Kbdank71 18:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Video game visual styles to Category:Video games by graphical style

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In keeping with the other categories in Category:Video games. SharkD (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename, but to Category:Video games by visual style. The "visuality" of video games extends beyond their graphics. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 06:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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 to Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:CPSU members to Category:CPSU functionaries

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In Soviet Union it was impossible to be any manager, politician, or military commander of any reasonable rank without being communist, so the category as named is rather fuzzy and meaningless. For example all virtually cosmonauts or factory directors or school principals were CPSU members. Heck, even Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a CPSU member! On the other hand, "CPSU functionaries" is has a clean-cut relation to CPSU works. If the category renamed, I will remove a handful non-apparatchiks manually. - 7 bubyon >t 00:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• P.S.: For contrast, I've just created Category:Expelled CPSU members - which is a rather remarkable group of people among those who have wikipedia articles. - 7 bubyon >t 01:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So you propose replacing a broad, but well-defined, category by one with no criterion of inclusion at all. Who's a functionary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, for CPSU it was very well-known who is functionary. - 7 bubyon >t 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• While the objections of kind "strongly disagree" are of dubious value, I take down my proposal, since wikipedians here apparently have no idea what it is about; so I guess the rest of the world will be confused as well. - 7 bubyon >t 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members to expand the abbreviation. Strongly disagree with the rationale of the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Red Scare back? HHOS. Anyway, I am OK with this. I can alwayc create a subcat for functionaries, only there will be much more manual work to recategorize. <Shrug>. A cheap way to bump up my editcount. - 7 bubyon >t 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree on both issues with Otto4711. Note CPSU needs a disambig page at CPSU (disambiguation). --Bduke (Discussion) 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members. I'm not sure how to distinguish members from functionaries, but it might make sense to consider a new Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union functionaries if there were a way to do so. Alansohn (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You don't know how to distinguish simply because you don't know what was CPSU. The distinction was very transparent: functionaries were full-time employees, on party paycheck, with the exception of lowest-level ones, which hardly count. - 7 bubyon >t 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union members for clarity. Also would subcat be named 'functionary' or 'apparatchik', the name I thought was common for these people. Hmains (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • apparatchik is a colloquial term; hardly appropriate in the category name. - 7 bubyon >t 16:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rename per Otto4711 and others. The new expelled CPSU members category also needs to be renamed, but presumably that requires a new CFD nomination. I am not sure that all apparatchiks were party functionaries, though no doubt all the latter were apparatchiks. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. How about category "Members of Democratic Party (USA)"?Biophys (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• How about it? Otto4711 (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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.