Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 3

< October 2	October 4 >

October 3

Category:P-Funk albums

Category:P-Funk albums - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - similar to P-Funk songs nominated below. Absent the subcats that are properly categorized in Category:Albums by artist this is an empty category. Its only contents other than the subcats were albums by Parlet which I have recategorized to Category:Parlet albums. Otto4711 23:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the association of "albums recorded by the various P-Funk acts associated with George Clinton" in a single category, even if that category has nothing but sub-categories in it, is valuable. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are very closely related, and so the umbrella makes sense.--Mike Selinker 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments by Malik Shabazz and Mike Selinker. InnocuousPseudonym 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:P-Funk songs

Category:P-Funk songs - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the subcats were all nominated and kept recently but the parent cat was not. This should be deleted for the simple reason that in the absence of the subcategories, which are all reasonably housed in Category:Songs by artist, this category is empty. There are no articles on songs recorded by "P-Funk" in it. The analogy was drawn in the previous debate to Category:Motown songs but the key difference is that Motown is a record label and P-Funk is not. I have my doubts about categorizing songs by record label, as the Motown songs cat does, but that's a debate for another day. Otto4711 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would note that some of the songs in the sub-cats of Category:Motown songs (such as Category:Jackson 5 songs, Category:Marvin Gaye songs, and Category:Four Tops songs) were recorded for labels other than Motown (or its subs, such as Gordy and Tamla). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the association of "songs recorded by the various P-Funk acts associated with George Clinton" in a single category, even if that category has nothing but sub-categories in it, is valuable. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are very closely related, and so the umbrella makes sense.--Mike Selinker 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationales by Malik Shabazz and Mike Selinker. InnocuousPseudonym 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: we have articles on Parliament (band), Funkadelic, Parliament-Funkadelic, and P-Funk All-Stars, all of which could be considered one band or four, depending on your perspective. This is not an easy thing to classify. Note that it's possible that we should have a Category:P-Funk All-Stars songs, which would be one more sub-category here, but I'm not entirely how much All-Stars-only material exists. I once suggested merging the first two articles I mentioned into the third, but there was pretty strong opposition to the idea. Anyway, this is a borderline case, but I tend to think there's simultaneously enough diversity and enough commonality in these categories to justify the umbrella. But it's very definitely borderline. Xtifr _tälk 07:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable or notorious antisemites

Category:Notable or notorious antisemites - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: POV title, this will become merely a place for people to argue as to who or what is "notable" or "notorious".Corvus cornix 22:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename. Simply, not-notable antisemites don't belong to our project; it could be renamed to Category:Antisemites or deleted due to non-neutral title.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Rename Category:Antisemites.~~:Creator's rationale: Note the qualification actually placed at top of list:

    "Listed here are individuals who played some notable role, or a notorious one,
    in history, literature, or publication. Please note that mere incident(s)involving
    some apparent antisemitic conduct or speech is insufficient to qualify the inclusion of a person
    on this list. Please be very careful in your selections. Remember also that this is not a place to make
    your own personal judgments. Neither should it be a place or space to libel or slander
    a living person with whose views you strongly disagree. Nor is it a place to list someone who exercised poor judgment
    in the choice of words on a particular occasion."
    Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current name. At best it's silly to pretend that one cannot tell whose an antisemite: it's one who either (1) subscribes to the view that a Jew is evil until (s)he converts to Christianity, or holds that (2) a Jew has bad blood (is genetically inferior) and must be expelled to another place, or exterminated. Is that really such a difficult distinction to make/ What's subjective here? --Ludvikus 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it shameful that Wikipedians find antisemitism to be too subjective. Is murder too subjective? Why is antisemitism any more subjective than homicide? Please reconsider. --Ludvikus 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's whose so categorized so far (without any disagreement):

B

Henry Hamilton Beamish

Boris Brasol

G. Butmi

C

Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich

John Henry Clarke

D

Natalie de Bogory

E

Adolf Eichmann

F

Henry Ford

L. Fry

G

Howell Arthur Gwynne

H

Reinhard Heydrich

Heinrich Himmler

Adolf Hitler

Harris A. Houghton

K

Pavel Krushevan

L

Arnold Leese

N

Sergei Nilus

W

Nesta Helen Webster

Retrieved from "[1]"

Delete. The proposed qualification process is highly volatile. Who's to decide what "conduct or speech" is already sufficient or yet "insufficient" for the inclusion? You, the creator? Give me a break. The whole idea seems like an open invitation to finger pointing, defamation and wholesale witch-hunt. Exactly the opposite of what is presumably intended here. --Poeticbent talk 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not keep as "Antisemites". Criteria for categorization are too subjective and category will likely be subject to abuse or at least the cause of serious application disputes. Snocrates 04:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the one who nominated the list from which this stems for deletion. As long as there are clear criteria for inclusion and it's limited to people notable for antisemitism instead of people who made a poor choice of words once I don't see this as any less valid than Category:Homophobia. — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation of the deleted Anti-Semites category and a recreation of the deleted Anti-Semitic people category. If this is somehow not eligible for speedy, then strong delete for all the reasons the two previous categories were deleted. POV magnet, no possible objective inclusion criteria, WP:BLP concerns, overcategorization by opinion. Otto4711 16:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two (2) views which supported Delete with an Opinion as follows;

    "Delete both The existence of these categories expose a major failure in Wikipedia's systems,
    as Jewish users appear to be the only group well organised enough to preserve biased "anti" categories.
         User:Osomec 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 
    "Delete both. Wikipedia needs some kind of firm precedent or policy
    against categorizing people on the basis of opinions.
    Opinions are changable and often passing.
    Likewise we need a firm policy against categorizing people with derogatory labels given them by others.
    This category fails on both counts.
         User:KleenupKrew 00:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two opinions were expressed in August of 2006. As Jimbo Wales holds, Wikipedia is a phenomena which evolves. The above opinion gives a good example of what will not qualify for inclusion:

    ... Jewish users appear to be the only group well organised enough to preserve biased "anti" categories.

Although those who know would agree as to what category such a sentence falls, clearly it does not qualify under our classification because the person who expressed it cannot be shown to be notable or notorious. Furthermore, at worst, for us under the above criteria, that's a bad choice of words. Unless, of course, one believes that it's true that "Jews are better organized" than non-Jews. On the other hand, it does sound like the message of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, namely that Jews are into world domination. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Jimbo Wales might hold, the second linked category above was deleted in April of this year with strong consensus and policy bases. Nothing in this CFD has rebutted that strong consensus or the strong policy concerns. Otto4711 17:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Iridescent. Rename is also viable option. M0RD00R 18:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tornado outbreaks...

Propose renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks with an F0 or F1 maximum to Category:F0 and F1 tornados

Propose renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks with an F2 maximum to Category:F2 tornados

Propose renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks with an F3 maximum to Category:F3 tornados

Propose renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks with an F4 maximum to Category:F4 tornados

Propose renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks with an F5 maximum to Category:F5 tornados

Nominator's rationale: Rename, To eliminate overly wordacious title. emerson7 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but use spelling "tornadoes" per precedent in parent categories. Also consider renaming Category:Tornado outbreaks by intensity to Category:Tornadoes by intensity for consistency. Also give emerson7 an honorary "black pot–kettle award" for using the word "wordacious". :) Snocrates 05:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholicism Church

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Created by a new user (see Marist School Marikina below). The second and third are redundant to Category:Roman Catholic Church in Asia and Category:Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines; I see no immediate need for the first even if correctly spelled, as the Church in Asia category isn't that large. Choess 20:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (duplication). Have categories been empty from creation? If so, they may be deleted speedily in a few more days. Snocrates 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and speedy delete per Snocrates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educational establishments in York

Propose renaming Category:Educational establishments in York to Category:Education in York

Nominator's rationale: in accordance with the other categories at Category:Education in the United Kingdom by city or town Bencherlite ^Talk 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this category today as part of a drive to reduce the number of articles in Category:York which weren't in any sub-category, and just chose an appropriate name for it without checking to see what existed elsewhere - mea culpa - and I'll keep this in mind for the future. In my defence, I do think that the name better describes the category's contents (schools, colleges, universities) than does the term "Education in York" (and indeed it is used in the definition of the contents of such categories as Category:Education in Bromley), but I wouldn't dare to suggest that all the "Education in ..." categories that currently exist should be renamed. Speedy rename seems to be the correct thing to do. --GuillaumeTell 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aftermath Entertainment

Category:Aftermath Entertainment - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category is completely redundant to Category:Aftermath Entertainment artists and Category:Aftermath Entertainment albums. Pretty much the entire contents is double-categorized in one of the subcats along with the parent and it's also a performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 20:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marist School Marikina

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Created by a new user for a single article as category redirects. Largely redundant or no potential for expansion; I've removed them from that article, Marist School - Marikina. Choess 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G-Unit feuds

Suggest merging Category:G-Unit feuds to Category:G-Unit

Nominator's rationale: Merge - small category with little or no likelihood of growth considering that a number of other G-Unit related feud articles have been deleted at AFD. No reason to maintain this category separate from the main artist category. Otto4711 20:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, all articles in this category, should be put into the G-Unit category instead because many feud articles have been deleted and so there are not many in this cat. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:P-Funk record labels

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was deleted by request of author. John Vandenberg 07:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:P-Funk record labels - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing record labels on the basis of the artists or artist collectives who released albums through them is overcategorization. In the vast majority of cases record labels are not defined by the artists on the label. Labels like Atlantic Records could end up with dozens or hundreds of artist categories. Otto4711 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I created the category originally and agree it was overcategorization. InnocuousPseudonym 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never seen the value in this category. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the same as the albums and songs category above.--Mike Selinker 23:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Long distance race

Propose renaming Category:Long distance race to Category:Long-distance races

Nominator's rationale: Rename, because a) it should be plural per category naming conventions, and b) there should be a hyphen (see e.g. Long-distance track event or Category:Long-distance runners). GregorB 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War on Terror

Merge into Category:War on Terrorism, duplicate, perhaps leave a redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:War on Terrorism into Category:War on Terror. It turns out War on Terrorism is just a redirect to War on Terror; we prefer to have the category match the article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt. LeSnail 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt's revised nomination. Consistency with the lead article is almost always a Good Thing. Xtifr _tälk 07:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tracey Ullman characters

Rename to Category:Tracey Takes On... characters, convention of Category:Television characters by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Character

Suggest merging Category:Character to Category:Fictional characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge, incorrectly named duplicate cat. RobertG ♬ talk 15:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Update: nominator had second thoughts, see below. I think I need coffee. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I hadn't looked closely enough. I think a clearer name might be something like Category:Types of character in fiction - or "Aspects of" - or what you say below. (added) Johnbod 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Johnbod has already contributed to this debate, so I won't refactor the nomination now. On reconsidering, articles about the concept of "character in fiction" seems to me totally appropriate for a category, and not to duplicate "fictional characters": but I still think the name may not be clear enough. Suggest rename to Category:Character in fiction? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Character types or Category:Fictional character types. Seems to be the most descriptive of the contents. Otto4711 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second of those would be fine - the first sounds like a real pschology cat. Johnbod 02:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fictional character types - I think fictional is needed to avoid personality types being mistakenly added. - jc37 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it turns out we have Category:Stock characters so perhaps a merge to that category would be appropriate? Otto4711 14:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is rather broader, so should sit on top. We also have Category:Characters by function, which does cover much the same ground - perhaps merge that in. I think the whole area needs tidying & rearranging. If we can get concensus around Category:Fictional character types & perhaps the merge with "by function", I could go in after & rearrange. Johnbod 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs featured in car advertisements

Delete, as Songs by performance, see also previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Include this info in the articles, possibly make a few lists, but per precedent it's not a defining characteristic of the songs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tolkien family

Category:Tolkien family - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by family name. The article Tolkien family illustrates why articles are superior to categories when most or all of the contents are family members, because an article can illuminate the relationships between the family members while a category can only list them alphabetically. Otto4711 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although in fact not all members are (I think) mentioned in JRR Tolkien which rather undercuts the argument. Johnbod 15:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it undercuts it. They're all mentioned in Tolkien family, though, and that is linked from JRR Tolkien. That seems completely appropriate to me. JRR may not even have known his great-great-whatevers or distant cousins. --lquilter 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "X family" articles are by far the better way to handle this sort of genealogical and relational ~~trivia~~ connections. --lquilter 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eukaryota genera

Merge into Category:Eukaryotes, this was a wanted category of 8 members, probably should be merged but I'd like an expert to check it out. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bisexual

Merge into Category:Bisexual people, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novelty Items

Rename to Category:Novelties, to match Novelties. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Novelty items to fix capitalisation. "Novelties" can also refer to intangible things, and it including the word "items" reduces the ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoscience writers

Category:Pseudoscience writers Template:Lc1

Propose deletion of category.
Nominator's rationale: Any such categorization is intrinsically POV. It is extremely difficult to find concensus around this subject, thus it is not appropriate to have a category available for specific writers, many of whom are likely to come under WP:BLP. Cgingold 11:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. However, it may not be consistent to delete this one when we still have the parent Category:Pseudoscience, so it might be better to start higher up the tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Johnbod 18:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television-book writers

Category:Television-book writers Template:Lc1

Delete or rename if kept.
Nominator's rationale: Although the explanatory sentence is helpful, the name of the category is ambiguous at best. More importantly, I'm doubtful that there will ever be enough articles about such writers to justify the existence of this category, since only a small fraction of writers have articles on Wikipedia. Cgingold 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are unlikely to be enough notable examples of this, perhaps the lowest form of literary life. Johnbod 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Attribution templates and Category:Citations to Category:Specific source templates

Suggest merging Category:Attribution templates and Category:Citations to Category:Specific source templates

Nominator's rationale: While I was sleeping or something, someone created a Category:Citations misnamed category (doesn't even identify itself as a category for templates!) that is a functional duplicate of Category:Attribution templates, both of them subcats of Category:Citation templates, which also includes other types of templates relating to source citations. The purpose of both categories is to house templates that aid in the easy repetitious citation to well-known, oft-used sources (versus manual application of {{Cite whatever|something|something...}} ). Plenty useful, so this is not a deletion nomination. They certainly should be one category (there is no discernable categorical difference between the members of the categories) and the merged result should remain a subcategory of Category:Citation templates, thus I propose a merger and rename into a new Category:Citation templates subcategory called Category:Specific source templates. A longer name at Category:Specific source citation templates would also work, but seems redundant (I would not object to it, however). The rationale for not simply merging Category:Citations into Category:Attribution templates is that the WP:ATT putsch failed, and that page to the extent anyone even notices it any longer is simply a summary/supplement page, and use of the term "attribution" in this context may be confusing to some editors. I would be okay with a simple merge of Category:Citations into Category:Attribution templates, just for the record, but prefer my principal proposal for its simplicity and clarity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)}}}[reply]

Rename but don't merge. The look and purpose of the two are different. If you look at the templates in Category:Attribution templates, they all produce a line of text like:

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728). Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1st ed.). James and John Knapton, et al. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) which is intended to be included at the bottom of an article that extensively uses public domain sources. The templates in Category:Citations produce a individual citation to an individual source, like Istituto Geografico de Agostini, Nomi d'Italia, (ISBN 88-511-0983-4), p. 1. which is intended to be included in a References section. I think a rename is a good idea. ---- CharlesGillingham 07:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Salvadoran Canadians

Rename to Category:Canadians of Salvadoran descent, convention of Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per convention/precedent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inklings

Category:Inklings - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The society of Inklings is notable, and many of its members are extremely notable, but it doesn't make sense to categorize people based on their membership in "an informal literary discussion group." LeSnail 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From my read of Humphries's Tolkien biography, membership was actually quite exclusive, and extremely influential; to the extent that any members were not eminent, they are already dealt with by WP:N and thus simply do not arise here as a cognizable issue. The internal legalistic "formality" of the organization is of not of WP categorization concern. More to the point, the description of the inklings given above is woefully inaccurate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- If the description is "woefully inaccurate" then the wikipedia article Inklings needs major revision, since my description is taken from that page. By informal, the page seems to mean that it was never clear who exactly was in the group, and it seems to be the case that a lot of people had unclear membership. LeSnail 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining for all or most of this group. Johnbod 15:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod and SMcCandlish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted above, the group, and the members thereof, were quite influential. - jc37 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional technical experts

Category:Fictional technical experts - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Extremely vague category. Who is to say whether someone is an expert or not, especially when that person doesn't even exist? It is worth noting the deletion of Category:Fictional computer experts on much the same grounds. This category is, if anything, worse. LeSnail 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per outright goofiness (i.e. per common sense), and per cited precedent. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the computer expert precedent. Otto4711 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English mixed languages

Category:English mixed languages - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: According to the list of mixed languages in Pidgins and Creoles (ISBN 1-55619-170-7), there are no "true" mixed languages derived from English. There are some edge cases (mixed pidgins and "symbiotic" mixed languages), but currently this category is not even being used for those. It's being used for things that are not even languages at all, but are just the occasional use of English words in other languages. Alivemajor 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- According to mixed language, there is actually one mixed language derived from English, namely Anglo-Romani, but that isn't enough for a category. True mixed languages are very rare. LeSnail 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Angloromani is one of the ones that Pidgins and Creoles classifies as a "symbiotic" language. --Alivemajor 03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Above nitpicks aside, a lone marginal case is not enough to support a category. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geographic imagemaps

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy renamed; Category:Geographic imagemaps deleted per CSD G6 (housekeeping). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neither of the pages in the category is an imagemap. If there is no consensus to delete, then merge to Category:Wikipedia imagemaps, since the phrase 'geographic imagemap' is repetitive (much like 'geographic map'). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Although the category currently contains only user subpages, I am nominating it here, rather than at UCFD, because it is not intended to be a user category.[reply]

Comment. They are image maps. One has to move the cursor around to find various links. It looks like a work in progress. I just added Category:Wikipedia geographic imagemaps to the user pages. So they are now merged with Category:Wikipedia imagemaps (as a subcategory). I assume that one reason you, Black Falcon, want the category deleted is because it is a regular category containing only user subpages. User categories are supposed to start with "Wikipedia", I believe. So I think the problem is solved, and this category can be deleted. --Timeshifter 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.