Category:Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic winners[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The race has reverted to it's former title and the rename will bring the category into line with the main article Bcp67 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: The article was renamed, the cat should be as well, the Distaff was the original name and has been restored, the other name was used 2008-2012, but is no longer used. See [1]Montanabw(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportBcp67, were you aware of WP:CSD#C2D? You actually didn't need to bring this here: it's our policy to speedy-move categories when their eponymous articles have been moved as the result of a WP:RM, and that's the situation here. Although you didn't use that process, it would be absurd not to follow the spirit of that process. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2013 (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:Articles that link to foreign language Wikisource[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Compound modifier. Also seems like it should either be "foreign-language Wikisources" or "foreign-language Wikisource articles" Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming for compound modifier (hadn't realised this rule when I made the category). The category is based on and categorised under Category:Articles that link to Wikisource, so should ideally follow a similar naming pattern, and I'd say "articles" was redundant, but I'd also support either "Wikisources" or "a foreign-language Wikisource" for good grammar. --xensyriaT 19:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a comment to say that this would require an edit to Template:Infobox book, which, as a template in wide use, may be worth combining with other edits which may need to be done. ‑‑xensyriaT 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment I know an awful lot of priests and ministers and I've never heard of any of them refer to a "clergy house". It's an invented term created to be inclusive. But it's not a term that individuals use, they say rectory, parsonage or parish house. LizRead!Talk! 21:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And where are you exactly? See Alfriston Clergy House for example, and Bradford, Willesden etc. A google search on ""clergy house" Texas" shows plenty of uses for specific places. A bunch of these terms rightly redirect to one article, & clergy house is the best common denominator. "Rectory" was hopeless. I'm not saying it's the most common, but it is denomination neutral, & the easiest to understand for those without your wide circle of clergy contacts. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This probably could have been speedy-moved (see WP:CSD#C2D), but since it wasn't, we should still move it on that principle. "Clergy house" is a good descriptive term: it's intentionally ambiguous and thus capable of covering this topic despite the numerous different names by which it's known in different circles. Closing admin Please don't delete Category:Rectory; please use {{Category redirect}}, since it's old enough that lots of people know it and will probably continue using it without noticing that it's been moved. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Strictly, a rectory is the living not the house, but the category is being used to include vicarages etc, which are not the houses of rectories. No objection to a cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nominated. In the case of RC housing, it is more akin to an apartment house then an individual house so I see the proposed name as inaccurate. I know this follows the current main article name, but perhaps both are wrong. Maybe Category:Clergy housing and Clergy housing are the best choices. Some religions do provide normal residences for their religious leaders and in that case calling it a house would be OK. But to apply that to all religions is not wise. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An "apartment house" is a house just as much as a single family dwelling, and RC clergy houses invariably share the communal reception rooms, kitchens etc, though of course people have their own bedrooms. No doubt many RC clergy now live individually in normal apartments, but all the local parishes round here use normal houses not purpose-built, mostly with more than one occupant, and this has certainly been the case historically for RC clergy worldwide, as much as Protestant ones, even with no need to accomodate spouses & children. One nearby RC parish (with other priests around too) has just built a new one nicknamed the "McMansion". Plus the category is for individually notable buildings, the vast majority of which are listed on cultural heritage registers, and we aren't likely to have any articles on clergy apartments, are we (I rather doubt even the present Pope's apartment in Buenos Aires is notable)? The categories contains many RC clergy houses, or ones that formerly were. Your inability to distinguish between a "religion" (Christianity) and a denomination (Roman Catholicism) suggests this is not an area you are familiar with. Are there any articles in the category for which you think the term "house" is inaccurate? Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. More unnecessary eponymous categories only to hold subcategories of albums and songs. WP:OC#Eponymous. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 13:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Following category cleanup, the remaining contents leave us with a small category with little to no probability of growth. Existing contents do not require an eponymous category for navigating them. The category was speedy deleted G7 13 months ago and re-created in good faith in May of this year.
Comment There's never anything wrong (on recreation grounds, at least) with recreating a G7-deleted page; remember that G7 is for pages whose creator requests deletion. Use of the criterion doesn't imply that anything's wrong with the page. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I didn't mean to imply that there was, which is why I specifically noted as part of the nomination that the re-creation was done in good faith. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom -- all we need is the "books by" cat, to which the article on the man will be a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Object: I agree that there is allready a Category:Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Stockholm Convention and Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution however: these do not list actual products, rather they list compounds that are forbidden under the convention. The consumer does hence not know whether a certain product (ie pesticide) is a persistent polluter, unless he starts reading the label for the contents (assuming he actually has the product in his possession) or unless he researches this online. I think that we can't assume that wikipedia readers will do this for very product, and so it certainly has its merit for the pages here. Also, there is no specific category for inorganic persistent pollutants. KVDP (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - category has no clear inclusion criteria in the absence of a definition of what constitutes a "persistent" pollutant. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is my main concern: Deciding whether an article should be added to this category is original research. --Leyo 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might exist as a container category for both the Convention categories. The headnote seeks to include inorganic as well. However, this would include heavy metals, such as lead, where bio (or other) degradation is not feasible. I do not think that a parent is needed for the two convenbtions; hence delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2013 (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:Maps illustrating African American history[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#SMALL, there is only one map in the category and even that should be moved to Commons. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 09:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 12:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- files are often placed in Commons, which would leave the category empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The publisher of the songs within this category is not a defining quality of these songs. Most of the songs in the category are redirects and the ones with articles don't even mention who the publisher is, and it surely wouldn't be something that would be mentioned in the lead of the article much less anywhere else. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does the same argument extend to the rest of Category:Music by publisher? If so, a group nomination might be appropriate. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the other categories are filled with songs by the Beatles and the songs released as solo artists and I am uncertain as to whether the publisher of those is just as non-defining. I think it's more clear cut on a band that has only been around for 10 years with nearly every song in the category a redirect. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure that I agree with the nominator's rationale, but this category is redundant. We could move some contents to Category:Victory Records singles, move others to Category:Victory Records albums, and remove it entirely from the pages that don't mention Victory. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This category ought to be about sheet music publishing. There are do many redirects that it is difficult to see the wood for the trees, but without all the redirects this would be a vey small category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2013 (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.
