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. "Georgia (U.S. state) is only Wikipedia's terminology to distinguish it from the country in Asia. It makes no sense here because the country in Asia called Georgia is not part of the United States and has no Interstate highways. Georgia guy (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Georgia should always be disambiguated. Further, there are highways that lead between Georgia (country) and other countries (states), thus being interstate (international) highways. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For all categories regarding "Georgia-the-state", the format is Georgia (U.S. state). For all categories regarding Georgia-the-country, the format is "Georgia (country)". And never the twain should meet, because that way confusion lies. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Georgia guy: I have no idea what labels the caucasian nation of Georgia applies to its major roads, so looking at the "interstate" bit merely tells me that this might be either Georgia. The "(U.S. state)" disambiguator tells me which one it is. BTW, please note that the principle consistency of category names is so long established that it is a criterion for speedy renaming: WP:C2C. If you want to overturn the principle of consistency, then I suggest that you open an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if ALL categories even unambiguous ones (as this is) that reference the US State of Georgia have the "(U.S. state)" appendage, this should match, if not then it ought be lopped off as it's only purpose is to disambiguate and there is no ambiguity here because the country of Georgia has no Interstate Highways (capitalized thusly). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that categories that clearly pertain to the United States and not a separate nation-state could omit the "(U.S. state)" portion but I've made proposals like this and they have failed based on opinions expressed above. So, I support your nomination and know, at the same time, that it will never be approved. LizRead!Talk!21:37, 3 May 2014 (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.
Delete What concerns me here is that there are no parent categories linking Category:Lance Spearman to other Wikipedia categories so this is a completely isolated category containing two articles. This makes it almost impossible for users to find if they are looking for similar articles. So, while I believe in small cats, I don't see that this one is providing much utility. LizRead!Talk!21:41, 3 May 2014 (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: This isn't a list - it's a category. Could be merged somewhere, but as it contains just one article it might be better to start from scratch. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2014 (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.
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 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:User took part in Valoriser ses connaissances avec Wikipédia Workshop
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: This doesn't look like a long-term category and I'm not sure it belongs on the English language Wikipedia. If kept it probably needs to be renamed to something beginning with "Wikipedia". Could be listified (I'm not sure where to though). DexDor (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the original category created by Superrabbit001, it's clear that there was some confusion on what a category should be...it was a combination of an article and a category. The creator edited for one month and then stopped and I'm not sure if this category is needed beyond the lifetime of the workshop. LizRead!Talk!21:57, 3 May 2014 (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:Morton A. Brody Distinguished Judicial Service Award recipients
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.
That link shows that this is one of many awards that she has received. It also states things like she's been profiled in the Boston Globe. It doesn't show that the award is a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No vote for whether to keep or delete but if it is kept, it should be assigned relevant parent categories as it is an isolated award category. LizRead!Talk!21:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of many awards given out by colleges. There is nothing about this award that says it is defining to the judges who recieve it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2014 (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.
Delete. Aside from the nominator's observation, it should be pointed out that "strategic bomber" is a somewhat nebulous term. To give an example, in 1944, the B-29 Superfortress was classified as a strategic bomber - and in 1949 it was a medium bomber. This is already well-covered by a list at strategic bomber (albiet needing cleanup), while lists and categories can and do co-exist, in this case the category is WP:OC. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:12, 29 April 2014 (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.
As with Go (game), the word Shogi is commonly, but not invariably or necessarily, capitalized in English-language written material about the game. The reasons for doing it with Go are clearer than with Shogi. All else equal, I'd suggest leaving these categories as they are, but no big deal. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2014 (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. For stub sorting, this sets a curious precedent. Politicians are typically stub sorted by either politicial party, or by year of birth. Sorting by year of election would naturally lead to excessive stub-tagging for career politicians. Dawynn (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the next general election. As a general rule, I agree that stub-tagging by year of election could get horribly cluttersome, and should be avoided. However, this category groups the most recent intake, after the 2010 general election, which as by far the biggest new intake for some time: 247 MPs serving in the current parliament were not in the previous one. Huge progress has been made in expanding these articles, and only 17 remain as stubs. Please let's keep the category to help get the rest of them to be unstubbed while the sources on them remain readily available. After the next general election, I would support deleting this stub type, but creating a new Category:UK MPs 2015– stubs, to help editors focus on the next new intake. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: If a change is needed, the bots will not find the job onerous. And I doubt that there will be 600 stubs, even at the start of the parliament. Maybe 150 if an an unusually high number of seats change hands, many of which will be rapidly unstubbed. Look how few are left for the current Parliament? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 30 April 2014 (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.
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: Majority of articles that were members of this category did not verifiably belong to the category. Very few entries remaining, though it might be possible to rebuild the list with greater attention to verifiability of category members. Lead for category is unclear and includes statements that should be sourced. A list may be a preferable option. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of books about tech noir as seen here and here. My impression is that this category is more academic than mainstream, meaning that film critics do not seem to use the term "tech noir" in their reviews. I think this suggests that it would be difficult to try to state and reference this term in each film article to make the category verifiable. I think a list article (one that can be linked to through "See also" sections) would be a better way to organize films under this particular genre. These are my thoughts so far, and I'm not quite sure about outright deletion of this category. Others' input would be appreciated. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)15:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support listification; among other things it would be easier to monitor than categories tend to be. It might be possible to establish the appropriate film articles as belonging to this category without the full terminology being used, but I think we'd need to be careful to avoid synthesis issues, and the category page would need to be clear about where we draw the line. With most of the articles I delisted, the word "noir" wasn't even used anywhere, which would be an obvious problem. DonIago (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2014 (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.
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.
Delete category per nom. Not so long ago I populated this as much as I could (as part of the US transportation stubs); I doubt that any significant number of stubs for this category were creqated since then. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu19:01, 28 April 2014 (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:TIME 100 Most Influential People in the World
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: This is not even an award presented to someone based on merit, it is a measure of their influence, and at least 100 of these 'spots' are handed out every year. Per ocat we should not do cats based on top-100-lists per Wikipedia:OC#TOPTEN. Additionally, membership on these lists is not defining of these people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I usually include being selected in the Time 100 in the article about someone, because it is a metric of some kind of importance, but it's not well-defined enough or consistent enough to warrant a category. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2014 (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.
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: There has to be a better name that just "Free". Also, it's subcategorized under Category:Money, implying that these are all things which don't cost anything but a lot of these software/cultural products do cost money while allowing users to amend/share/adapt freely. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
leaning to delete along with all subcats I have to question the existence of this whole structure. For the most part we're talking an incidental property of whatever the category is talking about, as for example the various publishers who have released works under licenses which allow copying. Things that are free may cease to be so, and things that are not free may come to be so; therefore this tends to be a directory of things that are free at the moment. (And yes, I understand that the CC licenses are effectively permanent.) I can see keeping subcats which talk about the ways in which things are free, but WP:NOTDEFINING otherwise tends to cover the whole category structure. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename to free goods and services explaining that this is about free-as -in-beer, not free-as-in-speech, and purge of all open content related stuff, keeping as a see also link instead (I think there's a container for open content somewhere --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (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.
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.
