Welcome to uiboss.com on July 4 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to current discussions Skip to current discussions
Shortcuts:
WP:CFD/All
WP:CFDALL
Deletion discussions
Deletion policy

Process – Log – Tools
Guide – Images – Admins


Purge the cache to refresh this page

Contents

[edit] Speedy renaming and speedy merging

Shortcut:
WP:CFDS

Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made and to ensure that items are not listed here that do not meet the criteria.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", empty categories (that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required for these.

Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions above.

[edit] Speedy criteria

Criteria for speedy renaming or speedy merging are strictly limited to:

  1. Typographical errors (such as, Brdiges → Bridges).
    • Note that differences between British and American spelling (for example, Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors, but if both exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
    • This includes grammatical corrections that have been approved for similar cases in a full CfD.
  2. Capitalization fixes (such as, Characters In harry Potter → Characters in Harry Potter)
  3. Conversions from singular to plural, or back (such as, Steamship → Steamships)
  4. Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
    • This should only be used where there is no room for any doubt whatsoever that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory. It should not be assumed that an incorrectly formatted "radio stations" category was intended to be a "radio" category, or that an incorrectly formatted "archaeological sites" category was intended to be an "archaeology" category.
  5. Expanding abbreviations for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country (for example, US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to United States, but this criterion specifically does not apply to renames between the terms "American" and "United States").
  6. Renames or merges to match a disambiguated parent category such as Category:Georgia (country) or Category:Georgia (U.S. state) from an unqualified name.

When the speedy rename procedure should not be used:

  1. When proposing that the category name should be reformatted in addition to one of the speedy criteria
  2. When proposing to change a country name to an adjective, or vice versa, as in United Kingdom to British, American to United States, Germany to German, Argentine to Argentina, etc.
  3. When proposing a change that is based on a naming convention adopted by a specific WikiProject but does not otherwise meet any of the six speedy criteria listed above
  4. When proposing a change that does not qualify under any of the six criteria above, regardless of whether or not the proposed change will bring the category into conformity with existing categories

Note: If the nominator decides to change a nomination based on comments, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one as long as it still meets the speedy criteria.

[edit] Add requests for speedy renaming here

If the category and desired change do not match one of the six criteria listed above PRECISELY, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format:

* [[:Category:OLD name]] to [[:Category:NEW name]] — ~~~~

Don't forget to tag the category with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}}

Please add new entries at the TOP of the list and sign and date stamp your entries with — ~~~~.

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, the time stamp shown is 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC) or earlier.

Nominations with objections or that don't meet speedy criteria will be dropped from this list if not taken to a full CfD.

[edit] Ready for deletion

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In most cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] July 5

[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit] July 4

[edit] Category:The Jackson 5 members

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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:The Jackson 5 members - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Classic case of WP:OC#SMALL. The Michael Jackson article is of course high-traffic at the moment, but does not appear to be served in any useful manner by this categorization. (Indeed, the Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor category might have been even more useful than this one, as there is no corresponding Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor article from which to obtain the same set of information. But there is, of course, a The Jackson 5.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep "Musicians by band" categories are an execption to WP:OC#SMALL. Even if the five members were siblings, they still are part of a larger scheme of similar categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination per TPH. I shan't be challenging Category:Musicians by band as precedent here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:35, 4 July 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.

[edit] Category:Bohemian Club members

Category:Bohemian Club members - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization by membership in private club. The Bohemian Club is indisputably notable, but being a member of it is not defining. I browsed through the first twenty articles in the category alphabetically, and only two even mentioned the subject's membership. This category was previously deleted in late 2006 because its contents were based only on a single unreliable source; see discussion here. That problem does not appear to have been remedied given the failure of most included articles to even mention the membership, and Bohemian Club does not contain the list either; instead, that article says that the membership lists are private. Postdlf (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wreckers

Propose renaming Category:Wreckers to Category:Wreckers (Transformers)
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguity; see Wreckers. Its article is Wreckers (Transformers). Occuli (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought character-team categories in comics are to be deleted? 70.29.208.69 (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment is there any reason this needs to be moved then? Are there any OTHER group out there called that Wreckers that would prompt the need for someone else to need this name? Mathewignash (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Female film directors

Propose renaming Category:Female film directors to Category:Women film directors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the parent category and the only sub category. A previous related discussion seems to be somewhat side tracked by the fact that Category:Women by occupation contains both women and female. So when it may be clear that one form should be preferred, we can't reach a consensus. In this case, I think it is clear that women is the best choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Reforestation and Category:Deforestation

Category:Reforestation & Category:Deforestation
Nominator's rationale:Merge into Category:Environmental issues with forests. In line with WP:OC#OVERLAPPING AND WP:OC#SMALL. Horribly redundant- a few pages are in all three categories. Minnecologies (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:The Wreckers

Category:The Wreckers - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overly small category. They only had two albums, three songs (only two of which have articles), two members, and have since broken up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Sports by city

Category:Sports by city - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Someone has previously tagged this for merging into Category:Sports in the United States by city (and then removed the tag) but I don't see that we need this (empty) ambiguous, duplicate category at all ! thisisace (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Famous explosions

Category:Famous explosions - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The subjective determination that some explosions are more famous than others basically makes this an WP:OCAT — how on earth would we quantify how much fame an explosion has, or how much it needs to have achieved in order to earn the distinction of being called famous? And anyway, CFD has a longstanding rule against category names that single out topics as "famous". Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree as nom. thisisace (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Breaches WP:NPOV; very subjective. — Σxplicit 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge somewhere, probably Category:Explosions. In the context of WP, "famous" can be treated as synonymous with notable. NN explosions will not have articles. However, I note from an item below, that explosions are split by century. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NBA seasons

Suggest merging Category:2008–09 NBA season to Category:2008-09 NBA season
Category:2009–10 NBA season to Category:2009-10 NBA season
Category:2007–08 NBA season to Category:2007-08 NBA season
Category:2006–07 NBA season to Category:2006-07 NBA season
Category:2005–06 NBA season to Category:2005-06 NBA season
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Another out of process rename to use non standard characters. Revert back to the old names that can be entered from a keyboard. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and rename all to expand "NBA" to "National Basketball Association" since NBA is ambiguous. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:English people of Cuban descent

Category:English people of Cuban descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The convention in the appropriate parent category Category:British people is Category:British people of Cuban descent (which already exists.) Category:English people does not have ethnic background subdivisions like the British one. thisisace (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Upmerge as nom. Engish people categories are habitually limited native natives. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Lines of Tsukuba Express

Propose renaming Category:Lines of Tsukuba Express to Category:Stations of Tsukuba Express
Nominator's rationale: Rename: The category actually lists the stations of the railway, not lines. The Tsukuba Express has only one line so that the category for lines is not necessary, thus I propose this renaming. Sushiya (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Articles containing Slovenian language text

Propose renaming Category:Articles containing Slovenian language text to Category:Articles containing Slovene language text
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring the name of category in the line with the name of the Slovene language article that has been thoroughly discussed (see its corresponding talk page). Eleassar my talk 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Commment Aren't these pages populated into this category by the syntax in Template:Lang-sl? If so, the template needs to be updated. Lugnuts (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Explosions in Iraq

Suggest merging Category:Explosions in Iraq to Category:Explosions and Category:Disasters in Iraq
Category:Explosions in Argentina to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Argentina
Category:Explosions in Australia to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Australia
Category:Explosions in Bulgaria to Category:21st-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Bulgaria
Category:Explosions in Cameroon to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Cameroon
Category:Explosions in China to Category:21st-century explosions and Category:Disasters in China
Category:Explosions in Cuba to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Cuba
Category:Explosions in Denmark to Category:21st-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Denmark
Category:Explosions in France to Category:21st-century explosions and Category:Disasters in France
Category:Explosions in Ireland to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Ireland
Category:Explosions in Mexico to Category:20th-century explosions and Category:Disasters in Mexico
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Found as an empty category. In looking at the contents of Category:Explosions it appears to include a series of single entry subcategories adding an extra level of navigation. Suggest upmerging all to Category:Explosions and Category:Disasters in Foo. I'll nominate the series if there appears to be support for the upmerge concept. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Another option, which may be preferred, would be to upmege as appropriate to Category:20th-century explosions or Category:21st-century explosions instead of Category:Explosions. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Iraq as empty, yes. But given that the sibling categories for other types of disasters are permitted subdivision by country, why exactly would we want explosions to be handled differently than the others? Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Too small as single entry categories, so OCAT. My guess is that Iraq had one and someone upmerged it somewhere trying to help. So if most, if not all, of the others only have one entry, then we don't need this level of categorization. If someone wants, these could also be upmerged to the disasters in country category by year if one exists. If we keep the others, then we probably need to find out what was removed from here and add it back rather then deleting. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:9/12 Candidates

Category:9/12 Candidates - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT of political candidates (themselves not necessarily guaranteed to meet WP:POLITICIAN) by shared opinion. The opinion they share is itself the subject of a related AFD which it looks less than likely to survive, for that matter. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment 9/12 appears to be a politcal movement with 660,000 members. If that is true it would certainly be notable. I have not heard of it, but an the wong side of the pond. Nevertheless, the continued existence of the category must stand or fall with the related AFD on the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Types of economics

Suggest merging Category:Types of economics to Category:Schools of economic thought and methodology
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I do not understand the purpose of keeping this as a separate category. Most of these article belong in Category:Schools of economic thought and methodology, and a few of them really don't belong in an economics category at all. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] July 3

[edit] Category:King of Pop

Category:King of Pop - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently a subcategory of Category:Michael Jackson and containing the articles Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley. This category seems to serve no real purpose. Trivialist (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial, useless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definitely not a proper category. We have list of honorific titles in popular music for a reason. — Σxplicit 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Elvis was neither 'pop' nor does he he fit in an MJ category. Occuli (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I loved Michael as a fan but come on now, even Elvis Presley doesn't have the category King of Rock & Roll in the bottom of his list either. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 06:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I honestly can't even begin to fathom what navigational purpose this was meant to achieve. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -- If there are only one or two articles, it is a pointless category. Furthermore it is POV category, unless there is an official awarding body; even then, it would be an award category, for which the usual solution would be to listify and delete.

[edit] Category:Music videos directed by Al Yankovic

Propose renaming Category:Music videos directed by Al Yankovic to Category:Music videos directed by "Weird Al" Yankovic
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Alternatively delete as he's only ever directed his own videos. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom – according to his article he has directed quite a few videos other than his own, eg Rockin' the Suburbs (song). Occuli (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Should have also caught this one when I nominated the one below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dance Crews

Category:Dance Crews - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: We don't have an article on dance crew. All of these are already categorized in other similar, appropriate categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Images of baseball players

Category:Images of baseball players - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Had Category:Images of Major League Baseball players as a member. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you want done with it? "Technical nomination" is all very well, but it's a good idea to say what you're actually expecting to happen to it (rename or delete)... I take it you mean delete, since it's now empty - in which case, surely it would be speediable given a day or two of emptiness. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A decision on deleting as empty or not. It is rather odd that this category is empty unless every related image is on commons. Category:Images of sportspeople is also rather sparse, so maybe the question is, why is this tree so empty? If there is a logical reason, then maybe the entire tree should be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:749 earthquakes

Category:749 earthquakes - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:749 natural disasters - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:749 earthquakes is probably too specific: Category:Earthquakes by century doesn't contain any other articles about earthquakes between 526 and 1138, and other than this the earliest year category I can find is Category:1700 earthquakes. I'm also nominating Category:749 natural disasters for deletion, as it would be empty if Category:749 earthquakes was deleted. The article can be recategorised in Category:749 (it's already in Category:8th-century earthquakes). snigbrook (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The natural disaster subcategories are century categories – other than 749 which is nominated for deletion there are no year categories before 1634. snigbrook (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
OK then, so support nom. Occuli (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete etc per nom. These by year categories for remote periods make everything harder to find. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Former CBS Corporation subsidiaries

Propose renaming Category:Former CBS Corporation subsidiaries to Category:Former CBS subsidiaries
Nominator's rationale: The corporate name of CBS wasn't always CBS Corporation. FMAFan1990 (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. But CBS is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rename to match title of the parent article CBS Corporation. Given name changes over the years, any name could be challenged. Using the current name with the word "corporation" only reduces potential ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Druze surnames

Category:Druze surnames - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Bedouin surnames - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found as emptied. Given the questions over surnames, probably needs to be listed here. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -- recent June creation by Mayumashu. Routinely emptied during the deletion of the surnames by country, and subsequent removal of old nocat {{Surname}} parameter (ongoing). The remaining entries (one is a redirect) have no references. There's no need for a parallel "by culture" surnames category tree. Populating "by language" with reliable sources is a large enough task.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • REstore -- I thought we were restoring surnames that imply a particular ethnic origin. In the Middle East, endogamous religious sects have usually become quasi-ethnicities. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:600 mm gauge railways

Category:600 mm gauge railways - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:750 mm gauge railways - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Appears to have been upmerged to the less precise Category:Two foot gauge railways. Actually I'm not sure about how Category:Narrow gauge railways is broken out. Seems like arbitrary subcategory names. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • KeepDelete. The article Narrow gauge railways includes both these gauges so they are legitimate subcategories. The main category does have gauges lumped together but that may not be entirely satisfactory for metric gauges. BTW my popup discloses that these categories are only 5 hours old - I would prefer to give the creator a chance to sort it out. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete – it seems reasonable to 'lump together' gauges 'around 2 foot' rather than have separate categories for every possible gauge (of which dozens are mentioned in Narrow gauge railways), and this does necessitate some arbitrariness. (Popup does allude to 5 hours but I don't know why as both were created in May 09.) Occuli (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Occuli. Why are these categories empty? Debresser (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You can do the digging to see if you can find out. When I nominate these I take a quick look around to see if I can find someone who emptied them and if I do, I mention that. But this last batch was by a user running a bot so that does not help at all. As an aside, not everyone found is nominated. Some appear to be eligible for deletion and I delete those. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Changing keep to delete. They are legitimate subcategories but can just as easily be covered in the 'lumped' categories. I was prepared to give the creator the benefit of doubt if they were only 5 hours old, but looking at the history they were created 24 December 2008. If no work has been done since then they are redundant. (and where did May 09 come from). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Songs written by Al Yankovic

Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Al Yankovic to Category:Songs written by "Weird Al" Yankovic
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match "Weird Al" Yankovic and other similar categories (e.g., Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic albums). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Australian places named from foreign wars

Category:Australian places named from foreign wars - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorization of unrelated subjects by shared naming characteristic, a form of overcategorization. These places in Australia were named after battles or battle sites in foreign wars. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete – all too true. Occuli (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep (although I created this category)- Firstly, I'm not too happy with the name I gave it- Australian places named from military association- perhaps better.

But, this is not a coincidental or happenstance category like People named Zowalski who own zebras which the policy is against, 2 dissimilar subsets creating a category with no substance. This category (with a potential population of 50+) draws together the places named after battles and military figures from the Peninsular War to World war 2 and beyond (Australia having had no inter-nation wars of any note on its own soil), demonstrating a theme (albeit variable) of place naming over a long period, and creating a category whose articles (with their naming referenced) present a coherent substance not available elsewhere. Australian aboriginal placenames etc. do similar, i.e. extract a subset from like articles to create substantial information (Epistemos (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)).

[edit] Category:Pogrom of Armenians

Propose renaming Category:Pogrom of Armenians to Category:Anti-Armenian pogroms
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This pluralises "pogrom" and is re-worded to match Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms and Category:Anti-Catholic pogroms in the United States. I think the proposed wording makes it more clear that the Armenians are the victims of the, er, "pogromming". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree per nominator. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • rename per nom. A much improved name for this category which I just more fully populated Hmains (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to more accurately reflect content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] July 2

[edit] Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles of the year

Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles of the year - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is second nom. of this category, the first resulting in no consensus. There are no other year-end #1 song category for any other genre or country beyond these. There is also only one song that can qualify per year under this category, so it would be much simpler, clearer and better organized in this case as a list. Wolfer68 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella nomination for the following year-end categories much better served as lists or merely serving as a parent category. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Categories on number-one singles seem to be important, and since there was no consenous to delete during the first nomination, the result of the first nom means that this category had it's chance and survived and should remain that way. A clearly defining category as the #1 song of the year has a characteristic by having the most plays of the year. This song survived the first nom, and should be kept after the first nom since the result was no consenous. Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep All and Populate Being single of the year would appear to be a rather strong defining characteristic. That other such categories don't exist yet, only argues for their creation, not for the deletion of this category. Alansohn (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment. There is no policy that says deletion discussions cannot be reopened. The previous CFD should have been relisted for more comments. There has been strong discussion even on the need of the "number-one singles" categories, and "number-one albums" categories have been continually removed per CFD. A #1 song of the year does not necessarily have the most plays for the year (it may depend on sales or airplay or a combination of both). This is screaming to be listified IMO. How much simpler would it be to have a nicely sourced "List of Year-end number-one songs" (for U.S., Canada, Country songs, R&B songs, whatever) with columns for year and artist. This is just overcategorization. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and populate per Alansohn. I know for a fact that the country #1's are ranked by airplay as Hot Country Songs is an airplay-only chart. Also, there may be only a finite number, but it is certainly at least as defining as being a Number One song at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Christmas and holiday season

Category:Christmas and holiday season - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant clone of either Category:Winter holidays (if Kwanzaa and Hannukah are added as the creator has been doing) or of Category:Christmas. Based on article Christmas and holiday season which was almost deleted under its former name of Winter holiday season; it hasn't gotten less POV since its move, I can assure you. Lumping together these holidays is specifically a US/Canada Christian view, not a worldview and not NPOV. Violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:POV. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Indifferent. The category is called "Christmas and holiday season", meaning it encompasses several holidays in the November-December timeframe. Mostly, in the media, it is called simply the "holiday season", but the term "Christmas" is included on the NPOV Wikipedia because both "holiday season" and "Christmas season" are notable worldwide. "Holiday season" or some variation thereof is used almost exclusively in the US (and by extension, Canada). Wikipedia is not US-centric or biased. I do not think there's anything wrong about listing Kwanzaa in this category, since it is often listed as one of the holidays in the "holiday season". I am not strongly in favor of this category but I thought it could just be a natural extension of the article Christmas and holiday season — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    I appreciate the effort, but that article has been problematic since its inception; I don't think basing a category on such an article is helpful to Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    I suppose I can agree; I had noticed things calm down at that article and the "POV" tag was no longer attached to it so I thought I'd go ahead with a Category. I've changed my vote to indifferent. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh no, a reincarnation of the old "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas" debate. ;-) Delete. This cat is redundant and unnecessary. There's already a Category:Christmas and a Category:Winter holidays. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Winter holidays for some may not include Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa - there's Soltice and New Year's Eve, among no doubt others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The parent article Christmas and holiday season has been around for three years, survived AfD, has about three dozen sources, defines what is included, and appears not to have been noticed by any of the voters here so far. In addition to this being a strong defining characteristic and grouping for these holidays and seasonal events, I find it humorous that this category is deemed "US-centric", while those suggesting Category:Winter holidays as an alternative don't seem to notice that the alternative is rather Northern Hemisphero-centric, when Wikipedia seems to operate in both the top and bottom of our planet. Ah, the wonderful world of CfD, where we can ignore all that occurs in the world around us, especially in article space, deleting categories because we just don't like 'em. Can someone please try to offer a policy justification for deletion that actually has some relevance instead of just tossing out acronyms? Alansohn (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename to show this is purely an American category - Category:American winter holiday season perhaps. Apart from Xmas & New Year, the only contewnts are Thanksgiving and Black Friday, both exclusively American. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I must point out - at the risk of pointing out the unintended hypocrisy (or at least irony) of suggesting that these are duplicates of Cat:Winter holidays and then saying that "Lumping together these holidays is ... not a worldview" - that Christmas is not a "Winter holiday" worldwide, so this is hardly a redundant clone of Cat:Winter holidays. For people like me, Christmas and Hanukkah are summer holidays- Matariki is the winter holiday. As such, if anything needs changing, it is Cat:Winter holidays, so as to recognise this. Johnbod's suggested change sounds a reasonable way of doing this. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - as noted, redundant to the existing categories for Christmas and for winter holidays. If the winter holidays category needs to be worked to make it non-hemis-centric, that's a separate discussion and doesn't change the redundancy of the nominated category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - In Australia and New Zealand the term "holiday season" is used to refer to either the Christmas/New Year period (from the weekend before Christmas through to the Sunday after New Year) or the school summer holidays (six to ten weeks long depending on the level of the school). As Grutness says above, this "holiday season" is not a "winter holiday" in our part of the world. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:St Leonards Seniors

Propose renaming Category:St Leonards Seniors to Category:St Leonards School alumni
Nominator's rationale: WP categories naming pattern over common usage Mayumashu (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:International courts

Propose renaming Category:International courts to Category:International courts and tribunals
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Quite a few of these are tribunals, not courts. Generally speaking, the courts are permanent institutions; the tribunals are temporary or ad hoc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Splitting the two seems better; otherwise rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Hm, I'm not positive, but I don't think so. It could be done, but the distinction is probably too insignificant to worry about separate category schemes, IMO. Grouping them together can make sense, as long as the name is inclusive. All of the subcategories group everything together (eg, judges, prosecutors, convictions, etc.). I'm guessing that people looking for ICTY stuff and International Criminal Court stuff are probably going to assume these are together and not assume that they will be separated in categories b/c one is a court and the other a tribunal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rename to more accurately reflect the content of the category. A split could be considered in the future. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Montenegro chess players

Category:Montenegro chess players - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Appears to be an out of process move to Category:Montenegrin chess players by 165.189.101.177. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ratify move (ooooh!) - the correct term. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ratify move per J. Occuli (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If so, then this category should be empty and will be eligible for speedy in a nother few days. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The idea is to get CfD to retroactively ratify the move rather than passively allowing an out-of-process move. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the move. Using the demonym seems more appropriate here, especially since other categories in Category:Chess players by nationality use demonyms as well. Jafeluv (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Users with no Barnstars

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: Administrative close. Already under discussion on 2009 Jun 29. I'll place a note there about this nomination. I've also left a note on the talk page of the user who removed the tag. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:Users with no Barnstars - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT#MYSPACE this category does not serve a proper purpose. MBisanz talk 01:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. This category is already under discussion here. Looking at the category's history, it seems that the CfD notice was removed. — Σxplicit 01:56, 2 July 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.


[edit] July 1

[edit] Category:Transport ministers of Nigeria

Category:Transport ministers of Nigeria - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Appears to heve been moved to Category:Transportation ministers of Nigeria by Vuvar1. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If so then it should be empty and will be eligible for speedy in another few days. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the intent is to get CfD to ratify the change rather than speedily deleting it and thereby passively allowing an out-of-process move. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support new name. The new name appears use the official name of the Nigerian ministry ("transportation", not "transport"): [1]. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ratify per GO & nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Solar energy by territory

Suggest merging Category:Solar energy by territory to Category:Solar energy
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm not convinced that we need this extra level with a name that is ambiguous and confusing. Upmerge to parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. Beagel (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator - unneeded. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with nominator completely. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] European music groups

Delete Category:European music groups -- Definition of countries that lie in Europe is dubious. Not necessary anyway. Cosprings (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly reject the first argument, but agree with second argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Musical groups by nationality and genre

Delete: Category:Musical groups by nationality and genre and Category:Musical groups by genre and nationality. Both seem useless to me. There are already categories Category:Musical groups by nationality and Category:Musical groups by genre. Someone's misguided attempt at over-categorization. Cosprings (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to add Category:South African jazz albums to this discussion since it appears that the nominator emptied it out of process. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll also note that these categories have not been properly tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll also add Category:Jazz music groups when these are correctly nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll also add Category:Organ trios when the first ones are correctly nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Games

Category:Syria at the 2008 Asian Beach Games - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Syria at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. In each case, there is one short article which would fit into that category, with the same title as the category. Syria won 1 medal at each games, so it seems unlikely that there will be enough further articles to fill a category in each case.thisisace (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As the creator of both has blanked both, and they are both empty, this can be speedied. Occuli (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with nominator. I'm not sure if Occuli mentioned a valid speedy criteria. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I have much faith in you. I forgot about the general speedy criteria. :) Debresser (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:One Network

Category:One Network - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The network has been broken up, due to its takeover by another company. The article The One Network, which describes this, is now in Category:Former British radio networks.thisisace (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. However, I'd also like to point out that at some point recently, an anonymous user also blanked the article about the topic, leaving only the "who took over all the old stations" part. The fact that we no longer need a category for this doesn't mean that we no longer need an article about it, given that people might legitimately still want information about what this was. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Moreover, it could be speedied after the cat is empty 4 days. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Chatham-Kent categories

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename - I would like to propose a newly renamed categories. These categories will be renamed to just Chatham-Kent. I already read about renaming and move the article to Chatham-Kent on the talk page. And one user already apologize for renaming without it's discussion or permission. So right now it is already agreed by some users to renaming to Chatham-Kent. According to Chatham-Kent's talk page. All those Chatham-Kent categories will be renamed without including the province name. Steam5 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article was recently moved without discussion, though also without much subsequent opposition. But category names sometimes have to be that much clearer, & given there is Chatham, Kent in England, this seems to be one of those cases. Most comparable Ontario categories still have the state in their name. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • But there is a talk page at Talk:Chatham-Kent. The article was already renamed to Chatham-Kent as already agreed to some users. and the dash (-) is between "Chatham" and "Kent" to become a city/municipality in the province of Ontario without it's confusion. Steam5 (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, the article was moved in 2007 with a perfectly acceptable consensus-establishing discussion to support it. I disagreed that comma vs. hyphen was really sufficient disambiguation, but the consensus was what it was. And while I've often seen the claim that the standards for category names need to be higher than the standards for articles, I have yet to see one single, solitary example in which a category name really was any more ambiguous than that of its head article. Truthfully, I'd still prefer to see the article go back to Chatham-Kent, Ontario, as I still don't think a mere hyphen is sufficient, but the principle of "match categories to article name" trumps any other consideration here. Either move the categories per nominator or propose redabbing the article — my own preference would be the latter rather than the former, but either way there's no valid reason for them to be left at different levels of disambiguation from each other, a solution which itself creates more confusion than it solves. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I would also oppose the renaming of the article. The point is that articles are named by editors who think their Chatham is of global significance and not to be disambiguated, whereas cfd is a wider forum. I have never heard of either Chatham but we can't have Chatham-Kent and Chatham, Kent (and many others - see Chatham). Occuli (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We can't have Chatham-Kent and Category:Chatham-Kent, Ontario, either. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We can - categories often need to named more clearly. The article has a disam header & the 1st line makes the subject clear. This could be repeated in a category, but people using categories look at the contents rather than the small print imo. But I think the article would be better moved back. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No, we can't; it creates more confusion than it fixes. If you ever end up with a situation where the city's head article and its associated categories actually have to be named differently from each other, it doesn't mean there are genuinely different issues to consider — it means you're doing something wrong and one of the two titles needs to be changed.
The thing is, unlike an article, it's really, truly, flatly impossible to get to a category by accident: you can only get there either through an article, which has already made the context obvious because the article provided the detail you mention, or by navigating the category tree, which has already made the context obvious because you can't get to it without branching your way down a succession of categories that included "Canada" and/or "Ontario" in their names. So it's simply not possible for the same name to be more ambiguous in a category than it is in an article title — while you're right that the category doesn't necessarily explain itself, you can't get to it without that explanation already having been provided to you before you even got there. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
But one can easily place articles inadvertently in the wrong category (without visiting it, eg using Hotcat) if the names are imprecise, as happens regularly with Category:People from Birmingham. This is not a risk to which articles are susceptible. Occuli (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason that even happens at all is precisely because there's an article-title-to-category-name mismatch. And articles are, in fact, susceptible to being mislinked. People frequently link to incorrect topics — either disambiguation pages or articles about the wrong thing entirely — in body text, which is even less likely to get caught promptly than a category misfiling is. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
We have plenty of categories not matching their main article, eg many US cities. Category:People from Birmingham usually contains a motley crew (4 at present). Category:People from Chatham should be renamed or repurposed whilst we are on the topic of Chathams. Are we really suggesting Category:People from Chatham, Kent and Category:People from Chatham-Kent? Occuli (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I know nothing of the place in question, but without "Ontario" it would easily be confused with the original Chatham in the original Kent. Ideally, move the article back; otherise make sure that it has a capnote linking it to the original Chatham. Chatham was the location of one of the four Naval dockyards in the Thames estuary, and is a substantial town. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and rename articled. "Chatham-Kent" will mean Chatham, Kent to 99% of Wikipedian users outside Canada. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - You all don't get the point opposing users, The difference for Chatham, Kent is the comma (,) the comma is the town in the United Kingdom. And the dash (-) for Chatham-Kent is for the municipality in Ontario, Canada. I nominate all the Chatham-Kent categories for renaming on a National Holiday in Canada, cause Chatham-Kent is located in Ontario and part of Canada. Also these categories Chatham-Kent is to match the main article including the dash (-). Steam5 (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm afraid it's you that doesn't get the point. Most of these people seem to want "Chatham-Kent" moved back to "Chatham-Kent, Ontario" because the difference with "Chatham, Kent" is too subtle. This would then also match the existing categories. I don't care one way or the other, so don't debate me on this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
My point exactly. The difference between Chatham, Kent and Chatham-Kent would be lost on most readers. As such, the Ontario place needs disambiguation. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have set up a move request to go back to "Chatham-Kent, Ontario"; survey at Talk:Chatham-Kent#Survey. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - Let me make everyone a deal, Johnbod already make a survey is to rename back to Chatham-Kent, Ontario if everyone supported the article back to Chatham-Kent, Ontario, the existing discussion from 2007 is about renaming from Chatham-Kent, Ontario to Chatham-Kent will be removed from the talk page, and maybe I will withdrew the nomination, if everyone supported. And we all won't talk about renaming it back again. Steam5 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Response to comment -whatever the outcome, the previous discussion should be left on the page, but a note should be added to it indicating the later counter-survey. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I read the talk page at Talk:Chatham-Kent#Survey and looks like most users supported to rename the article to Chatham-Kent, Ontario. The title will change for the main article soon. So, right now I would like to withdraw the nominated categories and keep the categories to match with the newly titled article Chatham-Kent, Ontario. Steam5 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby league players by club

Propose renaming Category:Adelaide Rams rugby league players to Category:Adelaide Rams players
This didn't work for some reason. There is a multitude of categories to be re-named, to which I added what I thought was the right template, but they aren't appearing here. They are most (but not all) the subcategories in Category:Rugby league players by club.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need to specify the sport in team player categories, as per this discussion. Jeff79 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename unless the club in question plays other sports. (Eg Adelaide Rams is a rugby league club so rename.) Occuli (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree per Jeff79 and the logic behind his argument. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Radio stations by frequency

Category:94.7 MHz FM Radio Stations in the United States - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:87.9 MHz FM Radio Stations in the United States - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or at least rename. Is this a good way to categorize radio stations? I'm not convinced that it is. Currently these are the only two categories in this scheme. While you could argue that frequency of a radio station is defining (how else would one find it on a radio if the frequency was unknown?), I'm not sure there is much utility to grouping radio stations together by frequency, since they will have nothing else in common and will of necessity serve different markets. At the very least, we need to reduce the caps on "Radio Stations" to "radio stations" for these two categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Radio stations are already categorized geographically, by format, and (where enough are in common) by owner. Those are all defining characteristics, and so are logical groupings. Frequency is not. Even if this were to be considered appropriate, it would be a huge job to set up this category structure. It would need to be done in a very organized manner, and should be coordinated with the relevant WikiProject. Mlaffs (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per both. Another 0.5% complete grand scheme we don't need. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone above. PasswordUsername (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete – contenders for 'least interesting category' award. Occuli (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - while I would venture that a radio station's frequency is defining for it, in the same way your house number is to you, categorizing on this point seems not really helpful as I can't figure out why someone would see a radio station and want to see what other radio stations have the same frequency and more than people would want to know who else lived at places with 1234 as their house number, say. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. While there's been a consensus established that lists by frequency are acceptable, categories simply aren't necessary or desired by WP:WPRS. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per all above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. This was posted at WikiProject Radio Stations. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. Steam5 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a station's frequency is factual but not truly defining. When KLOO-FM moved from 106.1 to 106.3 MHz as part of a multi-station frequency shift, it didn't change personnel, format, location, or anything else that truly defines it as a radio station. There are already lists that cover this by-frequency breakdown and give far more contextual information. - Dravecky (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete/listify -- speaking as a former radio professional, frequency is critically important. However, much better as a list because of context.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] June 30

[edit] Action film series

Category:Airport film series - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:A Better Tomorrow (film series) - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Fantastic Four films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Indiana Jones films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Jack Ryan films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:The Lone Ranger films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Mad Max films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:The Punisher films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Rambo films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:RoboCop films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Rush Hour films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Transformers films - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small categories, the vast majority of which have no likelihood of expansion, with one or two that may get another entry if the studio should decide to squeeze another sequel out of a dying franchise. Film series articles tend to be strongly interlinked and many of these have navtemplates as well. Per a number of recent CFDs, if the category for the film series is unlikely to ever contain much of anything other than the articles on the films along with maybe an article on the series itself, no need for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- J Greb (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Checking three of the categories more or less randomly, the contents of my sample (Airport, Jack Ryan, Rambo) were all in at least one of the categories from your list, so the nominated cats are neither reducing categories on the articles nor diffusing the parents. Category:Action films has nine articles along with various sub-genre and chronological subcats. I don't think it's crystal-balling to assert that most of the film franchises nominated are dead (last Airport film 1979, last RoboCop film 1993, etc.) and for those who still have some life in them, the categories are still small with exceedingly slow growth potential (last Jack Ryan film 2002, next film is in development with a tentative release date of 2011). If there's a sudden rush of such films so that the franchises begin resembling, say, Category:James Bond films then re-creation is not off the table. Recent similar CFDs found here, here (one even Alansohn found unnecessary!), several here. There are more scattered back through CFD history but sadly our resident CFD historian hasn't collected them. Otto4711 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Any inference about your position on the general matter is your own. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a bad group nomination that looks more or less thrown together indescriminantly. little possibility of expansion certainly does not apply to all of them. There are a lot of Jack Ryan novels on which to base movies on. And any comic book that's been around for 40+ years has alot of material usable for exploitation into movies. As there's a Transformers film in theatres right now that is doing boffo box office, that hardly seems to characterize that franchise either. A proper argument for deletion should be appropriately presented for the appropriate categories. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That there is possible source material for a particular franchise does not mean that there will be any additional films made within that franchise, and assumptions along these lines are not justified per WP:CRYSTAL. The choice of categories to nominate was not indiscriminate but were instead based on a review of all of the categories within the action film series parent cat which IMHO are in the same vein as the many other film and film series categories deleted both recently and over the last several months to few years. Otto4711 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That your argument is not based on WP:CBALL, but on the likelihood of more movies, and the fact that the franchises are dying shows that it is indiscriminantly thrown together. If you put together a proper argument for deletion, instead of a bad one, I would probably not oppose. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Except that I already explained that I reviewed all of the sub-categories in the parent and nominated those that match up with other similar and deleted categories, so your continued insistence on something that is not accurate or true is odd. Otto4711 (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator, even after seeing all the counterarguments. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Some additional recent CFDs for film series here. Otto4711 (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • More here. Otto4711 (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and precedents; there are tons of these that have been done. Once I closed one of these as delete and an editor was upset because I had once nominated a category for a film series for deletion (xXx "series", which had two articles in it), so since I'm apparently tainted as a closer in this area I may as well vote along with how the consensus has gone. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep all. These correctly group their contents, as per episode categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If an episodes category is small with little or no likelihood of expansion then we delete it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Major League Baseball players on the 2003 positive steroid test list

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 (had been emptied by time of close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:Major League Baseball players on the 2003 positive steroid test list - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is based on an unattributed source that clearly states its content is "rumored" and "unconfirmed".  StarScream1007  ►Talk  21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there anything stronger than Strong Support? This needs to be deleted speedily. Mlaffs (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nom, and more if possible per Mlaffs. -Dewelar (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy as WP:BLP violation. Looks like it's already been emptied out, thankfully. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support for deletion. The above votes have said enough. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for Speedy deletion for all the above reasons. Creator should be given a warning as well. Spanneraol (talk) 02:14, 1 July 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.

[edit] Category:Junior footballers

Propose renaming Category:Junior footballers to Category:Scottish Junior Football Association players
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at WP:FOOTY. "Junior footballers" is imprecise, as outside Scotland that usually means young players who are not yet ready for first team football. Junior football has a different meaning in Scotland, as it operates in parallel to "senior" football (Scottish Premier League, etc). Players of all ages play in Scottish "junior" football. Therefore I believe that SJFA players is a more appropriate name for the category, which is worthwhile as it records participation in a notable competitive structure. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support in order to clarify the category's purpose. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per nominator. --Carioca (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support rename for consistency wth the governing body name. But would a career solely in the Juniors be sufficient for notability though? These players' notability is generally by virtue of prior or subsequent senior career (or in examples like Paul McGrillen some switches between). AllyD (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be, as the Junior leagues aren't fully professional by any stretch of the imagination. It's additional information, i.e. "these notable player also played in the SJFA competitions". For instance, we have categories of players with clubs in the Highland League, eg, Category:Inverness Thistle F.C. players, or the various categories for players in the semi-professional leagues in Northern Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Army

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There was only one Indian Army during the World Wars. Its name was the Indian Army, not the British Indian Army. There has never been an organisation called the British Indian Army. We use Category:British Indian Army personnel to differentiate between pre- and post-independence personnel, but that is unnecessary in these categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Renames to more accurately reflect content of categories. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- That would break up the naming scheme. Why have the others Category:British Indian Army soldiers, Category:British Indian Army killed in action, Category:British Indian Army officers, etc? The main category above is Category:Military of British India, where even more "British Indian Army ..." are found, so seems pedantic to partially rename them here without more comprehensive review.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Not really. Where the "British" prefix is needed for disambiguation that's fine. Where it isn't, as here, then what's the need for it? "British Indian Army" is not a name that was used, so why artificially add it? The article itself has thankfully dispensed with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments – the article is at Indian Army (1895–1947) so '(1895–1947)' could be added where clarification is needed (which it isn't in the nominated categories, assuming the dates of WWI and WWII are thought to be 'given'). 'British Indian Army personnel' is also ambiguous. (Category:British Indian Army killed in action is, apparently, a subcat of both Category:British military personnel killed in action and Category:Indian military personnel killed in action. Perhaps those not of joint nationalilty were immune.) Occuli (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment (1) The Indian army consisted of Indian other ranks and British officers (2) there was another Inidan army in WWII, a corps in Japanese pay recruited from prisoners. My father (an Englishman) served in the Indian army during WWII. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but both officers and other ranks were members of the Indian Army - the officers did not belong to a separate organisation (many people seem to believe they were in the British Army - they were not, although many had initially been commissioned into the British Army before transferring to the Indian Army). There was indeed an Indian National Army, but it was not the Indian Army and was not called the Indian Army - even the post-independence Indian government refused to acknowledge its legitimacy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Writers by award

Propose renaming Category:Writers by award to Category:Writing award winners
Nominator's rationale: Other similar categories in Category:Award winners follow the "FOO award winners" model: there's Art award winners, Architecture award winners, Film award winners, Theatre award winners, etc. I believe this category ought to follow the same model. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep – this is a subcat scheme for Category:Writers. (Are all the subcats for winners only? Some are named 'recipients'. In any case it's enough for the subcat to include 'winners' in its name as the category 'Writers by award' does not appear on any articles.) Occuli (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep much clearer in the present wording. Perhaps we should revisit some of the FOO award winners categories, for the same reason. DGG (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The name "Writers by award" describes this category's contents better than "Writing award winners", since no writers are members of this category, only other categories of writers with awards. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The current title more effectively describes the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Category:Journalism award winners is not a subcat scheme, but is a category with subcats and unsubcatted articles; and is thus not relevant to us here. Occuli (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Proof by assertion is not a good argument. Category:Journalism award winners is indeed a "subcat scheme" of Category:Journalists, parallel to all others in Category:Writers and Category:Writers by genre. It is not a distinguished subcategory, and is not labeled as such. The fact that there are some dangling articles (not yet sorted in into separate award subcategories) merely means more work needs to be done. Similar to all other subcategories in this parent.... As I mentioned, CfD is certainly a place where a revised scheme of naming can be proposed, but this is not the appropriate method (bottom up, instead of top down).
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Slavic nations

Category:Slavic nations - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or merge. Essentially duplicates Category:Slavic countries. Indeed, that's the only line in its description:

See also Category:Slavic countries.

The only other similarly named category Category:Island nations is a {{category redirect}} to Category:Island countries. I doubt that's needed here.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep These are all articles on peoples not countries. There is absolutely no duplication with Category:Slavic countries whatsoever. Not all of them have a country, though some do. A rename to Category:Slavic peoples would make sense. WAS, you have an unfailing tin ear on these issues; why do you keep nominating in this area? This category has Bulgarians, the other Bulgaria. I frankly don't understand how an experienced user can fail to see the difference. "See also" does not mean "this is a definition". Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I fail to see why you participate here, as you have nothing to say other than personal attacks. Its only parent is Category:Slavs. There already exists a sister Category:Slavic people that contains these in its subcategory tree. "Not all of them have a country"? There are no "Slavic nations" spanning nation-states. This is the odd one out, and there's no valid reason to keep it.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Slavic ethnic groups is particularly amusing. Categories:Slavs -> Slavic nations -> Category:Slavic ethnic groups -> Slavs. Circular.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • WAS, I participate here partly to prevent lazy and erroneous nominations like this succeeding. Have you now abandoned the argument in the nomination? Category:Slavic people is a biography category; as far as I can see it does not "contain(s) these in its subcategory tree" - did you actually look? "There are no "Slavic nations" spanning nation-states" shows a depth of ignorance of Central & Eastern European history that that is truly stunning; I won't even start on that. Occuli's point is relevant; that category is a sub-cat of this one, & contains a larger number of small and historical groups. A merge to that is one option, but personally I think the current scheme, with the bigger national peoples in a higher level makes sense. But that isn't the nomination. The Silesians might sensibly be moved to the lower category, and the Estereicher, who certainly aren't a nation. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Occuli's point is ill-informed, as demonstrated above. Thank you for demonstrating that several of these articles are not "nations". As for the rest of your rant, it is essentially a 19th-century racist argument, similar to the Nazi rationale for a Jewish "nation". I reject that racism.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as per with Johnbod, but not speedy. WAS said "I fail to see why you participate here, as you have nothing to say other than personal attacks." He somehow missed Johnbod's argument. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • keep Entire argument for deletion is based on a false reading of the facts. Read the categories to see what is in them. They are not the same, as any English reader can tell. Hmains (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Since you seem to be rather pedantic today: note that the nomination says "essentially", not "exactly". It is obvious that the articles/subcategories are singular in one, and plural in the other. As any reader of any language can tell.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep – I am not convinced from the above that the nom is fully conversant with Slavic matters (or Tamil ones). I look forward to ill-advised forays into Kurdish and Celtic categories, or perhaps the Irish/Northern Irish ones. Occuli (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Slavic countries

Propose renaming Category:Slavic countries to Category:Slavic-speaking countries and territories
Nominator's rationale: Rename and prune. A subcategory of both Category:Slavic languages and Category:Countries by language, it should reflect that in its name. Most others in Category:Countries by language are "-speaking", so rename to match.
Its current description:

The category includes recognized and unrecognized countries with the majority of population belonging to the one of Slavic language groups.

Wikipedia shouldn't be classifying "unrecognized" countries. Who decides whether a "majority of population" belongs to "language groups"? (Languages belong to "language groups", not people.) The description should be cleaned up, and could be limited to countries that have adopted a Slavic language as an official language, as currently stated in its parent: "To categorize countries per official language."
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Modified nomination to delete after discussion, as there are no longer any "Slavic-speaking" countries, it cannot be a member of Category:Countries by language.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If a category is incorrectly parented a simple edit is the solution, not deletion. I will remove it from Category:Slavic languages. Occuli (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Slavic-speaking countries Keep per johnbod, remove non-countries, remove it from Category:Slavic languages (a country is not a language - {{catRel}} is the way to go) [done]. There is Category:Territories by language for sub-countries. Occuli (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep/Comment Since there is no language called Slavic, I'm dubious that "Slavic-speaking" is a valid term. WAS, if a category seems to be in an inappropriate category, the best approach is to consider whether it should be removed, rather than proceeding without thought to mangling or deleting the category to make it fit the parents. In this case the tree is a little odd, but the best approach would seem to be to create a new Category:Slav at top-level, redefine the current top-level Category:Slavs to contain just biographical categories, following recent precedents. As for the present category, perhaps Category:Slavic nations above could be repurposed, with current nation-states as a sub-cat? The nom says "Wikipedia shouldn't be classifying "unrecognized" countries" - well, yes it should somewhere if they have articles, but not under "country" categories, since the convention is that in categories "country"="nation-state" (in fact just one meaning of country). Where does was think such articles should be categorized? In fact all the articles in the main category are states, there are "former countries" as a sub-cat, which is unobjectionable, and Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories etc contain various sub-national but formal territories. I'm failing to see much of a problem here. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename as per Occuli. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep unless a better all-round solution is reached. Have you seen a Slavic-speaking person lately? Neither did I. I'm not sure that Slavic-speaking correctly identifies countries where Slavic languages (not one language) are spoken. And then there's the issue on non-Slavic countries where Slavic languages have official recognition. Austria and Kyrgyzstan recognize them but is it really what's intended? NVO (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. By the same token there should be Germanic-speaking countries or Romance-speaking countries... or not? NVO (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you have the wrong end of the stick as usual. Even you recognise that Slav matters should be grouped together, as in your nomination proposal. Why do my comments suggest "some POV greater Slav nation spanning nation-states"? Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This obviously refers to those countries of eastern Europe where slavic languages are the main ones. Slavic is a language group. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It is, called the Slavic languages. As pointed out above, Slavic-speaking no more works than "Romance-speaking" or "classical-speaking". Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Nominator has been removing articles from category see e.g. this edit. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Finance by Country

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: speedied, debate not really necessary. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Category:Finance by Country - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Messed up the capitalization, accidentally duplicated Category:Finance by country. Cander0000 (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Debate isn't really necessary; as an innocent mistake that you fixed as soon as you caught it, you can just {{db-author}} this. Consider it speedied. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 30 June 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.

[edit] Category:Converts from Transcendentalist Movement to Roman Catholicism

Category:Converts from Transcendentalist Movement to Roman Catholicism - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a small category with no potential for growth. The Transcendentalists were never numerous, and few ever converted to Roman Catholicism; and since Transcendentalism is a historical movement, there will not be any more converts. As it is, the category includes only a single article, Orestes Brownson. Therefor, I suggest the category should be deleted. --darolew 08:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Orestes is in enough categories and will not miss this one. Occuli (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Polynesian flora

Propose renaming Category:Polynesian flora to Category:Flora of the Polynesian floristic subkingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is too ambiguous; "Polynesian flora" could mean the flora of French Polynesia (often informally called Polynesia); the flora of Polynesia; the flora of the Polynesian floristic region; or the flora of the Polynesian floristic subkingdom (see Paleotropical Kingdom for background on the floristic hierarchy). Hesperian 01:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Flora of Polynesia All of the other similar categories are named in this fashion. Whether we should be more specific in the naming would be worth a prior discussion among the specialists. DGG (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Flora of Polynesia per DGG. The note makes the scope clear, and there is a sub-cat for French Polynesia. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If you looked at Paleotropical Kingdom you would see that there is both a Polynesian subkingdom and a Polynesian region. "Flora of Polynesia" fails to distinguish between them. Hesperian 23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment We have the usual problem of biological catgories that they do not fit nice politicql boundaries. Probably nosimple solution, but be imaginative. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment This is also the problem of biological categories having names that are also used for other purposes. For example, ethnologically New Zealand is part of Polynesia, whereas botanically New Zealand is a separate region. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is the point I am making here: that "Polynesia" might mean
  • Polynesia in the political sense (i.e. French Polynesia;
  • Polynesia in the ethnological sense;
  • Polynesia the floristic region;
  • Polynesia the floristic subkingdom
The counter proposal therefore does not address the problem. Hesperian 02:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] June 29

[edit] Category:Paleontological media

Propose renaming Category:Paleontological media to Category:Paleontology media
Nominator's rationale: All four subcats -- books, documentaries, journals and websites -- use the noun "Paleontology" rather than the adjective form. Either this category name is wrong, or the four subcats should be renamed, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Which one fits Wikipedia's standards or manual of style best? Abyssal (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a mix'n'match. "Geology books" and "Botanical books" both feed into "Science books", a subcategory of "Scientific literature". There don't seem to be (m)any other "media" categories of this type - only "literature" ones. I'd suggest picking one form and changing all the others to it. The noun form seems to have some ascendency numbers-wise, but whther that's the best option or not I'll leave to others to decide. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename – surely it's 'Chemistry book', 'History book', rather than 'Chemical book', 'Historical book'. A 'botanical book' sounds as if it should have plants sprouting amongst its pages and birds flitting between its leaves. Occuli (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:X-COM games

Suggest merging Category:X-COM games to Category:X-COM
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge into main category. It doesn't seem necessary to have a separate category for just 8 games when there are only 9 articles in the main category by itself. A merge would solve the problem of overcategorization and the constituent categories being too small to be useful. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Film genres by music genre

Propose renaming Category:Film genres by music genre to Category:Films by music genre
Nominator's rationale: As proposed by Occuli in the CfR for Category:Punk film, I believe this is a simpler, better phrasing. The repetition of genres/genre serves no useful purpose that I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I find them useful, anyway. They're all subcats of the various music categories, as well, so someone with an interest in Punk music can also search Punk films. It's similar to Category:Films by topic, I guess, but not exactly a "topic," IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear. I understand why categories like those for punk films are useful. I'm just not certain what we gain by collecting them in the nominated category instead of its parent, especially in light of Occuli's suggestion. - Eureka Lott 18:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete how much about the genre must the film be or how many songs in the genre must it have? Purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that the Punk film sub-category has a rather subjective definition: films that simply have a "DIY" ethos are said to be "punk." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:20th-century people by nationality

Category:20th-century people by nationality - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:21st-century people by nationality - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete all

Nominator's rationale: creates very long lists that are rather meaningless and significantly duplicate of Category:People by nationality and its sub-cats, since, what, two-thirds or more of all people with article pages on WP are of this or the previous century. Mayumashu (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep all Given that we actually have Category:Living people, I don't see why size is an issue. But in any case, these are mostly and correctly used to hold subcategories of manageable sizes. There will be an increasing need to distinguish the 20th & 21st century. Incidentally, how do we distinguish for people who lived in both? The period of major activity? DGG (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say the period of WP:Notability. Many would belong to both and many, of course, would not. Category:Living people does not duplicate other lists though (such as by nationality, occupation, where from). Mayumashu (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep All When and where someone lived is a strong defining characteristic. These are effective means to split individuals up by country, and will be far more effective as individuals are added from prior centuries. Alansohn (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • And will we then depopulate Category:Fooian people once the Fooians have been moved to their appropriate centuries, as we ought to do. I'm not convinced that this is category creep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- many of these will be very heavily populated. If we must have a change, we either need to find a way of splitting them, so that the categories are kept as parent categories, or we need to upmerge to Fooian people, which would be even more unwheildy. My preference is Keep until some one can suggest a sensible measn of splitting them - how about by occupation? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it will need to be by occupation - but, is the idea with these to subdivide what we already have? - eg. empty Category:English footballers into Category:19th-century English footballers, Category:20th-century English footballers, and Category:21st-century English footballers? I guess the answer is yes. Mayumashu (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Slavic-language surnames

Category:Slavic-language surnames - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Previously deleted Category:Slavic surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (4 times), re-created mere minutes after the latest speedy deletion.

This category is for surnames originated among Slavic peoples, i.e., peoples who speak Slavic languages. Often the origins of these surnames is difficult to pinpoint, since the three cultures have common origins and heavy mutual influence.

There are currently 5 (not 3) languages listed:
This is not a "language" (singular) topic category, this is "languages" (plural) instance category – or a "by culture" category – at the very least misnamed.
While specific language categories have been created, there doesn't seem to be a need for grouping them according to migration of peoples. Too hard to accurately document in a category, and could lead to a proliferation of competing subcategories, rendering the parent category difficult to navigate.
Also, this should not be a catch-all category for inference or derivation. Instead, names that can be authenticated in more than 1 modern language should be included in each language category.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was discussed earlier here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment – I don't think a cfd on 'surnames by country' (with various non-countries tossed in) has any relevance at all, especially as this now has '-language' appended. There is Category:Slavic languages. (It is 'surnames' being plural which makes this a list-category of surnames. There is an argument for making it 'Slavic-languages surnames' as there are several such languages. But the same applies to 'Montenegrin-language' - see Languages of Montenegro.) Occuli (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for making my point. There were various non-countries improperly classified as "by country". Let's be more careful this time. Category:Slavic languages is ultimately divided into many linguistic variants, and there is no rationale for similarly organizing these languages here (East Slavic languages, Extinct Slavic languages, etc.) Montenegro adopted the Montenegrin language in its Constitution of 2007, so there is only 1 official language.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. A well-defined, unambiguous, verifiable, and meaningful supercategory. Useful for search, to compare closely related surnames. The nominator sems to be genuinelty confused as to the purpose of these categories: they are about the origin, not the usage of a surname. It doesn't matter that a surname can be "authentificated" in several modern languages. Also, I fail to see whats this to do with "migration" of peoples. Languages are not grouped acoriding to migration patterns. - Altenmann >t 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. This category is not useful for searching, unless all the names of its constituent subcategories are included (making them "distinguished subcategories" under the guidelines). It was exactly that sort of mess that made the "by country" categorization controversial, and ultimately worthless.
  2. Since this nominator actually defined these categories, the confusion is not on the part of the nominator. The nominator apologizes should the Category:Surnames by language description need to be expanded with a more expansive explanation.
  3. While the distant "origin" for some subcategories may well be "Slavic", just as the "origin" for others may well be "Latin" or even "Indo-European", the names in these categories are intended to be based on well-defined modern languages, not their archaic forebears. Such categorization can often be extremely controversial.
  4. Perhaps you could explain the meaning of "authentificated"?
  5. Moreover, you are egregiously incorrect. Languages and writing are often used by anthropologists and archaeologists to discern the migrations of peoples. Many of the language controversies that abound in Wikipedia (such as the Balkans) are due to migrations of peoples that spoke antecedents of modern languages, especially Slavic in this instance.
  6. Are there any existing peoples that still speak Slavic?
  7. I'd be more comfortable with surnames of Category:Ancient languages, as they are clearly labeled.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The closing in the previous discussion specifically permitted recreation by a different scheme such as this and also suggested redoing this by User:cjllw's suggestion of categorization by language. This is a reasonable implementation of that. The categories are designed as "Surnames of Czech language origin", etc. which is different from the possible separate set of categories, of surnames used by people speaking the Czech language. This should be kept, and confirmed as the right way to redo all the others. DGG (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Nobody is suggesting deleting the subcategories, such as Czech-language. It is the way we are redoing all the others. This one does not fit. It is a useless super-category.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG and Altenmann Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete many of these are inappropriately categorized and/or totally unreferenced. If a surname is a Czech-language surname and a Polish-language surname, and a Slovak-language surname, as various of these seem to be, and it seems to be a BLP issue to boot - an example: to have a list with Serbian people with a surname and say that they have a Croatian surname (or vice versa) seems to be a contentious unsourced statement about a BLP and should be removed immediately. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This, which is a very valid point, is all the more reason to keep the category and place more articles in the category itself. If we are moving to a by-language surnames scheme, where else would such names go? Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If a surname is not uniquely Fooish-language, categorization is at best misleading and at median just plain wrong and at worst racist. If the language of origin of a surname is defining, having multiple origins negates that definition and are inappropriate. Since many of these names that I've looked at are not uniquely Czech (for exmaple), but seem to be held by people of Slovak, Polish, Bosnian, Croat, Austrian, Australian, Argentine, and American nationality, there is nothing more Czech about them than there is Slovak, Polish, Bosnian, Croat, Austrian, English, Spanish, or whatever. And now that we're doing this by language - many of the so-called Irish names will now be English-language ones as most of the articles say that Mc-, Mac-, and O'- names are Anglicisms of some Irish (Gaelic) original. Start re-categorizing folks until you're tired of trying to pigeon-hole people and their names by ethnic and linguistic categories that probably meant little at the time the names were first introduced. But, WP needs to categorize this way to keep the racialists happy, I suppose. To me, it's a worthless endeavor with nothing productive coming out from it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Forget "nationality" - these categories have moved away from that, as supported by you I think. Some Slavic names, especially in anglicized spelling, may be both Czech and Slovak (the same nationality until 20 years ago), Serb & Croat (ditto), or more widely shared. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I missed the debate where "language" was added to the categories. I say leave alone and get those who speak the relevant languages to sort this one out. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Kennedy School, Harvard

Propose renaming Category:Kennedy School, Harvard to Category:John F. Kennedy School of Government
Nominator's rationale: Rename to the proper name of the school, rather than a colloquial abbreviation. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 08:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment "Harvard" should be retained in the title; otherwise I would not know where it is. I assume that this is a university department. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Traditional fishing villages

Suggest merging Category:Traditional fishing villages to Category:Fishing villages
Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Appears to have been merged out of process by Geronimo20. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Apologies if this was out of process. In practice nearly all fishing villages are "traditional". If Category:Fishing villages was going to have a sub category, it would make more sense if it was for "non-traditional" fishing villages. But really that's not needed either. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Atlantic Records - "Labels distrusted by Atlantic Records."

Category:Atlantic Records - Speedy Delete
Nominator's Rationale - this seems to me to be an attack on Atlantic, but no sources are provided Ian Cairns (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Perfectly logical category. How is this an attack? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The category creator had for some reason inlcuded the phrase "Labels distrusted by Atlantic Records." on the category page. I've deleted it and this nom can now be withdrawn. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:World Federation of Great Towers

Category:World Federation of Great Towers - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. If I understand the main article, this is for towers that belong to an association. In any case this is not defining. Currently has a single entry. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Sandstone buildings

Category:Sandstone buildings - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not convinced that this is a defining characteristic for these buildings. I actually found this category on a settlement article since it contained sandstone buildings. For many of the others included, there is only a mention of that fact that the building used sandstone, nice for the article, but not notable for the building or defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Reflect – there doesn't seem anything fundamentally wrong with Category:Buildings and structures by construction material (except it is not constructed). I would say that the material used is a defining characteristic of a building. 'Stone' is defining; whether the type of stone used is defining is less clear. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I might go along with that, and the materials would seem to include [timber, stone, brick, steel, concrete, mud, snow ..], but the category also needs to be clearly defined. Many modern building are steel with a cladding (which could be sandstone); does that mean a category of 'composite'? Do concrete blocks count as bricks or concrete?. Are sun-dried mud-bricks different from mud? Probably too many uncertainties to form a useful category(?). Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes there are quite a number of questions here. Another one is how do you classify a building constructed with those panels that get filled with concrete and then covered with other materials on the outside shell. If they use stone and wood on the outside and steel framing on the interior walls is it then a foam-concrete-steel-wood and stone building? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I might say that the type of material could be defining, but to some extent it is more a product of the time when it was built or the type of structure. Clearly all of the old Greek buildings are made from stone. Prior to around 1920 or so, stone was still a major building material. Steel made high rises possible. Now poured concrete is a major force. So as has been pointed out, this could be defining in some cases, but we should proceed with caution and a well considered set of criteria. Simply being made of sandstone is not going to work. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per difficulties above, or rename to Category:Sandstone buildings in Australia where it may be more distinctive & where all these are. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and use for similar buildings--the article Sandstone has a gallery of them. And see the good definition in Sandstone Universities-"buildings constructed primarily of sandstone." DGG (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Again an Australian term. The gallery mentioned has about 4 buildings; we must already have thousands of articles on sandstone buildings, though relatively few will actually say so, and there is the issue of whether the sandstone is just a decorative cladding, or really the primary material, which is not just an issue for modern buildings. What is the point of this global category? Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Given that sandstone states sandstone a common building and paving material, why is this a notable factor for a building? Also what is a 'sandstone building'? Is it a building made completely of sandstone? Of is it a building that uses a decorative sandstone exterior over a frame built using another material? All-in-all, it is really rather ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep What about Brownstones? The use of sandstone as a an exterior material lent its name to an entire class of buildings. Definitely a defining characteristic. Admittedly grouping buildings by construction material creates huge categories, but it is a useful way of categorizing because of the importance of the concept. Besides brownstones, think wood (Thorncrown Chapel, Gamble House (Pasadena, California), steel (Tour Eiffel, bricks (Louis Kahn), concrete (Auguste Perret). You can't separate material from architecture and this category is important. Drawn Some (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The class of buildings is notable as an architectural style, but is every one of those buildings notable for being build using sandstone? I don't believe that articles about these buildings make much note of the material used or why that makes the buildings notable. However they probably do make at least a mention of the brownstone architectural style. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Category:Limestone buildings, which currently contains one Australian prison, but if properly populated would contain thousands of articles including most of the historic buildings of Europe, should also go, for the same reasons. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This is a legitmate characteristic. However "Brick buildings" and "concrete buildings" would not be becuase the use of these materials is too ubiquitous. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • How is sandstone not ubiquitous, especially in certain periods of time or for certain locations? Most, if not all, of the early Vegas buildings that were not wood were made of sandstone which is what was available. That is not defining or notable. The same is probably true in most parts of the world. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Vernacular stone construction is not ubiquious; abundance in one town and one period does not call for such a generalization. I'd take your argument against Category:Log cabins or Category:Mud huts, but this category is actually manageable in size. NVO (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Really? It may be with the current 18 buildings, 17 Australian, but if fully populated it would include probably thousands of buildings we already have articles on. The ridiculously unrepresentative nature of the category as it stands, and the improbability of it ever being populated with more than say 1% of the actual number of sandstone buildings we have articles on, are further reasons for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
How many articles for Category:Log cabins or Category:Mud huts do we have? Those may well be defining based on rarity. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Punk film

Propose renaming Category:Punk film to Category:Punk films
Nominator's rationale: To match all other subcategories of Category:Film genres by music genre. Niggling, yes, but someone's got to do it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Occuli, I do think you're right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who own a geodesic dome

Category:Wikipedians who own a geodesic dome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by ownership" category, which have a unanimous history of deletion as not supporting collaboration. See here. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree Debresser (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • delete; trivial grouping. - Altenmann >t 19:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, trivial, doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Users with no Barnstars

Category:Users with no Barnstars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - First of all, this uses the improper naming convention of "Users" and improperly capitalizes "Barnstars", but additionally I would argue for deletion as this category doesn't support collaboration. This is a "not-based" category in that it categorizes users by something they don't have, a type of category that has unanimous deletion (see here). Additionally we have deleted similar categories, including Category:Wikipedians who would like to earn a Barnstar (see here) as well as various "Wikipedians by barnstar earned" categores (see here). VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia:User categories specifically advises to avoid creating "not-based" categories like this. Jafeluv (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-category and non-productive as well. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete this would be enormous. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: the CfD tag on this category was removed, and as a result it was re-nominated for deletion on 2009 July 2. The second nominator's comments there should be considered here as a vote for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the second nominator Good O' refers to above and I believe it should be deleted as not benefiting the encyclopedia. MBisanz talk 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some "mine is bigger" bragging is always inevitable, but labeling hundreds of thousands of users as underdogs really makes no sense. NVO (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as pointless and unmaintainable. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:User ain't

Category:User ain't (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Linked to a userbox proclaiming "This user believes that ain't is a proper word to use in place of a contraction of a be verb and a pronoun. Ain't that right?" - This is an innapropriate categorization of users in that it doesn't support collaboration and improperly uses the babel naming convention, which is at least grounds for renaming. There is no benefit to grouping such users in a category. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Unpleasant Wikipedians

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 DELETED. Postdlf (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:Unpleasant Wikipedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Does not support collaboration. No reason to specifically seek out self-proclaimed unpleasant Wikipedians. Possibly a joke category? Does not benefit the encyclopedia in any way. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Overtly general, subjective and unhelpful to building the encyclopaedia. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete although I can suggest a few names. Occuli (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Give me a break/Keep: Really? This is worth anybody's time? My suggestion: keep this around for a few weeks, and see how many editors join the category. I think it's a real description and many WPers will self-describe, given the chance. Check back and review in September. When I created the userbox, the category showed up on its own. All I really wanted was the userbox. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I have more to say. I am an unpleasant Wikipedian. That doesn't mean I'm not helpful or productive. See my contributions. But letting people know up front that I am known to be unpleasant is a reasonable courtesy. It helps to put my comments and edits into a context:

Hi editor: don't get too upset by my unpleasant comments about your edits: I'm unpleasant with everybody. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Self-identification is important in any social group. On the other hand, we could hardly allow people who are in potential trouble with Wikipedia:Civility to form a group and thereby obtain semi-legitimacy. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This discussion contains proof that an editor can be a pain in the ass and still be civil.
  • What's wrong with my suggestion to give this some time? This category is clearly a self-classification only. In order to define the need or utility of this category, some examples might help, no?
  • Just because you don't like the classification doesn't mean that unpleasant editors don't exist.
  • Why do you feel the need to forbid editors from classifying themselves this way? Or finding others similarly afflicted? Or warning the newbies of their nasty dispositions?
  • This category could scarcely be as doubtful re: WP-correctness as say [this]. Yet look how big that category is.

There. Nothing uncivil, and nothing very pleasant either. Give it a rest and or a little time. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. A joke category of no benefit to creating an encyclopedia; could be applied to other editors pages as a personal attack; appears to encourage uncivil behaviour, which god knows we have too much of already. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind: Please kill. As self-identification, it's moderately amusing. Considering that this category could be applied to other editors without their self-identification, however, I agree that it has no business in WP. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    • I've put a Speedy deletion tag on it, accordingly. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 29 June 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.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians with a shoutbox tool

Category:Wikipedians with a shoutbox tool (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Seems to be a "Wikipedians by template use" category in order for someone to track who is using a template they created. Unanimous precedent to delete such categories, see here. Doesn't seem to be any encyclopedic benefit to specifically seek out users with this template. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. It's not doing any harm. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 03:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:HARMLESS. And on the contrary, keeping such a category sets precedent to keep other "Wikipedians by template use" categories, which sets a double standard that flies in the face of past discussions on similar categories that I've linked to above, so it in effect does in fact "do harm". Additionally, keeping this category violates Wikipedia:User categories in that it does not meet the requirement that "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". Can you explain how grouping users who decide to use this template on their userpage would benefit the encyclopedia? What possible encyclopedic purpose would one have to go searching for users in such a category? I can't even think of a non-encyclopedic use for doing so considering the existence of the "what links here" function to find out who is using a particular template. Also, where would we draw the line at keeping such categories? I can see it now: Category:Wikipedians with Userxyz's userbox #216. I don't want to open that can of worms, and there should be no need to as it is a cut and dry unencyclopedic category that past consensus has time and time again witnessed and come to the correct conclusion of deletion. VegaDark (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete per the examples listed by VegaDark. If someone wants to keep track of people who use a template, they can look at "what links here". Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] June 28

[edit] Category:European people by ethnic or national origin

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry. Not a "by continent" naming convention. There are not so many countries that they need to be divided by continent, nor do continents need to be sorted by ethnicity. Adds nothing to navigation.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • (WP:OTHERSTUFF) I should have known there were more of these recent 2008 Mayumashu created landmines sitting around. Oh well, another category, another CfD for another day. Let's worry about this one for now.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and populate as per Category:African people by ethnic or national origin Mayumashu (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and add the appropriate subcategories. DGG (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; OCAT by unnecessary race/ethnic categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep All Subcategories exist, and they just need to be organized within this structure and populated to serve as an effective aid to navigation by a strong defining characteristic. Despite the claims of OCAT, there is a rather clear defining connection between ethnicity and national origin within any given country. Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep both -- The first is a legitmate parent (but should normally only contain subcategories), but needs to be better populated. The second ought in theory primarily to be a parent for expatriate Vietnamese categories in various countries, but there seem to be too few notable people of Vietnamese descent in Europe to warrnat having more than a French subcategory: the finnish one might usefully be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Melodifestivalen songs of 2005

Category:Melodifestivalen songs of 2005 - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Merge to Category:Melodifestivalen songs. A two entry category that is composed of songs that were candidates to represent Sweden in an international competition. All 45 Some of the songs are included in the main article. If the starting comments are favirable, I'll add the remaining like categories, there is a large number of these, all are small. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Queries – what are these 45 songs and which is the 'main article' (there are far more articles than one would hope)? Is the criterion any (notable) song that was entered into Melodifestivalen 2005? Eg why is Alcastar not there? I suppose I could see what other countries do re Eurovision contenders ... Occuli (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:TV Tic-tac-toe

Category:TV Tic-tac-toe - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename - Nominated once previously with no consensus. The existing name is awkward, so if retained it should be renamed. I suggest Category:Tic-tac-toe television programs to align with the similar Category:Poker television programs and Category:Blackjack television programs. If this is deleted I'm fine with that too. Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There's Tic-Tac-Dough, Hollywood Squares, and… a pricing game on TPIR? Not enough for a category, no likely chance of expansion given the move back to dumb luck based games á la Deal or No Deal and stripped down quizzers á la Million Dollar Password. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The format of the program is a clear defining characteristic of these programs. The popularity of the format makes it likely that there will be more such programs in the future as well as others outside the United States that may have been missed. Alansohn (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to parent Category:Tic-tac-toe. Such sub-categorization is unnecessary and the gameshows are variations of the game. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Blur

Propose renaming Category:Blur to Category:Blur (band)
Nominator's rationale: Per the ambiguous Blur and Blur (band). Category names should never be more ambiguous than article names. Occuli (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename. To avoid ambiguity. — Σxplicit 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with arguments above and per numerous precedents. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename. There's no possible confusion here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Queen (band)

Propose renaming Category:Queen (band) to Category:Queen
Nominator's rationale: Although the band's article is disambiguated to Queen (band), its category needn't be. For example: Blur (band) and Category:Blur. indopug (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep – obviously, per the very ambiguous Queen, and I will nominate Blur asap. Occuli (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Occuli. No need to repeat here the confusion of a British MP visiting Argentina who accepted an invite to address the "Queen Appreciation Society". Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree per numerous precedents. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose name change per the two previous discussions on the topic. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Queen has many meanings - Elizabeth II has one notion of it, the LGBT community has another, and neither is likely Freddie M & company. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rename In addition to the general rule that category titles should match those of the parent article, the current name makes it absolutely clear as to what's included while proposed rename makes it completely ambiguous. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here there is reasonable confusion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Belarusian Polish people

Propose renaming Category:Belarusian Polish people to Category:Polish people of Belarusian descent
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match others in Category:Polish people by ethnic or national origin, according to the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You always say that in these cases, and are always wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom accoring to long precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
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: Renamed with an assist from Jéské Couriano. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Country singles with RIAA gold certification

Propose renaming Category:Country singles with RIAA gold certification to Category:Country singles certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America
Nominator's rationale: To match parent category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, someone already created the renamed category, rather than let this process complete. Just a note of thought, though - no song should be added to these "gold" and "platinum" certification categories without it being properly sourced in the article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 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.

[edit] Category:People from Sheffield (district)

Category:People from Sheffield (district) - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:People from Attercliffe
Category:People from Beighton
Category:People from Broomhill
Category:People from Burngreave
Category:People from Chapeltown, Sheffield
Category:People from Crookes
Category:People from Darnall
Category:People from Ecclesall
Category:People from Ecclesfield
Category:People from Handsworth, South Yorkshire
Category:People from High Green
Category:People from Hillsborough
Category:People from Norton, South Yorkshire
Category:People from Stannington
Category:People from Stocksbridge
Category:People from Wadsley
Category:People from Woodhouse
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:People from Sheffield (district); merge subcats into Category:People from Sheffield. Someone from Sheffield will usually have lived in many sub-areas; being born in a particular area is not defining; 'from Sheffield' is enough; Sheffield (district) is a redirect to Sheffield. Occuli (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Support per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- These are mostly suburbs of the present city of Sheffield. Most were in the ancient parish of Sheffield (which was a large one. One might possibly have a category for people living in the original Sheffield settlement (ie the present city centre), but I doubt it is worthwhile. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:English-language websites

Category:English-language websites - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Far too broad. Otterathome (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete – I fully agree but then I thought the same about Category:English-language films. Occuli (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree per nominator. But this argument is a sharp knive... Debresser (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete not defining for the website - and if there is a single word of English on an otherwise non-English website they get in here (per the uselessly lax standard in films)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Songs written by Mark Markwell

Suggest merging Category:Songs written by Mark Markwell to Category:Songs written by Hugo Peretti and Luigi Creatore
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Mark Markwell is the pen name of Peretti & Creatore Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge – leave as a category redirect? Occuli (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and leave as a category redirect, since Mark Markwell was a pen name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Category redirect sounds good to me. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hit songs written by Eric Carmen

Propose renaming deleting Category:Hit songs written by Eric Carmen to Category:Songs written by Eric Carmen
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To remove the "weasel" word "hit". On pasting here I found that the same creator had also created the new cat with text added songs. The target category is now correct and the "Hits" category is empty. Richhoncho (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So the proposal is "merge"? I agree with merging. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I would think the word "hit" in this context is a weasel word and I wouldn't want too many weasels running through WP. So I would still suggest delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge which I think is what the nom intends. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Federal preemption law (United States)

Propose renaming Category:Federal preemption law (United States) to Category:Federal preemption law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was recently brought to speedy renaming, at which point a discussion got started, but did not finish before the category was speedy renamed as originally proposed, apparently by accident: [2] [3] The previous discussion is copied here, behind the cut.--chaser (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The question is not whether they have laws but whether they enjoy sufficient concurrent jurisdiction with their federal governments and a tradition of local government that federal law would preempt. There is nothing on Wikipedia yet about preemption by other countries, so unless someone has a reliable external source, it's just guessing at this point to say other countries have a significant body of preemption law.--chaser (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Shuttlecock

Category:Shuttlecock - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single article, unlikely to expand. Upmerge to Category:Badminton.MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Number-one singles in the Netherlands

Propose renaming Category:Number-one singles in the Netherlands to Category:Dutch Top 40 number-one singles
Nominator's rationale: The parent article of this category refers to the music charts in the Netherlands, that being the Dutch Top 40. This category should be renamed to match that article. — Σxplicit 03:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per ever-growing precedent to rename categories by the chart name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with both previous editors. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions awaiting closure

[edit] Discussions awaiting closure


Go back to current discussions Go back to current discussions
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs