< April 1	April 3 >

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:1906 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States football season, Category:1907 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States football season, Category:1908 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States football season, and Category:1909 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States football season. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:1906 IAAUS College football season to Category:1906 IAAUS football season
Category:1907 IAAUS College football season to Category:1907 IAAUS football season
Category:1908 IAAUS College football season to Category:1908 IAAUS football season
Category:1909 IAAUS College football season to Category:1909 IAAUS football season

Nominator's rationale: "College" is redundant and should be removed Jweiss11 (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as 'College' is not redundant unless we know what IAAUS means (which nearly everyone does not); and the parent category is Category:College football seasons. Keep all the others below for the similar reasons. And rebuke whoever has emptied the existing categories and moved everything already. (Or, alternatively, why have these been done 'speedily'? Under which criterion? Why are the acronyms not being expanded?) Occuli (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TROUT the nominator for not merging the nominations. I will do that now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore categories. The nominator listed all these categories here, but incorrectly tagged them with ((db-c2)) for speedy deletion rather than for discussion at WP:CFD. As Occuli has pointed out, no evidence has been offered that any of these categs met any of the speedy criteria ... and they should all now be restored. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BHG for collapsing these things. Now, restore out of process move, and oppose renaming. IAAUS? That's going to be meaningless to 99.8% of the readership, which is who categories are here to serve. I wouldn't be opposed at all to expanding the acronym and then losing the redundant "college" but, as is, it gives some context to a quite obscure acronym. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have listed all these categories, plus the NCAA categs in the nomination below, at WP:CFD/S for the bots to move them back again. And per Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Tagging speedy rename candidates I will list ((db-c2)) at templates for deletion.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done: out of process move now reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies for the speedy rename. They were listed in C:CSD, and I thought that using WP:CFD/W would be more efficient. I did not see any CfD tag, and so I mistakenly thought this was an uncontroversial matter. My apologies. NW (Talk) 13:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not your fault: the error was the nominator's. The solution is to get rid of ((db-c2)) (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 3#Template:Db-c2). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:1906 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States football season and similar for the others. IAAUS is not a well know acronym and needs to be expanded. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Vegaswikian. Rename to Category:1906 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States football season and similar for the others. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename as proposed; no consensus for expanding "NCAA". The consensus was not strong to drop "College", but the argument that it should be dropped is much stronger since the majority of the later NCAA football seasons in Category:College football seasons do not contain "College" in the name. It is indeed a redundant word once "NCAA" is used. A future nomination could focus explicitly on whether or not "NCAA" should be expanded in these and all other categories where it is used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:1910 NCAA College football season to Category:1910 NCAA football season
Category:1910 NCAA College football season to Category:1910 NCAA football season
Category:1911 NCAA College football season to Category:1911 NCAA football season
Category:1912 NCAA College football season to Category:1912 NCAA football season
Category:1913 NCAA College football season to Category:1913 NCAA football season
Category:1914 NCAA College football season to Category:1914 NCAA football season
Category:1915 NCAA College football season to Category:1915 NCAA football season
Category:1916 NCAA College football season to Category:1916 NCAA football season
Category:1917 NCAA College football season to Category:1917 NCAA football season
Category:1918 NCAA College football season to Category:1918 NCAA football season
Category:1919 NCAA College football season to Category:1919 NCAA football season
Category:1920 NCAA College football season to Category:1920 NCAA football season
Category:1921 NCAA College football season to Category:1921 NCAA football season
Category:1922 NCAA College football season to Category:1922 NCAA football season
Category:1923 NCAA College football season to Category:1923 NCAA football season
Category:1924 NCAA College football season to Category:1924 NCAA football season
Category:1925 NCAA College football season to Category:1925 NCAA football season
Category:1926 NCAA College football season to Category:1926 NCAA football season
Category:1927 NCAA College football season to Category:1927 NCAA football season
Category:1928 NCAA College football season to Category:1928 NCAA football season
Category:1929 NCAA College football season to Category:1929 NCAA football season
Category:1930 NCAA College football season to Category:1930 NCAA football season
Category:1931 NCAA College football season to Category:1931 NCAA football season
Category:1932 NCAA College football season to Category:1932 NCAA football season
Category:1933 NCAA College football season to Category:1933 NCAA football season
Category:1934 NCAA College football season to Category:1934 NCAA football season
Category:1935 NCAA College football season to Category:1935 NCAA football season
Category:1936 NCAA College football season to Category:1936 NCAA football season

Nominator's rationale: "College" is redundant and should be removed Jweiss11 (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and keep all the above, as college is not redundant to NCAA. An alternative would be to expand NCAA (a redirect) and then omit 'College'. Occuli (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of process moves now reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expand NCAA in the name of each and drop 'college' Mayumashu (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the nominator here for these category name changes. My apologies if I didn't follow process correctly. As for the subject at hand, college is certainly redundant, not to mention inappropriately capitalized, here because because the IAAUS/NCAA governs nothing but college sports and the full name of both acronyms contains either "Intercollegiate" or "Collegiate". If we need to expand those acronyms, then shouldn't that be done for all the college football season categories up through 2011? See: Category:College football seasons. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the nom think that cricket is redundant to MCC? (I agree that it should be 'college'.) Occuli (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if MCC stands for say, Melbourne Cricket Club, then a category like Category:2009 Melbourne Cricket Club cricket season or Category:2009 MCC cricket season would certainly be redundant. We don't have Category:2009 Major League Baseball baseball season, we have Category:2009 Major League Baseball season season. Looking at major North American sports leagues, seems that all the categories for the NFL (National Football League) and MLB (Major League Baseball) have the acronyms expanded. Those for the NBA (National Basketball Association) are not always; see Category:National Basketball Association seasons. If the consensus is that NCAA and IAAUS need to be expanded, that makes sense to me. My only concern is that if we expand NCAA and IAAUS, that seems to suggest we should expand FBS and FCS, subdivisions of Division I (NCAA) since 2006. So, Category:2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season becomes Category:2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Football Bowl Subdivision football season. Yikes! Come to think of it now, it seems that "football" here is redundant too as, "Subdivisions in Division I exist only in football. In all other sports, all Division I conferences are equivalent." What I do not understand is that claim that "college" is not redundant to NCAA. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with original motion to rename all to Category:XXXX NCAA football season. I am opposed to expanding NCAA to its full name because unlike the previously mentioned sports categories, the full name of the organization/league, in this case "National Collegiate Athletic Association", is never or very rarely used in the common vernacular. Also agree with nominator that the use of the word "college" is unnecessarily redundant. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyPolo24 makes a good point. While we should expand IAAUS because it is obscure and stands for name that existed for only a few years more than century ago, NCAA should stay in acronym form. For Division I seasons 2006-present, I think FBS and FCS should be expanded to Football Bowl Subdivision and Football Championship Subdivision and the generic "football" dropped. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Music documentary films to Category:Documentary films about music

Nominator's rationale: Cf. with Category:Documentary films about the arts and its subcats. Also note that many of these are lacking "films" even though they are all about films and should also be renamed (in a more ambitious CfR.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, including about the need to standardize category names with "film," as the "documentaries" top-level cat expressly includes audio/radio productions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't have a really strong opinion on deletion here, but I am interested in the community's thoughts: it seems to me that membership of this category is somewhat vague and arbitrary. Thanks. Dr Aaij (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to see there aren't any real people in this category. That said, there's one article in there. Vague, arbitrary, and POV; I think any of those labels could be applied to this one, so I say delete. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary, in-universe, ill-defined. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete, I mean Noob Saibot was not a hero in the first place, he was more like an anti-hero. (I'm removing the category from his page, BTW). As for the category itself, good intentions but "Heroes turned bad" is not a title we should be categorizing articles in, it sounds very informal. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If this category is kept, can we make Category:Political office-holders a sub-category of it? <evil grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't use the term "heroes" at all in category names, let alone trying to segregate those who "turned bad". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge (Unknown College) to Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge

Nominator's rationale: Merge. In general articles are not categorised by what is not known only what it known. Categories of that type that do exist e.g Category:Year of birth missing are for maintenance only and are either hidden or located on article talk pages. The current name also gives the impression there is a Cambridge college called Unknown. The message requesting that articles be sub-categorised to the appropriate college can be moved to Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge. Tassedethe (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category Creator's Response: Leave or, alternatively, Rename. I created this category to enable the policing of persons being added to Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge. Members of the University of Cambridge are affiliated primarily to one of its constituent colleges, not to the university; it is not possible to be a member of the university without being a member of a college, and every Cambridge graduate should therefore be recorded in the relevant college sub-category. By moving all the persons whose college is not specified to this sub-category, it therefore comes possible to check each person newly added to the top category and, if possible, move to the relevant college sub-category or to the holding category which I named (Unknown College). This would not be possible if the proposed merge were implemented. I accept the point about the undesirability of categorising by what is not known, and I would therefore be happy if this category were renamed positively as Alumni of a College of the University of Cambridge (or some such).--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the 'standard' is to leave people at the top level category, in this case Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge, rather than having a 'holding subcat' of 'others'. This seems to be a somewhat stronger subcat of 'people who are verifiably Cambridge alumni but whose colleges are hard to establish.' (I know the colleges of several of them but can find no sources.) Alumni of a College of the University of Cambridge is the same as Alumni of the University of Cambridge. Occuli (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as nom. There are published lists of alumni for Oxford and Cambridge (Venn and Foster). This may be a problem for more recent alumni. Cambridge alumni should only be in the parent (university) category until they can be recategorised by college. Conceivably, we might have this as a maintenance (talk page) category for persons where an editor has searched the standard sources and cannot find the college. I think this is essentially a problem limited to these two universities. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem is that there are several hundred of these persons not categorised by college; often, with a little diligent research, I can find this information for new additions to the top category and sub-categorise accordingly. This will become impossible if this upmerge happens and it is no longer possible to identify new additions. This is not just a problem for recent alumni as Venn is far from comprehensive.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Typically we don't create these types of "left-overs" or "remainder" categories. If the college is as yet unknown, they should be placed in Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge. If kept, it would need to become a talk page/hidden maintenance category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. The standard for collegiate universities is to categorise by the available information and where the specific college is unknown they are left at university level. Oxford, London and Wales are all handled this way; it becomes particularly awkward if one university follows a different format from the rest. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a consensus in favour of upmerging seems to be emerging, but no-one is offering a solution to my maintenance problem!--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would Special:RelatedChanges/Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge, which tracks changes to all pages in the category, resolve the problem? I don't think you need to worry about the list becoming unmanageable, since only a small percentage of articles in a category are edited on a given day (for example: Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge (Unknown College) contains more than 500 articles, yet usually no more than 10 are edited on a given day). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this quite solves the problem. It identifies changes to articles with this categorisation, but doesn't (does it?) identify those articles newly added to the category. That is what I need so that I can examine them, hunt for the missing college information and then move down a level accordingly.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. If you always access WP from the same computer and the same browser, you could find new additions by the colour of the link. The articles you have already accessed in the past will presumably be a different colour in your browser as a "visited link". This also assumes you don't clear your browser history regularly. It's a lot of ifs, but it's an approach I sometimes use to solve a similar issue in finding new category content. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leave, the University of Cambridge is not like Harvard University or the University of Michigan. In the cases of those two universities, and virtually every other university in the US, most students are primarily identified with the body, with law schools, business schools, journalism schools, medical schools and some other exceptions. Most undergrads are identified with the school as a whole, and many students who are enrolled for a short time as undergrads are never actualy clearly identified with the sub-bodies of the university. On the other hand, at Cambridge one is not a student of the university but a student at a specific college. Thus, all those in the unknown college category are there as a result of limited information, often due to the article being weak and poorly researched, but occasionally as a result of the college affiliation of the subject being legitimately not known.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We generally categorize by what is known and verified, not by what is not known or not verified. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. The fact that "at Cambridge one is not a student of the university but a student at a specific college" can be mentioned in the category description of Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge, but there is no inaccuracy involved in indicating, in a general sense, a person's affiliation with Cambridge until we can determine which college he or she attended. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People killed in the Bangladesh Liberation War, noting the convention of similar categories in Category:War-related deaths and that the main article and category are Bangladesh Liberation War and Category:Bangladesh Liberation War, respectively. While this was not one of the options proposed, I believe it captures what BrownHairedGirl and Peterkingiron intended; I applied the idea of "something along those lines" quite liberally, so please let me know if my assumption is incorrect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1971 martyred intellectuals of Bangladesh to Category:Bangladeshi murder victims, Category:1971 deaths, Category:1971 crimes and Category:People murdered in Bangladesh

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Category suffers from lack of WP:NPOV and the use of intellectuals has been previously deleted as too vague ( e.g. see [1]). Tassedethe (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger. The nom is right that "intellectuals" is too vague a term, and "martyred" is not a NPOV term ... but the proposed merger ignores the fact that the individuals in this category were all killed by the Pakistani army as part of crackdown on intellectuals in the events which lead to the splitting of Pakistan later that year. I think that the best solution will probably be merge to a new category long the lines of Category:Bangaldeshi people killed in the war of independence; that's not a petfect name, but something along those lines retains most of the core defining charcteristics of these deaths. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename as BHG has suggested -- "murder" and "martyr" are POV terms. Since Bangladesh was then East Pakistan, and the people killed were probably rebels killed in a military conflict in exercise of Pakistani government authority (from the Pakistani POV), the deaths were not necessarily even "murder", hence not "crime". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate of Category:Thompson albums but only contains an image, so nothing to merge. Tassedethe (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but should it not be Category:Thompson (band) albums per Thompson (band)? (Thompson is an extensive disamb page, and Thompson (surname) contains several musicians with albums. Further Thompson (band) is not well-known globally.) Occuli (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Museums in Lincoln, Lincolnshire to Category:Museums in Lincolnshire

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Too much fragmentation, KLM tool less useful as a consequence. Brunnian (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is the result of the KLM tool mentioned (linked from the category page), which is very nice. However the category structure is not subservient to KLM and the category is part of Category:Museums in England by city and also Category:Lincoln, Lincolnshire. What is needed is a way of getting KLM to realise that there are further points in subcats. (This applies to every city in the UK, not just Lincoln.) Occuli (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 11. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Awards and decorations of The Sri Lanka Police to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Sri Lanka, Category:Civil awards and decorations of Sri Lanka and Category:Sri Lanka Police

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Upmerge category with single article to all parents. Tassedethe (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete all. — ξ ^xplicit 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categories only contain the article Holy Week Lasallian Missions (Northern Mexico district) and 3 pop songs which have no special significance to this religious event, other than being 'played' during it. Tassedethe (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge last three into first. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The article Holy Week Lasallian Missions (Northern Mexico district) is already in the parent category, so upmerging is not needed. The other three categories seem to be Songs by performance groupings—in principle, no different from categorizing songs by the films in which they are featured—which is definitely overcategorization. If the information is significant, it should be conveyed via sourced text in the main article and the songs articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 11.

Propose merging Category:PSTN companies of Bangladesh to Category:Telecommunications companies of Bangladesh

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The acronym stands for public switched telephone network (I had to look that up), and is not used by any other category. Propose upmerging to the standard Telecommunications companies of Foo. Tassedethe (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. That was easy from the discussion. The problem is what to rename to. Wildstorm Publications seems to have the better case, so that is what the rename will be to. If anyone really thinks that there is a case to just use Wildstorm, I will not object if this is brought back here for a rename to drop Publications. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Wildstorm Comics to Category:Wildstorm
Category:Wildstorm Comics characters to Category:Wildstorm characters
Category:Wildstorm Comics storylines to Category:Wildstorm storylines
Category:Wildstorm Comics titles to Category:Wildstorm titles
Category:Wildstorm Comics superhero teams to Category:Wildstorm superhero teams

Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing of contested speedy renames. At this point I have no view on the substantive merits of the renaming; my objection was that this did not precisely meet the strictly-defined criteria for speedy-renaming of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of speedy proposal

The name of the publisher is Wildstorm not Wildstorm Comics. — Marcus Brute (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right about the name of the publisher, but this does not meet any of the speedy criteria listed above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Object needs full CFD. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CFD discussion starts here

Notifications: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Category:Wildstorm_Comics.
Rename - it has niggled me for a while now as "Wildstorm" is the main title they use (sometimes referring to "Wildstorm Productions" but not "Wildstorm Comics" or if they do it is rare). The only slight complication is they do use CamelCase (WildStorm), so I don't know if that is an issue - the problem with using that for the categories is I might not expect everyone to know that and things could get messy. (Emperor (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Rename but - having checked the indicia on 20-odd series from 1999 (early Authority) to 2010 (Dante's Inferno), the company is always Wildstorm Productions, even on the 'Wildstorm Signature Series' titles such as Ex Machina. Overstreet is unhelpful. It uses Wildstorm and Wildstorm Publications interchangeably, and ditto DC/Wildstorm or DC/Wildstorm Productions for later material, even though those titles always have a separate DC Comics and Wildstorm Productions entry in the indicia. Unfortunately that leaves the potential for things like 'List of Wildstorm Publications publications' , but the indicia always rules as it's a legal requirement not just a frippery. So that's a vote for Rename, but for accuracy an emphatic No to 'Wildstorm' and Yes to 'Wildstorm Publications' . Individual characters that need disambiguation can still remain 70sDisco Man (Wildstorm) just as precedents 70sDisco Man(Marvel) 70sDisco Man(DC) etc. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete. Jafeluv (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is akin to "performers by performance" or "award recipient" overcategorization. Scientists who have presented this lecture are not notable because they have presented this lecture. Presenting the lecture is an honour given to them because they have distinguished themselves in science. A complete list exists at Royal Institution Christmas Lectures#List of Christmas Lectures so it is unnecessary to "listify". (Please, don't anyone say I have overextended or misinterpreted the "performer by performance" guideline; I realise that guideline usually applies to entertainers, etc. I'm just saying that this is comparable. That's why I said it was "akin" to p by p.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the creator, I've only just spotted this deletion notice. Yes, Scientists appearing on the RICL are previously notable among other scientists for their prior work; however, they are notable among the scientifically-literate public for their RICL appearance, which makes them household names and is influential among the science education of young people in the UK. This cannot be compared with the endless nights of annual televised awards for the entertainment industry. Ian Cairns (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The category is much too trivial, and too UK-centric, and the members of the category are too motley to be of value as a collection. What does William Odling have in common with Stephen Glanville? and what does either of them have in common with Baroness Greenfield? Nothing of value that I can think of. Seanwal111111 (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Royal Institution Christmas lecturers - Being invited to be the Royal Institution lecturer is a notable distinction. The Royal Institution is a notable body, not a trivial award giving body. Yes, it is akin to performance by performer, but in a context where those involved give few performaces at this level in their whole life. It is quite different "People who gave papers at the Physics Society confernece 2005" or "Participants speaking at the British Association for the Promotion of Science annual meeting 2009" (or the American Association, for that matter). Those would clearly be caught by the "Performers_by_performance" ban. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The body is notable - but the christmas lectures are 'dumbed down' (excuse me) (ie not notable) presentations aimed at children (the audience is children). At best being a 'christmas lecturer' is a point of trivia in an academics career.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete/merge. I will manually upmerge any page which would be left uncategorized. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Entirely pointless categorization of programming languages. The meaning of curly brackets can vary from one programming language to another, but as a means of classification it is absurd. 203.158.34.87 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Category has a main article, 4 subcats and 76 other articles, many of which would have no category if this category were deleted. Hmains (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Programming languages. The nominator is right that this is an utterly trivial aspect of a programming language, and serves no useful purpose. However, Hmains is right to point out that deletion would leave many articles uncategorised, so it's best to upmerge to the parent category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Doesn't say anything about the language, just the arbitrary choices of the language creator. Sort of equivalent to "Cars with polycarbonate tail lights". - Richfife (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it's a vital part of a programming language and its relevance is made clear in the article Curly bracket programming language. One sometimes wonders if noms have read the associated material. Occuli (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. WP:AGF, please. I have indeed read Curly bracket programming languages, and am familiar with various types of programming language. This common characteristic of these languages is the trivial point that they delimit blocks of code with curly braces rather than with other constructs such as begin/end. There may be a purpose in categorising languages by whether they are unstructured (see e.g. BASIC#Unstructured_BASIC), procedural or object-oriented, but not simply by the characters used as block-delimiters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment IF this category is deleted, upmerging to Category:Programming languages should occur only for those articles that would be left without a parent category; the other articles generally already have several 'programming language' parents. Hmains (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete per above suggestion. Having looked at this, I agree that it is a trivial and essentially arbitrary means of categorization—almost an arbitrary stylistic choice of how one chooses to delimit blocks of code. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge into Category:Wikipedia articles needing rewrite. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Articles needing cleanup, and most of the articles in the category already have a Cleanup tag or don't really need much help. 98.114.243.75 (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "serious revision" is POV. Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Serious revision" is just another way of saying "rewrite". This is a no-brainer merge to Category:Wikipedia articles needing rewrite. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Chris Cunningham (not at work). Much the same thing. Is this populated by a template? if so the template also needs merger. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- œ ^™ 08:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ ^xplicit 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Chicago, Illinois to Category:Basketball players from Illinois and Category:People from Chicago, Illinois

Nominator's rationale: no precedent for catting by a particular sport by city, and a set of alike cats were deleted last year - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_10#Basketball_players_from_specific_cities Mayumashu (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Previous cfds did indeed go against splitting up 'People from city' categories into smaller and smaller bits. Occuli (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We don't need this level of subdivision, per ample prior decisions. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 2

Category:1906 IAAUS College football season

Category:1910 NCAA College football season

Category:Music documentary films

Category:Heroes turned bad

Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge (Unknown College)

Category:1971 martyred intellectuals of Bangladesh

Category:Thompson's albums

Category:Museums in Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Category:Awards and decorations of The Sri Lanka Police

Holy Week Lasallian Missions

Category:PSTN companies of Bangladesh

Wildstorm Comics

Category:Presenters of the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures

Category:Curly bracket programming languages

Category:Articles in need of serious revision

Category:Basketball players from Chicago, Illinois