< September 7	September 9 >

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus to merge, and definably part of a consistent categorisation scheme. Without prejudice to some future rethink to improve the overall scheme, however. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Category:Czech-language films into existing Category:Czech films.

Rationale: while I am all for consistent structure among categories it makes little sense to have these two categories. All movies where Czech language dominates have been shot in Czech lands (starting with few silent movies with Czech subtitles during Austria-Hungary) and, as far as I know, there's no exception. The word Czech is commonly used to denote the language, the country and the people and is the most fitting for given topic and conveniently short as well.

Historical notes:

Slovak actors usually spoke Czech in Czech movies, with preciously few exceptions.
Movies shot in pre-war Czechoslovakia in German language (e.g. Ecstasy (film)) were intended for the Europe-wide German speaking market. (Dtto for many current English movies shot in the Czech Rep. for financial reasons.)

The current structuring is messy: we have Czech, Czech-language and even strange Category:Czechoslovak films with no clear criteria for inclusion and massive overlap among all 3. See categories for Ecstasy (film) - there are 6 language/country categories, few of them absurd. Reusing "Czechoslovak films" for pre-1993 and "Czech films" for later movies would be incorrect and invented here (and for large and popular group of movies shot during the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia it would be absurd).

The suggested merge should help with categorisation of up to 5,500 articles about Czech(-language) movies. Pavel Vozenilek 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the overall Category:Films by language structure. I understand the arguments of the nomination but when there's an extensive structure like this it would be odd to omit Czech-language films from that structure. Otto4711 14:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto, but there is a case for drastically pruning the films by language categories to cases like Arabic, Spanish and Indian languages, where country and language do not fit neatly. Johnbod 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Associations in North Carolina. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The category is miscapitalized and has only one entry but more importantly, "civic organization" is vague; there is no Category:Civic organizations in the United States or even an article at civic organization—potentially anything from municipality associations to chambers of commerce to the Rotary and LWV is "civic," right? choster 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to parent category Category:Associations in North Carolina where this belongs. Hmains 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to parent category per Hmains. Johnbod 12:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per above.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep per precedent at Category:Youth organizations based in the United States, though it doesn't make sense that "Organizations" is capitalized. That's another discussion, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Youth Organizations of North Carolina to Category:Youth organizations based in North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Rename, as the organizations are not sponsored by the State of North Carolina and the latter form matches the parent, Category:Youth organizations based in the United States. There are only two entries, and while I don't object to deleting it outright, I do think there is growth potential. choster 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there is established naming scheme at Category:Youth organizations based in the United States. It is "Youth Organizations of state". Because of this established tree, it seems improper to delete, even if the category is small, and even more improper to rename, unless all over states are considered to be renamed for consistency.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, not needed for the magazine article and "people" subcat. Otto4711 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think there used to be other New Yorker-related articles in there but they were merged. Recury 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. There is a clear consensus in the debate. Sam Blacketer 15:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Categorization by name, see also many precedents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but mostly becaus ethis is explicitly covered by a list. Circeus 02:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I need this category for updating certain articles in the Category:Stars with proper names. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're already active in the star naming business and have an alternative registry, keep hands off. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since I'm already nagging around: you might also refrain from deleting the Category:Stars with proper names, since that is part of my sinister scheme to update the List of traditional star names to remove joke names, like the since long slain star name Bogardus. Rules and policies aside! Said: Rursus ☻ 10:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need a personal list for personal reasons, the best thing to do is create a personal list (i.e. User:Rursus/List of stars named after scientists and work from that instead of cluttering up the active encyclopedia with an inappropriate category. Xtifr _tälk 08:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ample precedent. If someone wants to use this as a maintenance category, they should find a wikiproject that's willing to sponsor a proper maintenance category (which would go on the talk page), or, as I suggested above, simply create a list in userspace. Xtifr _tälk 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Jordanian people, convention of Category:People by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 11:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge per nom (if speedies are allowed). Rich Uncle Skeleton 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod 17:16, 9 September 2007 (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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 11:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Polygamous sects leaders to Category:Mormon fundamentalist leaders

Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, this category was specifically created to contain articles about the leaders of the Mormon fundamentalism movement. The definition for the category at the time of nomination is, "This category is for leaders in the various polygamous sects which grew out of Mormonism." My proposed category name would be more specific and precise and exactly in line with this definition. Why was this category named this? Well, the now-antipolygamy LDS ("Mormon") Church suggests that its members (and the rest of the world, for that matter) refer to these groups as "polygamist sects", in order to avoid linking the Mormon Church with them in the popular mind. The category might have been named by a member of the LDS Church trying to abide by this request. In any case, most media and other sources refer to these groups as "Mormon fundamentalists", and this category has long been a subcategory of Category:Mormon fundamentalism. Rich Uncle Skeleton 10:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. All the individuals in the category fit the bill of Mormon fundamentalist leaders. Just about all of them wikilink Mormon fundamentalism in the lead. Sounds like "polygamous sect" is a term of art, which those not familiar with, would imply non-Mormon cultures as well.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, on the assumtion there are no leaders of Mormon fundamentalism favouring monogamy. Johnbod 01:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's accurate to say that if a leader favored monogamy, the group would not be included as a Mormon fundamentalist group. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: My first thought was, 'there's an LDS military??' Alas, no. Just yet another non-notable intersection of religion and other status. Rich Uncle Skeleton 10:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as irrelevant intersection by religion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL, no wait, delete. Circeus 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection per OCAT. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A non-notable intersection of religion and other status. Rich Uncle Skeleton 09:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and by overwhelming precedent against Sportspeople by religion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 11:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, trivial intersection per OCAT & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A non-notable intersection involving religion. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of individuals included here do not produce solely LDS-themed entertainment. Rich Uncle Skeleton 09:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by overwhelming precedent against Entertainers by religion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, trivial intersection per OCAT & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all as "convicted bigamists". the wub "?!" 11:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't really think this category and its subs need to be deleted if they are applied properly. However, the manner in which they have begun to be applied bothers me. I have been under the impression that Category:Bigamists was to be used for individuals who have been convicted of the crime of "bigamy"—being married to more than one person at a time. That's why it was a sub-category of Category:Criminals, or so I thought. Recently, a number of articles about individuals who have not ever been convicted of bigamy have begun to be added to the category. Others user have also removed the category from being a subcategory of Category:Criminals. I've tried to prevent these trends, but this kind of application is becoming more and more popular, and I often quickly reach the 3 revert rule by trying to keep the "non-convicted" out. I've also tried to maintain the definition of the categories as requiring conviction, but whether or not it's there doesn't seem to have much effect on whether non-convicts get added or not. In February 2007, Category:Polygamists — which was being applied in the manner in which a conviction was not required — was deleted HERE. As some mention in that CFD, the Bigamists category was implicitly understood at that time to require a conviction. Now we're drifting away from that again. I'm starting this discussion more out of desperation for help than for a real desire to see the category deleted, and perhaps deletion is appropriate no consensus can be reached as to how to exactly apply the category. Also note that this is a 2d nomination; for the original discussion, see HERE. Rich Uncle Skeleton 09:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to see the whole of Category:Criminals and its sub-cats restricted to persons who were either convicted of crimes or who have made undisputed confessions, but unfortunately that view did not prevail in previous CfDs (last year, I think, though I don't have the links). In the previous CfD to which you linked, I argued that Category:Bigamists should be restricted to those convicted of bigamy, and made a sub-category of Category:Criminals ... but looking at it again now, I don't think it makes sense to apply this test for one crime but not for others. So I'm afraid that unless the parent category is restricted to convicted criminals, we can't logically restrict this one to convicted bigamists ... and by the same token, there is no purpose in removing Category:Bigamists from Category:Criminals, because Category:Criminals lacks any clear definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this doesn't explain then why the category Category:Polygamists was worthy of deletion if we can just apply this one in the exact same manner .... That's the source of my confusion with the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 07:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: perhaps it should be renamed to "Convinced bigamists" if kept. Pavel Vozenilek 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename to "convicted bigamists" to clear out confusion. Circeus 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Nominator) I think the renaming is a good idea as it avoids deletion and makes the desired definition clear; I feel like a dunce for not just proposing that in the first place. I'm willing to change my proposal to a rename to Category:Convicted bigamists. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 07:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per revised nom and others. BHG's comments are valid, but there is no reason why change cannot come from below. Johnbod 17:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the important reason that I see is of consistency; why should bigamists be restricted to those convicted, but not e.g. Category:Arsonists? A CfD in November 2006 proposed renaming all the subcats of Category:Criminals, but did not reach consenus. I'd be happy to support a revival of that proposal, but I'm not happy with a piecemeal change unless there is a clear reason for treating bigamy as an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Convicted Bigamists, per discussion above. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Convicted Bigamists sounds like a good idea. The concept of bigamy is mostly a legal concept anyway, narrower than the more general term polygamy. This makes that clear. COGDEN 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Convicted bigamist" is a brilliant solution, which will hopefully end the casual recreation of the polygamy categories. Thanks for the suggestion, Pavel Vozenilek. Rename. Cool Hand Luke 05:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for a category to put Hezekiah Bradley Smith and Frankie Lymon as bigamists. Hezekiah wasn't prosecuted, and Frankie Lymon wasn't discovered, until he died, and three woman claimed marriage to him with two producing documents. The "legal" definition of bigamy is satisfied without a conviction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : if these two belong in a bigamy-related category, then there are dozens of Mormon polygamists from the nineteenth century who have articles that also need a category. The old discussion over Categoryt:Polygamists suggested that we didn't want to go there. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, CSD C1 empty and misspelled. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Belgium is misspelt. Correct category exists (Category:Olympic gymnasts of Belgium) and is being used. This one is not even in use. wjmt 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Rich Uncle Skeleton 09:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; surely these songs can be listed in the individual soundtrack articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overcategorization; perfect example of information that should be in a list/article as opposed to a category. Rich Uncle Skeleton 10:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An alternate course would be to remove songs, but this leaves 4 articles in the category. Circeus 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcat. Wryspy 07:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

September 8

Category:Czech language-films (merge)

Category:Civic Organizations of North Carolina

Category:Youth Organizations of North Carolina

Category:The New Yorker

Category:Stars named after scientists

Category:People from Jordan

Category:Polygamous sects leaders

Category:Latter Day Saint military leaders

Category:Latter Day Saint sports figures

Category:Latter Day Saint entertainers

Category:Bigamists

Category:Olympic gymnasts of Beglium

Category:Spider-Man music