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. Kbdank71 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT state legislators to Category:LGBT state legislators of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add "of the United States" for clarity/disambiguation and to mirror parent Category:State legislators of the United States. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Orderinchaos 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Assuming that the category is comprised of only US politicians, which after a quick glance I'm pretty sure is. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - for clarification --T-rex 21:28, 30 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages of Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No objective criterion for inclusion given - most languages have been used for some sort of scientific purpose at some time. At the very least, the word Science needs decapitalising! Knepflerle (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator's rationale, no reason to have. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 23:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, either useless (as virtually every language with a written tradition could be listed) or non-NPOV (if an attempt is made to prevent the previous possibility from happening). —Angr 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, English is the language of the international scientific community. Ninety percent of all scientific publications are written in English. English is required for aspiring scientists in non-English speaking countries. English is the current lingua franca of science. Prior to WWII, German held a similar status; German was required for aspiring scientists in many English speaking countries. The foundations of modern chemistry, physics, and psychology were developed in Germany and first written in German. The use of German is not as prominant now as it once was though. Latin was used prior to German. It still is used in scientific terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.232.50 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete English isn't in the category anyway. If we have Latin, it seems very dubious not to have Arabic and Greek, not to mention Hindi/Sanskrit and Chinese. Or do we just mean "modern Western science"? The category serves no purpose anyway. Write an article if you like; a list would just look silly. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • English was originally in the category, then it got removed, and now it's been re-added. —Angr 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The comment above by 74.251.232.50 might make the start of a good short article. But as a category it is pointless. —teb728 t c 05:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb idea for a category. If we're talking about science today, there's only one language and that's English. There's virtually no scientific journal of repute that isn't published in English. If we need to travel back through time to find languages that dominated scientific literature then we should add French, Greek, Arabic, Hindi, Russian. In any case, there's no clear inclusion criterion. Pichpich (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nearly all of above comments. We don't have Category:Languages of music or Category:Languages of art either. Cgingold (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian people by states and territories to Category:Australian people by state or territory

Nominator's rationale: Rename. While it's true that people categories are generally pluralized, that requirement in this case is satisfied by the "people" part. There is no need to pluralize the rest, since each person is (in general) just from one state or territory. Similar categories are found at Category:People by Canadian province or territory; Category:American people by state; Category:United Arab Emirati people by emirate; Category:People by Uruguayan department; Category:People by province in the Netherlands; Category:Irish people by county; etc. — all use "people" with the singular form of the subdivision. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom in line with all the others in the snappily titled Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivisions (being speedily renamed to Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename Category:People by Australian state or territory as not everyone listed is an Australian citizen. Will nominate other equivalent pages for other countries to have list consistent (at present about a half follow each of the two ways of naming) should discussion here be favourable Mayumashu (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. While Mayumashu may have a point, let's fix the first problem and then we can discuss the additional problems. It does not make sense to have a proper rename held up for a second and broader problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Western Australian Football League to Category:West Australian Football League

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The League is called the West Australian Football League, not the Western (see the copyright at the base of their site). The-Pope (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - Per nominator's rationale. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gaeltacht places in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I really see no reason why this category should exist. A lot of the Permanent North American Gaeltacht article is about how it's the only gaeltacht outside of Ireland, let alone in Canada. Now, other gaeltachts might someday exist in Canada, so it's not like there's absolutely zero potential for growth, but until a time when there's some indication that a gaeltacht could exist elsewhere in Canada, this will remain a one-article category, making it basically useless. Punning (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useless but extraordinarily specialized. I doubt that anyone who is not already aware of the single article in this category will seek out the information. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - cats that can be reduced to a single article should go --T-rex 21:30, 30 April 2008 (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:Recipients of Honorary British Knighthoods. Kbdank71 13:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Honorary British knighthoods to Category:Recipients of honorary British honours

Nominator's rationale: Rename. First, it is not a category for honorary British knighthoods, but for recipients of honorary British knighthoods. Second, contrary to what some seem to believe, dames are not knights and this renaming allows for both male and female recipients. Thirdly, it also allows for recipients of lower awards than knighthoods. I suggest that subcats for each honour are then created within the cat and the cat for the appropriate honour to avoid double categorisation (e.g. instead of adding Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire and Category:Honorary British knighthoods to the Steven Spielberg article we could just add Category:Honorary Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Recipients of Honorary British Knighthoods. Honorary British honours would bring in a lot of other awards and change the nature of the category. I have never heard the word "Damehood", but Dames are the female equivalent of knights, and I do not think it is stretching things too far to include them. I do not think honorary awards are usually made for other British orders of knighthood. The possible exception is the award of "additional" garters to foreign monarchs, which is somewhat different. This thus only concerns KBE and DBE awarded to non-British subjects. It should not be a large category. The fact that Dames are stricly not knights can be adequately dealt with by added a headnote to the category page. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All British orders of knighthood and chivalry at all levels can be and are awarded honorarily, not just the Order of the British Empire. See List of honorary British Knights (itself a rather poorly named article) for a long list of honorary knights who were not KBEs. It is potentially a very large category - there have been hundreds if not thousands of honorary knighthoods conferred over the centuries, many of them predating the creation of the Order of the British Empire in 1917. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Am I the only one who thinks "honorary British honours" sounds redundant (even though it's not, really)? Powers ^T 16:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it sounds weird, but it is technically accurate! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this "honorary British honours" as contrasted to "dishonorable British honours"? ("Yes Your Majesty, please grit your teeth and knight him.") Wanderer57 (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is it honorary or honourary? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honorary. A peculiarity of British spelling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without pretending that this is an important question, why peculiar? The same spelling is used elsewhere I believe. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's peculiar because "honour" is spelled with a u in British English, but the derivative word "honorary" is not. Powers ^T 03:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Recipients of Honorary British Knighthoods per Peterkingiron, to include Dames as he says. If the scope is widened one of the parents Category:British knights is lost. This name avoids the honorary honours jangle too. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clockwise Figure Skaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The original author tagged this with ((stub)), which indicates to me it might have been an attempt at creating an article. We already have List of clockwise spinning figure skaters, though, so there's no need to articlify the category. As for its merits as a category, I don't think it's necessary to further categorize figure skaters by spin direction. Powers ^T 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Skaters themselves aren't clockwise or counterclockwise, and since preferred jump/spin direction makes no difference in judging or competition structure, it's just random trivia. Dr.frog (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Specialized information that most people do not need, but not trivia. It is important information for some people. In pairs skating both skaters in a pair normally need to be able to jump/spin in the same direction. I understand that choreographing a good routine for partners whose preferred spin directions are opposed is very difficult. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - overcategorization by non-defining characteristic. I would have sworn we deleted this once before but I don't see it in the logs. Otto4711 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining OCAT trivia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without for a moment seeking to argue, please will someone tell me what the term "non-defining" signifies in these discussions. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NON-DEFINING. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) See Wikipedia:OCAT#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. Categories should be reserved for those things which are most notable about the subject of the article. The direction in which a figure skater prefers to spin, while having some effect or impact in some circumstances, doesn't rise to the level of being a defining characteristic. Also implicates WP:OCAT#Performer by performance as the category could be recast as Category:Figure skaters who have performed clockwise spins which is akin to the examples categories there Category:Actresses who have appeared veiled or Category:Actors who have played gay. Otto4711 (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - worth a mention in each article, but not worth a catagory --T-rex 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was already created. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardII (talk • contribs) 08:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivial, OCAT, non-defining, performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Australians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too broad a category to be useful - the vast majority of Australians are at least partly of British descent. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nominator the category is too broad to be useful. --Matilda ^talk 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - any white person in Australia is likely to be a British Australian, depending on how it is defined. Too broad. Orderinchaos 07:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - every Australian has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 32 great great grandparents etc etc, back beyond 1778 (time of Australia's orginal colonisation by the British) .. all of us being descended from a selection of up to 32 or more nations with many many many of us having some British descent (whether we know it or not?) .. it is nonsense category (ie tells us next to nothing, and make no sense) Bruceanthro (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too broad a category - most people in Australia are of British descent. Apparent benefits(?) are outweighed by apparent costs in terms of time to maintain accuracy, difficulty in finding RS for "Australian from British descent" leading to multiple false negatives and also problem with WP:OR pushing inclusion. (e.g. He must be because his great grand-mother was declared a half-caste. eg She must be because her surname is Smith.) SmithBlue (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would also point out examples of the difficulties such a category creates - [[1]][[2]] for no apparent benefit to WP. SmithBlue (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - what about its subcategories Category:English Australians etc? Are these not similarly defective, per eg Bruceanthro? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Query - yes .. there are also problems with nation/descent based subcategories such as Category:English Australians .. if I were a notable Australian, I'd be able to be categorised as British Australian, an Australian of English descent, an Australian of Irish descent, a Scandanavian Australian, an Australian of Danish descent, an Romany Australia, an Australian of Indian descent, and, possibly, even (who really knows) an Australian of Australian descent .. onwards .. Such categories are not discrete, they overlap, they are absolutely huge, and tell us very little .. and may, perhaps, be redeemed only if the focus is on either citizenship (for people with serial or dual citizenship) and/or self-identity (for people who verifiably identify as either British or english or scottish or african Australians! Bruceanthro (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No individual should really be in it, but it is a useful parent cat for the subcats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - why should sub cats, I assume you mean Scottish Australians etc be linked to it?--Matilda ^talk 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to collect the subcats (as per Necrothesp) and any bios that happen to have sources (of immigrants for instance, although nearly all of these would be by Brit. home nation anyway). Mayumashu (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Immigration from Britain is too vague to be encyclopedic. If all a bio can say about X's ancestors' immigration is, "At least one of X's ancestors immigrated from somewhere in Britain", then I would suggest that information is so vague that it doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia anyway. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or at the very least limit to those who have duel citizenship --T-rex 21:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-defining intersection of ethnicity/nationality. How British must you be? What RSes tell us so? And, how does that make you different than someone else who is somewhat less British than that, or like someone who is somewhat more British - the arbitrary cut-offs may be great for debate in the Hamptons of Long Island - "The Mayflower, you say - well..." and its Aussie equivalent, but it's not encyclopedic like nearly all other racial/ethnic cats here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a container category for the more specialised categories along the lines of Category:Welsh Australians. Individual articles in this category should be moved into the appropriate subcat. User:Bruceanthro's concerns can and should be addressed by specifying some criteria for entry; the most obvious being dual-citizenship and self-identification. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• • Reply the "container category" argument doesn't hold water in my opinion, because the more specialised categories (especially Category:English Australians) are also too broad to be useful. I propose that all the British based racial categories be redefined to only refer to country of birth, and renamed to Category:English-born Australians etc. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2008 (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. Has been listified at List of dropouts. Grab it before it gets AFD'ed. Kbdank71 14:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dropouts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Trivia better handled as an annotated, organized list. This will never be defining of any individual, and as a category it is inherently ambiguous and likely to equivocate unlike things. Even presuming we can imply that it is limited to educational dropouts from the category name (aren't there military dropouts?), what does someone who dropped out of high school have to do with someone who dropped out of college? And what if that individual then went back and finished school, or dropped out of one and entered another? The category talk page has further discussion on its flaws and why a list would be better. Postdlf (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from creator: I agree a list would be more appropriate, though the my primary reason for thinking this is that being a dropout isn't a great categorization for people. I do think that a list would be encyclopedic and appropriate. Could we transform the category into a list? Leopold Stotch (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a rereation of previously deleted category, otherwise delete as non-defining. Otto4711 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reformat into list instead of deleting it. I looked at the discussion there and it debated deletion for not being qualified as a category but did not discuss whether the concept merits a list rather than a category. Leopold Stotch (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, that's not an "instead of" option; whether the category is deleted or not, you're welcome to make a list, but changing this category into a list does mean that the category will be deleted after that is done. Postdlf (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and rename - Although it's not really appropriate for a category, this is actually very important subject matter for a list, as it provides information about individuals who have become noteworthy despite what is commonly viewed as something of a handicap. However, there has got to be a better name than "List of dropouts". (need I say more?) Cgingold (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The list should, of course, have two major divisions (high school & college). These can be further divided in various ways; for instance, grouping all types of entertainers & sportspeople separately from people in other fields where education is a more significant factor. Cgingold (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whether it is a category or a list, I think there are problems with the idea either way. 1) highly incomplete - many people 'drop out' of some school during their education. We would have a cat or list of only those whose dropping out became well known. 2) low relevance - is there any meaningful difference between A, who dropped out of college after a month, and B, who never started college? 3) problems of definition - eg, if someone leaves high school and returns five years later and completes high school, are they a dropout? Wanderer57 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify Better as a list, but woefully incomplete - no Evelyn Waugh, Rembrandt and so on - and largely breaks down for historic continental Europeans, where only doctorate degrees were often awarded. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not terribly encyclopaedic and risks being simply an indiscriminate list. Also BLP concerns for some members of the list. Orderinchaos 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Pointless. Can't put it better than Wanderer57. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ill defined, also per Wanderer57. Please do not create as a list either --T-rex 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete', Rename or listify. The current name is totally ambiguous in that dropouts are when you lose bits in a transmission stream. Where do we list elementary school dropouts? How about dropouts from the corporate world? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague criteria, not defining, and for those who think that life is learning opportunity, this category is equivalent to Category:Dead people, and equally as useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Could be in violation of BLP. Soxred93 (u t) 00:09, 5 May 2008 (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.