< January 28	January 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 19:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:United States Navy Veteran users to Category:Wikipedian military people and upmerge articles to Category:United States Navy personnel

Nominator's rationale: Merge or upmerge, as appropriate, Category appears to have been created to be used as a Wikipedian category, but has been categorized with non-Wikipedian categories. Right now only one user exists in category, but if articles are added prior to closing upmerge these to Category:United States Navy personnel. Snocrates 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and advise the user of the target category so s/he can make a decision as to whether s/he wants to be included in it. Otto4711 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not appropriate to category users into article categoryspace 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and advise user per Otto4711. --BelovedFreak 21:48, 31 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was keep - two of the "delete" commentators accepted that this was either a "keep" or a "no consensus" close, and the weight of opinion/argument seems to me to favour a keep as a significant award and a defining characteristic suitable for categorization. Bencherlite^Talk 14:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Senior wranglers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Second wranglers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The senior wrangler is the person first in their class in mathematics at Cambridge University. A great many of these people went on to do great things and become famous. The concept of "senior wrangler" is famous because these people did great things--the people are not famous because they were senior wranglers. Being senior wrangler does not define who these people are. There is already a list at Wrangler (University of Cambridge). Overcategorization by something like an award. LeSnail (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nominating Category:Second wranglers which is for people who came in second. LeSnail (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I didn't make this clear: I meant Category:Second wranglers to be part of this nomination. Please comment on it here. I will leave notes on talk pages for every one who has already participated, in case they want to add/change anything. LeSnail (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this one (ie the Seniors) as sufficiently defining - even a stub biog would be defective if it omitted this information, which is my definition. I'm not too sure about the other 2 cats (Seconds & tripos - what this last one means is unclear to me). addedJohnbod (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as varieties of the rightfully deleted Valedictorians category. This is not an alumnus category or its equivalent. Otto4711 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful and distinctive. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both Agree with Johnbod. Strong keep for the Senior and medium keep for 2nd Wrangler. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't need valedictory and salutatory categorizes for every bleeding college, university, or for some people's pleasure high school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711 and Carlossuarez46. No need to listify since it already exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. The people who have attained this distinction may not necessarily be notable because of it, but this is a significant characteristic of their career. Just as with any category: consider Category:mathematicians -- the people there are not notable because of being in that category, but some notable people fall in it,and collecting together the notable people in WP who are mathematicians is appropriate for browsing and organization. Valedictorians is a much much broader category, and inappropriate,but I would however be open to the suggestion that Harvard Valedictorians was an appropriate category. DGG (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaving aside for the moment the bias inherent in the notion of categorizing some valedictorians but not others, you're conflating an occupation category (mathematicians) with an achievement category (did really well at maths at Cambridge). These people are already collected together because they are listed. Otto4711 (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, some colleges are more notable than others, and Senior Wrangler at Cambridge has been historically as notable as they get. I do not necessarily support the lesser categories. DGG (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And the sources that indicate that coming first in maths at Cambridge is notable are...? And the sources that indicate that being senior wrangler at Cambridge is "as notable as they get" are...? And the idea that even if finishing first in maths at Cambridge is notable that a category is required is...? Otto4711 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was genuinely important in its day; being senior (or near to senior) wrangler meant that you were very likely to hold important posts in British life. [1] is a fascinating little article about it; on page 4 is a table of the mathematics Professors at Cambridge; for a period of about 170 years only one man was Lucasian Professor who hadn't been Senior Wrangler! Throwawayhack (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! 5/9 Professors involved (1760-1930 odd) served during the 1820s, and you could get a degree with 2% of the marks. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually even better than that. In Littlewood's Miscellany, he gives some details of the 1881 paper. There were 33,541 marks available, and the Senior Wrangler got 16,368 (just under 50%); the Wooden Spoon only managed 247 (0.7%). Throwawayhack (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a defining category - top mathematics graduate from one of the top two English universities. EVen if the standard of some degrees in the 19th century was deplorably low, I cannot believe that applies to the top graduate! Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Objective criteria, notable and defining achievements. As the article says: "The examination was the most important in England at the time, and the results were given great publicity". "The securing of the top position as Senior Wrangler was regarded, at the time, as the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain and the Senior Wrangler was feted well beyond Cambridge and accorded pre-eminent status among his peers" - [2]. Much more notable, in its time, than say Category:American Idol participants. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How notable it may or may not have been in comparison to some other category is irrelevant (WP:WAX). Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me its just as relevant as the references by yourself and others to Category:Valedictorians. As you focus on my final sentence, I take it you can find no fault with the earlier and more substantive parts of my argument. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I was rather intoxicated when I saw your comment and the last sentence was what caught my drunken eye. As for the remainder of your comment, while it may justify the senior category (and I don't agree that it does) it in no way justifies the second wrangler category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per otto, carlos, and precedent of Valedictorians. --Kbdank71 19:07, 22 January 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 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Coming from the "other place", I have always been puzzled by the significance of this term, but there is no doubt it is highly notable. I am also supporting the second category. One that contains Kelvin and Maxwell is important also. Frankly I do not understand why people want to remove useful categories like these two. Removing them would not improve the encyclopedia. --Bduke (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - just to satisfy my curiosity, can someone explain why this has been relisted ? Seem clear to me that the consensus in the original discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 16, reproduced above, is keep, so I don't understand why it was never closed as keep. Is it just that no admin got around to closing it ? Or was some vital but obscure part of the process missed out somewhere along the line ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. 7K 4D, ignoring complexities of one/both votes. It's not ideal that the relister was an oppose voter. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True about the relisting, but not a lot of people do closings. I suppose relisting is less of a conflict then leaning one way or the other. Currently there are two old discussions that are close to consensus that have not been closed since our prolific closer and myself have both commented. So maybe if a few more admins can check in once in a while... Follow ups on the main talk page if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then can some admin please close this as keep ? I don't think I can do this myself as I am not an admin, and also I have voted in this discussion. But there is clearly not a "delete" consensus, and the re-listing has only generated one more vote, so the discussion is over. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is likely a no consensus close and not a keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't ideal, no, but please WP:AGF for a moment. I didn't relist it to "get my way". At the end of the day, I'm not going to lose any sleep if these are deleted or kept. I relisted it because there was no consensus, and it had been open from the 16th to the 29th with nobody having an interest in closing it. It's now Feb 4th 8th, and still nobody wants to close it. So, it stays open. I have no problem closing it as a keep, but I'd rather not get "Quick, notify AN/I!! zOMG he closed a discussion he participated in!!! Whack the bastard with a trout, pronto!!" --Kbdank71 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Useful categories, objective criteria, undoubtedly notable. NSH001 (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was upmerge. Kbdank71 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bikini Bottom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in this category Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:SpongeBob SquarePants and whatever the appropriate subcat of Category:Fictional locations is. Otto4711 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to SpongeBob. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:SpongeBob SquarePants. --BelovedFreak 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per above. Doczilla (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was delete, Wikipedia:CSD#G4. Kbdank71 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WrestleMania venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nominating this category as per precedents at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_13#Category:Wrestling_venues and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_23#Category:World_Wrestling_Entertainment_venues. Categorizing multi-purpose venues by use is not encyclopedic. Flibirigit (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WM is the biggest wrestling event in the world and this years will be the 24th annual edition. I don't want to bring up other categories, but I don't see how this is any different than something like Category:Super Bowl venues. TJ Spyke 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedent and do the same with the Super Bowl venues. The staging of a wrestling event, even one as notable as WrestleMania, is not a defining characteristic of the venue. Venues host dozens or hundreds of events a year. Next up: Category:Cyndi Lauper concert venues; Category:National Tractor Pullers Association tractor pull venues; Category:Antiques Road Show taping venues; etc. List already exists at WrestleMania#WrestleMania_dates_and_venues. Otto4711 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are dozens of other similar categories, just looking at Ford Field shows 2 other event categories. TJ Spyke 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WAX. Those other categories should probably also be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can support a delete since these are already using navigation templates. They provide more information and ease of navigation from one venue to the next or previous venue. I wonder when we will need a collapsible nav box? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a useful category. The other "precedents" have nothing to do with this category--they were useless, all-encompassing categories that added nothing to Wikipedia. This is focused on the one and only wrestling event worthy of such a category. Creating ridiculous parallels (eg. Antique Road Show taping venues) doesn't help your argument. All of the pages in this category mention that the venue has hosted WrestleMania. Obviously, this is not the case for Cyndi Lauper concerts or any other farcical category you want to discuss. WrestleMania has been an important part of the history of each of these venues, and a category to link them makes sense. And citing WAX doesn't help your argument either, as it's not a Wikipedia policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That some wrestling fan has gone through the articles and added WrestleMania to them doesn't impress me. Otto4711 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly why is the mention in the article and the template, both of which supply more information then presence in the category, so insufficient as to also need a category? At what point does the number of categories listed become so large so as to make then less useful for an article? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Unlike an all-encompassing category such as Category:World Wrestling Entertainment Venues that will list almost every arena in the country, WrestleMania is part of an exclusive club. It is the biggest professional wrestling event of the year and it is promoted for months in advance, much like other large yearly events. Wrestlemania itself is notable as an American institution. Normal wrestling events are not. So, I'd say the category is valid because the list of sites that have held this event are diverse (a vegas resort, standard arenas, and super-stadiums alike). --Zpb52 (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability of the event is irrelevant. The question to be answered is whether the venue itself is defined by having hosted a WrestleMania. I agree that the list of venues shows its diversity, which is why the list in the WrestleMania article is so very much more useful than a clutterful category. Otto4711 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that certain arenas are defined as having hosted a Wrestlemania. The event has produced the largest crowd in the history of the Reliant Astrodome and one of the largest for Ford Field, plus it will be the first (and probably only) pro wrestling card hosted at the Citrus Bowl. This is in addition to the fact that it was held at an unconventional venue such as Caesars Palace. So, yes, I think these venues are notable for hosting WrestleMania. --Zpb52 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, exactly why is the mention in the article and the template, both of which supply more information then presence in the category, so insufficient as to also need a category? At what point does the number of categories listed become so large so as to make then less useful for an article? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OCAT of venue by occasional activity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this "occasional activity" is no more "occasional" than, say, the Winter Olympics. I'd also have a hard time justifying a claim that Vancouver or Oslo are "defined by having hosted" the Winter Olympics. That doesn't make Category:Host cities of the Winter Olympic Games any less valid, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not a defining quality of these locations. Doczilla (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A large-scale event such as this deserves such a category, as has been previously said.--Bedford 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's in the same boat as Category:Super Bowl venues and Category:NCAA bowl game venues etc. HoosierState^Talk 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This event is very prestigious and deserves a category such as this. There are 19 arenas/stadiums on this list, so no one can claim lack of depth. Clay4president2 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was no consensus. If you feel that the established categorization structure of Category:Albums by artist needs revision, please feel free to propose that at Category talk:Albums by artist in a discussion that can more effectively evaluate possible alternatives and can take as long as needed to reach a consensus — but CFDing one subcategory which is somewhat obscure and consequently won't get noticed by most users with any interest in that category structure is not the most appropriate venue. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jillian Hall albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This person has only released one album, which was only on iTunes, and will likely never release anymore (it was released as a comedy album by WWE). There is no sense having a category for one article, especially when it is unlikely to ever be joined by another. SexySeaBass 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pointless category. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Category:Albums by artist as we always do with these categories as an exception to WP:OC. Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in agreement with Otto4711 Fanficgurl5:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, there is not point to have a category with one entry. Nikki311 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:OC#SMALL: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Cheers, LAX 23:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close early per WP:SNOW.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, what? So far the consensus is to delete. TJ Spyke 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The consensus for three years has been to have this exact category structure. All albums get artist categories. Now, if you want this album deleted, take the article to AfD. But leave this well-defined category structure alone.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we are going to follow the rule of using categories even if there is one album, then I want to see an album. If we start including the entire universe of electronic distribution then the guideline needs to be reconsidered. This guideline has been a continuing point of discussion. Maybe the argument is now at the breaking point. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per SexySeaBass comments of WWE releasing the album as a joke. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The circumstances of the release are irrelevant. That the album was released as a joke doesn;t change the fact that it's an album and should be categorized per the Albums by artist system. Otto4711 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only 1 album, and no signs she will release another since it's just part of her current gimmick (a very bad immitation of Britney Spears). TJ Spyke 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is anyone saying delete at all interested in addressing the issue of the Albums by artist category structure? Anyone? Bueller? Otto4711 (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sure. I think the "Albums by artist" category structure should be changed, as creating categories with only one page seems pointless. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What may have been a good idea may in hindsight be a really bad decision. So you need to review the situation and change the old decision if that action is justified or to limit the extent of the previous decision if justified. I believe this particular category could be the 'straw that breaks the camel's back'. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The venue for discussing the consensus on Albums by artist which per previous comments has endured for three years would be the category's talk page, not a single CFD nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Category:Albums by artist Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Category:Albums by artist per Mike Selinker and Otto4711. --BelovedFreak 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment has anyone ever considered the current status of Category:Albums by artist is stupid, and should never have been that way? You want to say that you're citing a larger consensus, well I say that the OC guideline is an even larger consensus that trumps the one you cite. It is a guideline for a reason. SexySeaBass 01:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a guideline that has a specific exception for categories that are part of a widely accepted categorization scheme. Category:Albums by artist is a widely accepted categorization scheme. "It's stupid" is not a particularly compelling argument. Otto4711 (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That wasn't my argument; that was for emphasis. SexySeaBass 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It is a pointless category that has no depth whatsoever. No category should ever only have one page in it. Clay4president2 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and open a larger discussion to overturn the "widely accepted categorization scheme" exception to OC. How about we discuss the merits of the category instead of blindly wanting to keep it simply because "we have a scheme!!" --Kbdank71 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you assume I blindly want to keep it? I want to keep it because albums should be categorized by the artists that record them. It's a major, defining feature of the album—the most major and most defining in most cases. I don't want exceptions because then people have to decide when to make exceptions. It makes sense as is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the reason you wanted to keep it was All albums get artist categories. You didn't explain why it should be kept other than that. Categories are used to browse other like articles. If there are no other articles, we don't need a category for it. I'm sure this will be kept, for no other reason than "all albums get artist categories", I just disagree with it. No-one has ever been able to explain to me why I should accept a one article category. --Kbdank71 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reasoning is because articles shouldn't be orphaned when organized schemes exist to categorize them. An album article has features, and one of those features is (usually) an artist that records it. So if that's the case, and we're organizing some artists' albums into categories, my belief is we should organize all such albums into similar categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The one article wouldn't be orphaned, as it's in four other categories besides this one. And if you're interested in features, the artist that records it is in the first line of the article: "A Jingle With Jillian is an EP by WWE Diva, Jillian Hall". You still haven't explained why you want a one-article category. How does that help the person viewing the article? (Unless you want to add some text to the category like "Ha ha, sucker, there aren't any others!". That might be a little mean, but at least the reader won't have to wonder where the other albums are.) I understand that is your belief, but why? --Kbdank71 15:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It helps the uber-category. If I'm paging through that (and please note that I'm not staking a position on whether that category should be broken up), I don't have to wonder whether anyone's done an article about an album by a specific artist. There it is, in the category tree. Now I can click on that category and see the album itself. If it's not there, I assume the article's not there either. That's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, thank you. That is an answer I'm ok with. Granted, I still disagree with it, which is why I want to open a discussion on that (for example, how many non-editors are going to search for "albums by artist" or even know it exists? I'm guessing most people will start from the article Jill whateverhernameis' album, click on the jill's albums category, and wonder why they did it. Plus, isn't the albums by artist horribly overpopulated? Who is going to begin to browse through it when page 1 gives them aaaaa through aaaab?) But for purposes of this category, though, I'll stop pestering you. Thanks for putting up with me. --Kbdank71 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • De nada. I would welcome a sensible debate on how to break up that category. I don't see an obvious way to do it, but it's worth considering.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto and Mike Selinker. If it was Category:Jillian Hall with one article, fine, delete it - but it's not. Categories like this one cannot be viewed in isolation but must be looked at as part of a much wider picture. The merits of the organisation of albums by artist far outweigh any disbenefit that theoretically flows from having some one-member categories within the structure. In any case, the structure should not be undermined by one CfD: if Category:Albums by artist is to be widely discussed, then do that somewhere other than a CfD debate, without time pressures, plenty of input and a clear idea of what (if any) changes should be made to this well-established approach. Bencherlite^Talk 00:57, 5 February 2008 (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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was restore to a redirect. Closed prematurely under CSD:G7 Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: According to the Missouri Blue Book (Chap. 8 - classification of municipalities), there are only cities (of various classes) and villages but no towns. The counterargument is that the Census Bureau for some reason lists some of the 4th class cities and villages as towns. This category should be deleted or else it should be renamed to "Municipalities in Missouri classified as towns by the U.S. Census Bureau". --Polaron

Keep See the category talk page: aside from the fact that towns are listed by the Census Bureau (surely a reliable source), state law regulates governing bodies of towns (see §71.012 of the Missouri Revised Statutes for an example). Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State law does refer to towns since there were towns before but none exist now according to current laws. I guess this all boils down to "which is a more reliable source for classifying municipalities: the U.S. Census Bureau or the state government?" --Polaron | Talk 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all appearances, the Blue Book is a guidebook, not a law. Moreover, this official PDF lists all parts of the Missouri Revised Statutes that have been repealed, and the section to which I refer is not listed there. As well, none of the sections listed as repealed are even listed. Unless the online law be considered unreliable, there can be no question that current law acknowledges the presence of towns. Nyttend (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there can be towns does not mean there are at the current time. There is no need to repeal laws governing municipalities so it doesn't preclude towns from being created in the future. That still doesn't make any of the present municipalities legally called towns. --Polaron | Talk 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until we get a third party, we're not going to find any consensus either way :-) Do you trust the US Census Bureau? If so, we should list them as towns. If not, we should call into question all the demographic information based on it. WP:CITY guidelines call for federal census data only in the demographics, which means that they should be listed as towns. It's the Census Bureau's job to be right, and I can't imagine how they could possibly make such a major error without it being revised — note that the Factfinder has results updated, so they surely would have found out before now. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, note that it says absolutely nothing about towns, not even mentioning that there can be towns. It's reasonable to assume, I believe, that there would be something on the process of incorporating as a town or how a town is governed, if it were simply that there could be towns but they didn't exist at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The municipal classification used by the Census Bureau comes from something called the Census of Governments. I think they normally used whatever name was given to them by whoever filled out the form in the municipal office. They normally try to verify this but they do get things wrong. For example Groton Long Point is listed as a borough and first appeared on the Census rolls in 1989. However, this has never been incorporated as a borough and was created in 1921 as a special services district. Another example is that the Census Bureau lists 45 cities in Massachusetts. There are in fact 50 cities although 11 of them retained the word Town in their legal names. In the 2000 Census there were 39 cities originally listed but these have slowly been updated over the years. So, yes, the Census Bureau does get things wrong and it takes a while for them to catch up. Many of the Missouri re-incorporations happened post-2002 (the last time the Census of Governments was performed) so it is conceivable that it may take a few years after the official change for the Census Bureau to realize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that there is nothing wrong with the demographic data as that is the Census Bureau's job. But the municipal classifications are ultimately derived from the state and the Census Bureau just tries to keep up. --Polaron | Talk 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*keep or merge to other appropriate Missouri settlements category. 'Delete' should be the last, not the first suggested option to take care of perceived category problems. You do not want to end up with a bunch of orphan articles not showing any connection to Missouri. Hmains (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• • Note that all objects in the category have now an added category that sorts them as eiher villages or cities, depending on how the municipality is legally defined. Deletin the category would produce no orphaned articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, this is a very interesting idea about the reincorporations; this would definitely be important, if I understand you rightly. Could you find me a link for that? Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to go to each "town" website to check their history articles. I only checked a few so it may not be universal. I have also seen some indication in some searches that "town" is the general name used for any settlement whether incorporated or not. --Polaron | Talk 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting statute here which basically says that towns not now incorporated (presumably under the new municipal code) are deemed to be villages. There are other sections that appear to indicate that a village in the legal sense may be officially named either "The village of ___" or "The town of ___" and town and village are used interchangeably in some sections. That may be the source of the Census Bureau's confusion about the matter similar to the case of Massachusetts cities, where certain cities are known as "The town of ___". --Polaron | Talk 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this makes your case. I change my opinion: not delete, but empty and restore to this format. There's no reason altogether to delete the category, as the idea of "towns in Missouri" is rather generic, and there should be something to warn people not to put articles into it. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 discussion was Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AIM bots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: empty category duplicates established category Category:Chatterbots. mordel (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as empty. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:45, 29 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was delete, empty. Kbdank71 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish castle articles by priority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unused set of Wikiproject categories, as the "priority" functionality of Template:WPSCOTCASTLE has been removed. Category and all subcategories can now be deleted. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. The subcats all empty but not listed here? If empty more than four days you could use the template ((db-catempty)) for speedy deletion. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. (Or speedy if empty for more than 4 days). --BelovedFreak 22:01, 31 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was rename to Category:Lists of directors by television series. Kbdank71 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Television directors by series to Category:Television directors

Nominator's rationale: Merge - either merge to the parent or rename to Category:Lists of television directors by series. Otto4711 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or rename per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lists of television directors by series. What is wrong with grouping these lists? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lists of television directors by series per nom & Vegas. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lists of directors by television series - note the different word order - consistent with Category:Lists of producers by television series and the much larger Category:Lists of actors by television series (subcat of Category:Lists of television actors). If agreed, I will then reverse the redirect from Category:Lists of writers by television series to Category:Lists of television writers by series. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lists of directors by television series per Fayenatic. --BelovedFreak 22:02, 31 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 20:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Opentail G to Category:Single-story g typefaces

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Single-story" is the accepted term for lowercase gs that have an "open tail". ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - categorizing typefaces on the basis of the shape of a particular letter is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OCAT trivial. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT, or we'll have 26 cats on each typeface - at least. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorisation. --BelovedFreak 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This categorisation has been reimplemented as Category:Single-story g as has been discussed in several talk pages. Overcategorisation is in my opinion not valid since this is a typeface feature that deserves attention and the extra category is not distorting the articles. SvGeloven (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SvGeloven, making wholesale changes to a category during a CfD is seriously bad form for an editor. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:23, 1 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 20:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Looptail G to Category:Double-story g typefaces

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Double-story" is the accepted term for lowercase gs that have a "looped tail". See Category talk:Looptail G. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - categorizing typefaces on the basis of the shape of a particular letter is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OCAT trivial. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT, or we'll have 26 cats on each typeface - at least. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorisation. --BelovedFreak 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This categorisation has been reimplemented as Category:Double-story g as has been discussed in several talk pages. Overcategorisation is in my opinion not valid since this is a typeface feature that deserves attention and the extra category is not distorting the articles. SvGeloven (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SvGeloven, making wholesale changes to a category during a CfD is seriously bad form for an editor. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:23, 1 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian mobsters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty and obsolete. Category:Sicilian Mafiosi and Category:Italian criminals already exist and the Italian Mafia is not the mob, which is a term for the American Mafia. - Mafia Expert (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A misplaced Americanization. Snocrates 21:27, 29 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Egoists (individualist anarchists) to Category:Egoist individual anarchists

Nominator's rationale: Naming conventions deprecate the use of namespace-style brackets in category titles. In this case it is confusingly as if "individual anarchists" is a clarification of "egoists", which would not be at all accurate. Skomorokh ^confer 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - how fine are we going to parse political philosophies? Ooh, this guy believed in XYZ but the other guy belived in XYL so despite the fact that they differ on one single aspect of greater or lesser importance we better create separate categories for them! Madness! Otto4711 (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not Madness, Anarchy! What do you expect Otto :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective, OR and per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doctor Who comic creators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And will somebody please fix the GD template?! Otto4711 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. and what's a "GD template"? Sting au Buzz Me... 00:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "GD" is my abbreviation for "goddamn." I didn't want to offend anyone by spelling it out. Otto4711 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorisation per Otto4711.--BelovedFreak 22:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Exterminate performer by performance. Doczilla (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CAV manufacturers to Category:Compressed air vehicle manufacturers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and per parent Category:Compressed air vehicles. Snocrates 02:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as CAV means other things as well. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BelovedFreak 22:10, 31 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 19:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BEV organizations to Category:Battery electric vehicle organizations

Category:BEV components to Category:Battery electric vehicle components

Merge Category:BEV manufacturer to Category:BEV manufacturers and rename combined category to Category:Battery electric vehicle manufacturers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviations per WP:NCCAT and to match Category:Battery electric vehicles. Snocrates 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and merge others per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as billions of electron volts it is not. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. There's a PHEV sub-cat that may do with expansion as well... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and merge others per nom. --BelovedFreak 22:12, 31 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of the Philippines to Category:Filipino people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform with standardized "Fooian people" formatting. Subcategories consistently use "Filipino" and main article is Filipino people. Identical nomination was made on 2006 JUN 03. Category:People of the Philippines could remain as a redirect. Snocrates 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This one seems clear.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom to follow the proper pattern as shown by the social/culture subcats for this country. Hmains (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This one does indeed seem clear. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to use "Filipino" as the other categories do. Zoporific 09:15, 1 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of the Marshall Islands to Category:Marshallese people

Category:Sportspeople of the Marshall Islands to Category:Marshallese sportspeople

Category:Tennis players from the Marshall Islands to Category:Marshallese tennis players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. People from the Marshall Islands are "Marshallese". Use "Fooian people" standard per conventions and other existing subcategories of Category:People of the Marshall Islands. Snocrates 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom or to "Marshall Islands (X). Either approach is an improvement.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom to match the social/culture subcats for this country Hmains (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose When we arrive at Category:Marshallese people for the sake of consistency, we have gone too far - Snocates is to be commended for his diligence in discovering these obscure adjectives but Marshallese conveys nothing to me. 'Marshall Islands people' is clearer (although it sounds like an instruction); but not as clear as 'People of the Marshall Islands'. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Marshallese appears to refer to one ethnic/linguistic group in the country, as Marshallese redirects to the language not to the country. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much for consistency. :) Snocrates 23:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what's the point of using "nationality adjectives" for any of these categories? What if the distinction between "Nigerian" and "Nigerien" means nothing to me? Does that mean we shouldn't use them? These opinions bring the entire system into question, not just this proposal. I find it ridiculous that we are basing decisions on what individual users find "familiar" to them. Either we use the "national adjectives" for these categories, or we don't. If we don't, I'll stop making nominations to bring some consistency to this area. P.S. "Marhsallese" is not an ethnic group; it literally means "a person from the Marshall Islands". Snocrates 07:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• reaffirm my rename comment above Where in all the articles associated with the Marshall Islands country is it said that there are multiple ethnic groups or that Marshallese is an ethnic group? Ethnically, they are all micronesians. Marshallese is for the country. Hmains (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to use "Marshallese" as do the other similar categories. Zoporific 09:16, 1 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Equatoguineans exiled to Category:Equatoguinean exiles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent Category:Exiles. For category containing persons, using a noun form in category name rather than verb form seems to make sense. Snocrates 01:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Equatoguinean", support "exiles" - see comments on the related nomination for sportspeople and musicians. Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. An encyclopedia is supposed to provide accurate information; accuracy is not determined by whether a word is familiar or not. Hmains (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to use "Equatoguinean" as do other categories. Most people have probably not heard of "Equatorial Guinea" or "Equatoguineans". We should use proper terminology, though. Zoporific 09:17, 1 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Equatorial Guinean sportspeople to Category:Equatoguinean sportspeople

Category:Equatorial Guinea musicians to Category:Equatoguinean musicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other categories for people from Equatorial Guinea uses the proper term "Equatoguinean". Snocrates 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I would prefer the clearer Category:Equatorial Guinea sportspeople per Bosnia H example. Equatoguinean may be correct but is obscure, at least to me. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per roundhouse and support hir suggested rename. Otto4711 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Roundhouse. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much for consistency. :) Who's gonna nominate Category:Equatoguinean people and its several subcategories for renaming, or are we going to live with a bifurcated naming system? All but these two use "Equatoguineans". Snocrates 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what's the point of using "nationality adjectives" for any of these categories? What if the distinction between "Nigerian" and "Nigerien" means nothing to me? Does that mean we shouldn't use them? These opinions bring the entire system into question, not just this proposal. I find it ridiculous that we are basing decisions on what individual users find "familiar" to them. Either we use the "national adjectives" for these categories, or we don't. If we don't, I'll stop bringing nominations to bring consistency to this area. Snocrates 07:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. An encyclopedia is supposed to provide accurate information; accuracy is not determined by whether a word is familiar or not. Hmains (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Utility is partially determined by whether a word is familiar or not. Using a word that approximately seventeen people in the known universe have heard of does not contribute to the utility of the category or the encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to use "Equatoguinean" as do other categories. Most people have probably not heard of "Equatorial Guinea" or "Equatoguineans". We should use proper terminology, though. Terminology becomes familiar though use, and this term is already in use by the other categories. Zoporific 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent, but I express no opinion on which is better. The CIA factbook recognises both, and both are common enough in Google. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Côte d'Ivoire people to Category:Ivorian people

Category:Côte d'Ivoire people by occupation to Category:Ivorian people by occupation

Category:Côte d'Ivoire people by religion to Category:Ivorian people by religion

Category:Côte d'Ivoire Christians to Category:Ivorian Christians

Category:Côte d'Ivoire politicians to Category:Ivorian politicians

Category:Côte d'Ivoire diplomats to Category:Ivorian diplomats

Category:Côte d'Ivoire sportspeople to Category:Ivorian sportspeople

Category:Côte d'Ivoire athletes to Category:Ivorian athletes

Category:Côte d'Ivoire footballers to Category:Ivorian footballers

Category:Côte d'Ivoire tennis players to Category:Ivorian tennis players

Category:Côte d'Ivoire-French people to Category:Ivorian-French people

Category:Côte d'Ivoire expatriates to Category:Ivorian expatriates

Category:Côte d'Ivoire expatriates in Switzerland to Category:Ivorian expatriates in Switzerland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. People from Côte d'Ivoire are called "Ivorians". Some of the subcategories already use "Ivorian Foo"; this nomination brings all subcategories into conformity with the "Fooian people" standard. Snocrates 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom in line with convention in (say) Category:African people. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. There's also category:Ivoirian anti-communists, which which should lose the second of its three I's.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to speedy rename. Thx. Snocrates 03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename all per nom. These will then properly match the social/culture subcats for this country. Hmains (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but delete the race/ethnic/religion ones. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename most per nom, including the religion/Christian/French sub-cats as part of larger schemes of multiple taxonomies. Double upmerge Category:Côte d'Ivoire expatriates in Switzerland to Category:Ivorian expatriates and Category:Expatriates in Switzerland - only one member. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to use the "Ivorian" as do other categories. Zoporific 09:19, 1 February 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 17:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of the Dominican Republic to Category:Dominican Republic people

Category:People of the Dominican Republic stubs to Category:Dominican Republic people stubs

Category:Anti-communists of the Dominican Republic to Category:Dominican Republic anti-communists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Other subcategories of the parent Category:People of the Dominican Republic use "Dominican Republic Foo". We should try to keep the "Fooian people" format where we can. I'm adopting the same formatting that was accepted for Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people and its subcategories in recent 04 JAN 08 CFD and 22 JAN 08 CFD. Snocrates 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - there is Category:People from Dominica as well. These seem to be 2 examples where the "Fooian people" format leads to possible ambiguity. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No ambiguity should result since "Dominican Republic" is still in the name. This solely reverses the order to the standard "Fooian people" format to conform with the majority of already existing Dominican Republic people categories. Using solely "Dominican" would be ambiguous, which is why I have not proposed a rename of Category:People from Dominica to Category:Dominican people. Snocrates 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This turns the phrasing to the right format, and distinguishes it from the Dominica category, which should be renamed "Dominica people" per the recent Bosnia decisions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete anti-communists as overcategorization by opinion. Rename the other two. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 17:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People of the Dominican Republic by occupation to Category:Dominican Republic people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate categories. We should prefer the standard "Fooian people by occupation" format. As mentioned in nomination immediately above, the vast majority of categories for people from the D.R. use the "Dominican Republic Foo" formatting already. I'm adopting the same formatting that was accepted for Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people and its subcategories in recent 04 JAN 08 CFD and 22 JAN 08 CFD. Snocrates 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge - retain Category:People of the Dominican Republic by occupation to reduce potential confusion with Dominica (and indeed confusion with other uses of Dominican). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nom does not propose to use the ambiguous "Dominican"; it proposes to use "Dominican Republic" as the "Fooian" in the "Fooian people" standard. Snocrates 01:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Dominican Republic by occupation is completely clear and therefore preferable. There are parsing difficulties with "Dominican Republic Foo", admittedly not as bad as in (say) Greek Orthodox Bishops. (I should compliment you on your diligence in these minutiae.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that my nomination is not needed to increase clarity; unfortunately, however, what exists now is out of kilter with the vast majority of categories for Dominican Republic people and the subcategories of Category:People by nationality and occupation. We should couple clarity with consistency. Snocrates 02:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. See above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment why not fix all the social/cultural/law cats for this country all at once? Hmains (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cos it's a lot of work and as you can see from the above nominations, these rarely succeed because the adjectives seem "unfamiliar" to users, so they get scared of them. I take small steps. Snocrates 07:18, 31 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Montserrat people to Category:Montserratian people

Category:Montserrat people by occupation to Category:Montserratian people by occupation

Category:Montserrat politicians to Category:Montserratian politicians

Category:Montserrat sportspeople to Category:Montserratian sportspeople

Category:Montserrat footballers to Category:Montserratian footballers

Category:Montserrat international footballers to Category:Montserratian international footballers

Category:Montserrat football managers to Category:Montserratian football managers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. People from Montserrat are "Montserratians". Compare to Category:Montserratian culture, Category:Montserratian music, and others. Snocrates 01:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This is the right demonym.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom and this matches the other social/cultural categories for this country Hmains (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all except Category:Montserrat international footballers, which should follow the convention of other similar categories, such as Category:England international footballers, since here "Montserrat" should be a noun which describes the name of the national team for which the footballers play for. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2008 (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 above. 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 discussion was rename to Category:African American United States Senators. Bencherlite^Talk 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Some African American Senators might be state senators. This name makes it clear that they serve in the United States Senate.

• Option 1: Propose renaming Category:African American Senators to…
  • Option 1a: …Category:African Americans in the United States Senate
  • Option 1b: …Category:African American United States Senators
• Option 2: Delete and upmerge to Category:African Americans in the United States Congress.

—Markles 00:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - small category with little or no (current) growth potential, also a triple intersection of race, occupation (politician) and elective office. Otto4711 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:African American United States Senators to make clear it is the US Senate and it is Senators, not some Senate employee. Stating there is 'little or no (current) growth potential' borders on an insult to African Americans who certainly can continue to be elected to this US office. Hmains (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How many African Americans are even running for Senate this year? A cursory Google search turns up one out of 35 contests, a Republican in a state that hasn't elected a Republican senator in over 25 years. It is unlikely that this category will have even a single new member until 2011 at the earliest. I think three years with no growth potential is sufficient to justify the notion that the category has little to no current growth potential. Even if the guy (or some other candidate I didn't turn up) actually gets elected and sworn in in 2009, that still makes this a small category with no growth potential for a year with another two year period without growth potential following it. So maybe you can refrain from casting bad faith aspersions, m'kay? Otto4711 (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not aware of any artifical time limits in the WP, be it 1 year of 6 years. An enclopedia should be timeless in its coverage of information. Hmains (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Which does not address at all the fundamental reality that the category has no realistic potential for growth. Otto4711 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and upmerge to Category:African Americans in the United States Congress, which should be sufficient. An equal number of Asian-Americans have served in the Senate, but none is running for President in 2008, thus the lack of clamor for such a category :).-choster (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:African American United States Senators. The current title almost sounds like a Negro League baseball team.Shsilver (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2: I now agree with option 2 (which I've now retrospectively added above).—Markles 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:African American United States Senators. At 5 the category is large enough, and clearly has growth potential. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT by race; do these senators have anything in common but their race? No. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thjere is discussion elsewhere on CFD at present as to whether the correct term is African-American, rather than African American. This debate should be borne in mind with any decision on the currently discussed category. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:African American United States Senators. Here in the UK the race of Barack Obama and its significance in the primaries is mentioned quite often (as is the gender of H Clinton). Deletionists should address the entire tree Category:African Americans rather than this small twig. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An upmerge should be to both Category:United States Senators and the (large) Category:African Americans in the United States Congress. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per OCAT by race. --Kbdank71 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:African American United States Senators. None of the "delete" arguments are at all convincing, particularly the "no realistic potential for growth" argument - that is up to the US electorate to decide, not us. NSH001 (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2008 (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.