< January 29	January 31 >

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 15:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flooring to Category:Floors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Flooring currently includes floor construction and floor coverings as well as flooring and the difference between floor coverings and flooring is small. Floors rather than Floor to be like Category:Walls. Dmcq (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Main article in category is Floor, not Flooring. Snocrates 23:10, 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 relisted on feb 5. Kbdank71 17:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ramayana to Category:Ramayana epic

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'll admit I know basically nothing about Hindu mythology so I may be way off here. But the two categories strike me as being about the same Sanskrit text and reading the (two) articles in the first category, I fail to see the distinction between the two categories. Hopefully, more knowledgeable people can clear this up.Pichpich (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge other way to Category:Ramayana - They are the same thing, but the main article is rightly at Ramayana, so the merged category should go there. Category:Ramayana epic should be tagged too. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep - This proposal shows a lack of understanding of Ramayana. For example, which category should Ranayan be classed in? Neither, I would suggest. Okay, I am convinced by the arguments below.Sarah777 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't claim to understand Ramayana but can you please explain how the two categories are distinct? What articles should belong to Category:Ramayana and which to Category:Ramayana epic? As for your example, Ranayan is classified in the category Category:Ramayana adaptations, itself a subcategory of Category:Ramayana epic. I'm a bit confused by your statement: can you, for instance, suggest an introductory line that could be placed in each category to explain their content? Pichpich (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! It is correctly in the adaptations sub-cat. Whyever not? Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whyever not what? Sarah777 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whyever not keep it in Category:Ramayana adaptations, since that is exactly what Ranayan is. In fact the two articles in Category:Ramayana are a translation (heavily shortened I believe) and a translator, for which there is already a sub-cat. But it has the better name. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: if that's not clear, let me note that I have no problem with the suggestion to merge to Ramayana rather than to Ramanaya epic. But Sarah, please tell us the difference between these two categories since you seem to know more about the topic than I do. Pichpich (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per Johnbod. A merge is needed either way, and the shorter name is more intuitively obvious. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - The Ramayana is an epic, but there's no need to state that in the category name. That's like saying Category:Iliad epic instead of Category:Iliad. Also, we should merge Category:Mahabharata epic to Category:Mahābhārata for the same reason. (By the way, should we rename Category:Ramayana to Category:Rāmāyana, as that is considered the official IAST transliteration?) --Hnsampat (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge nomination for Category:Mahabharata epic to Category:Mahābhārata can now be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 3. Pichpich (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge per discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:14, 4 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 keep. Kbdank71 17:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: People are typically categorized by the nationality (i.e. their citizenshp; Canadian, British, etc.) and occupation, not by who they work for (i.e. the Province of Ontario or the Scottish Executive). Kevlar67 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is nom trying to do? It's not said. The 3 UK cats are based on birth, not employer (see Dennis Nilsen!) and should certainly be kept as part of a wider scheme of Foo people by occupation. Actually we have trees, no forests, of categories like Category:Government of California full of civil servants by employer, so Keep all. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then put them all in subcats! Also what would you do with an Englishman working for the Scottish Executive? Kevlar67 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all in subcats already. He would be an English civil servant on the current set-up (should he manage to get such a job, which I think we all know to be improbable). Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I know several English people holding civil service jobs under the Scottish Government (it ceased to be the executive last year). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose I don't think this has been thought through at all. The public servants of Western Australia are people who are employed by the Government of Western Australia to serve the state. To upmerge them to Category:Public servants of Australia is not only unwarranted but also incorrect, as the latter category is for people who are employed by the Government of Australia to serve the country. Hesperian 01:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose agree with Hesperian, Also many notable Public servants were from the 80 years prior to Australia even existing as a National political entity, it'd be false to call them Public Servants of Australia when they would have been using this CFD rationale public servants of United Kingdom. Gnan garra 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion of the UK categories, which (per Johnbod) don't fit the noninator's rationale. Neutral on the Onatrio and Western Oztralia categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - useful for identifying articles on people who are notable as public servants for a particular government entity. Orderinchaos 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's rationale is tenuous and I see these categories as useful anyway. —Moondyne 05:01, 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 Deleted by RHaworth. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be covered well by an article, named (equally awkwardly) Nepal army involved UN Missions. If kept, needs to be renamed, perhaps Category:United Nations peacekeeping missions involving the Nepali Army or something similar. Snocrates 09:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above seemed a sound enough reason for a speedy delete. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it qualifies for speedy for any reason. Snocrates 22:19, 27 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 15:45, 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 17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be adequately covered in Fallsburg, New York article. Would suggest a simple rename to Category:Fallsburg, New York but I don't think there's enough WP content to justify that yet. Snocrates 00:54, 24 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 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough content yet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 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 15:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wallonian people to Category:Walloon people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word Wallonian does not exist in English; only Walloon does. Tartine (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Walloon is the well-established adjective form elsewhere in Category:Wallonia.-choster (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Wallonian" does not appear in the fairly comprehensive OED. Snocrates 23:10, 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 merge as overcategorisation since the nominated categories can never be adequately populated. Apart from Category:697 in Ireland, where Cáin Adomnáin might be added, there seems to be just one currently existing article for each of these categories. No evidence to the contrary has been offered, nor have any concrete examples of what it is presumed will fill these categories been provided by those arguing that they can and will be populated. With the caveat that I only really know enough about this field to know that I don't know much, likely articles which could be written to populate these certainly aren't obvious.

I take BHG's last point about ((YearInIrelandNav)) as significant. This outcome presumes that I can in fact get the template to work in the necessary fashion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Category:106 in Ireland to Category:100s in Ireland

Category:520 in Ireland to Category:520s in Ireland

Category:546 in Ireland to Category:540s in Ireland

Category:615 in Ireland to Category:610s in Ireland

Category:618 in Ireland to Category:610s in Ireland

Category:630 in Ireland to Category:630s in Ireland

Category:650 in Ireland to Category:650s in Ireland

Category:661 in Ireland to Category:660s in Ireland

Category:663 in Ireland to Category:660s in Ireland

Category:665 in Ireland to Category:660s in Ireland

Category:679 in Ireland to Category:670s in Ireland

Category:697 in Ireland to Category:690s in Ireland

Category:792 in Ireland to Category:790s in Ireland

Category:793 in Ireland to Category:790s in Ireland

Category:795 in Ireland to Category:790s in Ireland

Category:832 in Ireland to Category:830s in Ireland

Category:836 in Ireland to Category:830s in Ireland

Category:837 in Ireland to Category:830s in Ireland

Category:838 in Ireland to Category:830s in Ireland

Category:840 in Ireland to Category:840s in Ireland

Category:841 in Ireland to Category:840s in Ireland

Category:842 in Ireland to Category:840s in Ireland

Category:845 in Ireland to Category:840s in Ireland

Category:846 in Ireland to Category:840s in Ireland

Category:847 in Ireland to Category:840s in Ireland

Category:851 in Ireland to Category:850s in Ireland

Category:862 in Ireland to Category:860s in Ireland

Category:908 in Ireland to Category:900s in Ireland

Category:911 in Ireland to Category:910s in Ireland

Category:914 in Ireland to Category:910s in Ireland

Category:941 in Ireland to Category:940s in Ireland

Category:981 in Ireland to Category:980s in Ireland

Category:982 in Ireland to Category:980s in Ireland

Category:997 in Ireland to Category:990s in Ireland

Category:999 in Ireland to Category:990s in Ireland

Category:1002 in Ireland to Category:1000s in Ireland

Category:1005 in Ireland to Category:1000s in Ireland

Category:1006 in Ireland to Category:1000s in Ireland

Category:1013 in Ireland to Category:1010s in Ireland

Category:1022 in Ireland to Category:1020s in Ireland

Category:1030 in Ireland to Category:1030s in Ireland

Category:1038 in Ireland to Category:1030s in Ireland

Category:1042 in Ireland to Category:1040s in Ireland

Category:1064 in Ireland to Category:1060s in Ireland

Category:1086 in Ireland to Category:1080s in Ireland

Category:1088 in Ireland to Category:1080s in Ireland

Category:499 in Ireland[edit]

Suggest merging Category:499 in Ireland to Category:490s in Ireland

Category:498 in Ireland to Category:490s in Ireland

Category:497 in Ireland to Category:490s in Ireland

Category:496 in Ireland to Category:490s in Ireland

Category:495 in Ireland to Category:490s in Ireland

Category:494 in Ireland to Category:490s in Ireland

Category:492 in Ireland to Category:490s in Ireland

Category:490 in Ireland to Category:490s in Ireland

Category:489 in Ireland to Category:480s in Ireland

Category:435 in Ireland to Category:430s in Ireland

Category:806 in Ireland to Category:800s in Ireland

Category:512 in Ireland to Category:510s in Ireland

Category:513 in Ireland to Category:510s in Ireland

NOTE: Similar categories are being created as this nomination proceeds. I have stopped tagging new ones that have been created at the time of this datestamp. If deleted/merged, there are obviously going to be a lot more that need to be tracked down and similarly nominated and treated. Snocrates 23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Each of these categories only has one article in it, named the same as the category. We don't need a separate category for each year. By decade should suffice. This pattern continues for the centuries after the 11th, but by then the categories seem to be marginally theoretically useful as they can be categorized as part of the Category:Years by country system, e.g., Category:1266 by country (although the only country included for most of them for quite a few years seems to be Ireland). (That, and I'm too lazy to nominate another 200 year categories without help.) Snocrates 06:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well established "year in country" scheme. Just into the leaner years, consistency is better with these types of schemes. So how about forcing all the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century articles all into decades as well, consistency, consistency! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge per nom - this is not part of a wider scheme, as only Ireland has year categories for this range. It is an uneccessary and undesirable expansion of a scheme. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a work in progress. The category page aids navigation and organisation of the series. There are many editors very actively working on this series the past few months; give them some time and space. Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This categorisation system is part a well-established scheme, and its population is a work-in-progress. Ardfern (talk · contribs) in particular is doing a huge amount of work populating these categories and the associated articles, and yes, it's still far-from-complete, but Ireland has a long recorded history and this categorisation scheme is an integral part of its organisation. Other countries without such a well-recorded history may not need by-year categories for similar periods, but they do serve a useful purpose in the history of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that Ireland has a uniquely well-documented Early Medieval history is frankly ludicrous. These are the only "by year/by nation" categories (as opposed to articles) and represent a wholly uneccessary extra level of categories, especially as the articles have mostly also been added to the parent categories as well. What on earth is the point? However vast the amount of work done, only 34 years have been included between 0-1000. If kept, the closer should note that all supporters have claimed that the wonderful utility of this scheme will be apparent to all in due course, so that the question can reasonably be reviewed after a suitable interval. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where you get "34" from; List of years in Ireland indicates about 150 in that range and it is far from exhaustive. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

34 was the number of years nominated in this nomination between 1-1000 AD at the time he made the comment. Snocrates 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the point that Ireland uniquely well-documented Early Medieval history is not "ludicrous", it is a matter of fact, as a consequence of the work of many scribes within the Irish monastic tradition.

Secondly, it is quite proper that the articles are categorised in both the eponymous category and the parent cats, per the topic article rule.

Thirdly, the suggestion of dismantling the categories now before to rebuilding them later overlooks the importance of maintaining consistency and accuracy across a large categorisation scheme such as this. This is currently achieved through the use of a series of templates which ensure consistent parenting of both articles and categories; the proposal to merge these 46 categories would have to involve dismantling this system in favour of adhoc categorisation, which was used before and led to countless glitches of articles and categories being only partially parented.

Merging these categories will create a huge amount of work, and will break a system which benefits from a high degree of consistency and accuracy which is absent from many other year-in-country category trees. Why on earth do this simply because the categories are not yet heavily populated? We have always allowed under-populated categories where they are part of a wider categorisation scheme, and these categories are a part of the years-in-Ireland categorisation scheme. Whether that scheme is mirrored in other countries is a separate issue, but the fact remains that these categories are a part of the Category:Years in Ireland tree, and CfD has never taken a view that categories in one country must mirror those in another. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, other countries had monks too, and managed not to lose their main chronicle. I note that the major scholarly work the Chronology of Irish History to 1976 section A takes 4 pages to cover from the Creation to 431 AD (later periods average a page a year) which does not bode well for filling the tree for that period. Secondly, I don't think that part of the policy was meant to justify categories most of which can only ever contain one article. Thirdly is not my suggestion, and (fourthly) once it is checked that all articles are indeed in the parent category, the categories can just be deleted with no further work required. No doubt Ireland could be categorized in a different way from elsewhere, but the question is - should it be? I'm clear not. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now, with no prejeducide against recreation in future. At the moment, it seems to make more sense to categorise by decade, and then when there are sufficient articles in the decade categories to merit individual years, create them? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - merging causes problems for the construction of the series and does absolutely squat to improve the project. There is simply no reason to merge these. Sarah777 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it does improve the project. It removes a currently pointless category tree with one article categories, and improves navigation which is what categories are for. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not remove a pointless category tree as I have explained; thus your argument re navigation falls. You can't navigate through non-existent material and the editors creating the material created the navigation system. Sarah777 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - We are trying to build this series up, but it takes time. These are stubs (remember that old Wiki concept) and will be added to by myself and many others as time goes on. It would be more helpful if those merger proposers would spend some time adding content to the articles, rather than trying to disappear them. Allow us to work without diversion to this sort of debate and we will add and develop the content.Ardfern (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that Ardfern! Sarah777 (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody is suggesting merging the articles, what is being suggested is merging the categories. For example, Category:660s in Ireland would contain these articles:

661 in Ireland
662 in Ireland
663 in Ireland
664 in Ireland
665 in Ireland
666 in Ireland
667 in Ireland
668 in Ireland
669 in Ireland
Plus any individual articles (as applicable)

That's a perfectly reasonable use of categories, and if at some point in the future there are sufficient articles for an individual year then create one. But I'm struggling to believe there will ever be enough articles for most of the years mentioned above to merit an individual category for each year. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ONIH, nobody is asking you to believe anything; we are asking you to wait - give time to the editors who are building this without pointless nit-picking. Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware the exact same applies to you? Wait until there are articles that merit categories, instead of creating a pointless category tree. Let's just look at what possible articles could be written about the events detailed in the articles above shall we?

661 in Ireland contains only the death of Laidcenn mac Buith Bannaig. Somehow I don't think there's going to be a Death of Laidcenn mac Buith Bannaig article is there?
663 in Ireland contains only the death of Guaire Aidni. As above....
665 in Ireland contains only the Yellow plague outbreak at Fore Abbey. I very much doubt there's enough source material for an article about that, given the token one sentence mention in the Fore Abbey article.

Yet you seriously expect people to believe these categories will be filled with articles? If so, create the categories when you have the articles, which based on the evidence isn't likely to happen. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep typical over catergorisation nomination . These are a work in process and are useful navigational tools . Sure why don't we solve this pesky category problem once and for and up merge every category in to Category:Stuff or Category:Everything Gnevin (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyperbole is not an argument. Snocrates 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characterisation by analogy is a perfectly good form of argument. Gnevin hits the nail on the head. Sarah777 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's not an "analogy" when the categories he cites don't exist and are imaginary constructs to include "everything" in WP. That's hyperbole — and it is generally unhelpful in assessing categories that exist in reality, except in that they provide rhetorical flourish and support to those who've already voted in line with the flourish. Snocrates 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord - there is no rule says analogy can't compare the surreal to the non-existent! Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was. I said it was unhelpful. Snocrates 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nominator). So far ~~the only~~ most of the votes for keep have come from those actively working in the project, who keep insisting that the content will be developed. These votes are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the premise of the nomination. Quite simply, until the categories contain something other than the main article, there is no need for them. Solution: the categories should be merged and then re-created as needed when you have another article to place in the year category. It is a waste of time to create multiple one-article categories. That was the intent of the nomination — not to say the year categories can't exist, but simply that they shouldn't be created until they are needed. That is why I did not nominate similar categories that contained more than one article with the same name as the category, such as Category:1014 in Ireland. Snocrates 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not usually argumentative (!) but the wasted time is past and cannot be recalled; also it is being wasted by the editors on the project so why anyone else should fret is beyond understanding. Now, if you want to waste the time of the productive editors who are building this series then maybe start shaking their scaffolding while the brickwork is in progress. Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fretting about your wasted time. If you still think that is the purpose of the nomination, you still misunderstand its purpose and motivation. To argue that other users shouldn't worry about category creation because it's only wasting the time of the creators seems a bit like a WP:NOHARM argument. Perhaps I would like this cleaned up for the future users who would like to join this project; me, for instance. To assume that it's all about you because you created the category seems a bit, well, provincial, I guess. Snocrates 01:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To assume that it's all about you because you created the category seems a bit, well, provincial, I guess. No, to assume that would be to display ignorance; I didn't create the system here, the categories, the templates, anything. I am one of those "new" editors you now claim to be concerned about; I joined the project late and found the system, categories etc in place - it is brilliant for facilitating productive editing. And I'd rather be 'provincial' than ignorant any day of the week. You are now bizarrely suggesting that being involved in this work somehow reduces the value of ones opinions on the category issue. But condescending newcomers may waffle at will? Sarah777 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not involved in the project and re-create as needed leads to user's spending hours with AWB or similar trying to sort out a huge mess of articles , this nom should be removed for a certain time frame say 3 months and if they are still not being used then deletedGnevin (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "huge mess of articles"? Lol, we're still waiting for one to fit into any of the above categories. If they are created as needed, i.e. when an article is written that will fit in a year category, there is no "mess" to go through. You have the year article and you have the new article. Add category to 2 articles, done. If that takes anyone in the project "hours", then things are worse than I expected. Snocrates 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all the time you are wasting following me around tagging - you could be doing something productive - like submitting Afd's or deleting photos ;-) Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't flatter yourself. I'm not "following [you] around". I monitor newly-created categories. Yours turn up there like everyone else's. Snocrates 01:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; as usual BrownHairedGirl expresses it well. BTW, I am not working actively on this project! ww2censor (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and congrats on the elegance of the design. Occuli (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems most sensible to create them when there's more than one article to go in the category, not before. Zoporific 09:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these categories will have more than 1 article on wiki already but just aren't added yet as this is a work in progress. I re-suggest this nom be removed/placed on hold for 3 months so the user's active here time to work on this. If in 3 months they are all empty or have 1/2 articles then the nom will be clear cut Gnevin (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Noting that nearly all the comments seem to think the articles will be merged, what the nom means is there would be a category called 990s in Ireland with the articles 990 in Ireland, 991 in Ireland ... etc within it. There is no need for the *categories* by year, but the *articles* by year are fine (and completely outside the scope of this CfD). Orderinchaos 11:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply So far as I can see, the only contributor making the mistake of thinking that the nomination applies to articles seems to be Ardfern. All the others address the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply To pick up on Snocrates comment I observe that the only editors supporting this category merge are those who are not involved in the work; thus may we that assume a certain lack of interest compounds poor judgment? And Snocrat, believe me, to be flattered by someone you have to have some modicum of respect for their judgment - so don't fret about me being flattered by you tailing me around. Sarah777 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete or merge all per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth and other Wikipedia category practice. I haven't actually seen anything to merge since all examined year articles were already in a decade or century category. The purpose of article categories is to group similar articles for easier navigation. There are already useful ways to navigate Irish history like List of years in Ireland, and many "Category:Century in Ireland" and "Category:Decade in Ireland". A category with a single article and no subcategories is useless and just wastes the readers time. People reading an article like 106 in Ireland will expect to find other relevant articles by clicking Category:106 in Ireland at the bottom. Readers are fooled when the only article is the one they came from. Categories like Category:106 by country (created recently by the creator of Category:106 in Ireland) should probably also be deleted. Categories should be created when they are useful and not because they might theoretically become useful at some time, which doesn't seem likely when 106 in Ireland has a single short line of actual content. Do not delay this discussion 3 months. By that time a lot more useless categories may have been created. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also point 1 in Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines: "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles." A bunch of one-article categories makes it harder to find similar articles than already existiing decade and century categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have posted a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#CfD about years in Ireland. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll admit this is a close call, but given that there will likely be room for expansion and this is part of two systematic trees: years & country histories, I think that resolving these to decades doesn't help here, especially as there seems to be sufficient written history of the region during these periods to enable articles to be written about events and tied to specific years rather than conjecturally to decades. Note: were these years in Iceland - which wasn't populated until the 900's or so - for various years in the 600's or so, my opinion would be different (and those categories would likely be empty unless someone created a series of 601 in Iceland, 602 in Iceland with a "nothing happened that was recorded by humans" contents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per OCAT. Categories are for browsing like articles. Considering many of these categories have only one article, there's no point in having the category. Many people here are begging for more time. That's not how it works. Combine like articles into decade categories until you need to break them apart, then do that. You are basically saying, "We're going to muck things up for a bit, and if nobody fixes it in a few months, well, then you can do what you want." How about doing it right the first time and then we won't have to repeat this in a few months (when I guarantee the same people will be saying the same thing, only with "but now it's an accepted exception!" --Kbdank71 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting. Will have to look at this in more detail. BTW, sorry to put this in the wrong place, but I wanted to make sure category regulars didn't miss Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Populating primary categories. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found 15 categories about the 2nd century by country:

Category:2nd century years by country

Category:106 by country

Category:157 by country

Category:186 by country

Category:195 by country

Category:2nd century in Ireland

Category:Years of the 2nd century in Ireland

Category:100s in Ireland

Category:150s in Ireland

Category:180s in Ireland

Category:190s in Ireland

Category:106 in Ireland

Category:157 in Ireland

Category:186 in Ireland

Category:195 in Ireland

All subcategories of these are among the other categories. The categories contain a total of 4 articles: 106 in Ireland, 157 in Ireland, 186 in Ireland, 195 in Ireland. The total amount of content in those 15 categories and 4 articles (excluding navigation) is:

Ireland in the 2nd century.
Events

106. Battle of Moin An Chatha, in Magh Line, Dal Araidhe

157. Battle of Tuath Amrois.

186. Battle of Ceannfeabhrat.

195. Battle of Maigh Mucruimhe near Athenry.

Sources (same in all 4 articles)

List of Published Texts at CELT — University College Cork's Corpus of Electronic Texts

That's 15 categories for information equivalent to a short stub. It looks to me like we send our readers into a labyrinth of dead ends. I don't think we have enough country by year information for this period to justify all these categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn! Please refer to all the arguments above re "under-construction". Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what else is recorded as happening in Ireland in that date range? Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 mentioned one-line "articles" were all created in September 2006 and none of them have added a single character of actual content since then. 13 of the 15 categories constructed to contain these 4 short lines of information were created in 2008 (and the last two in February 2007). I suggest writing about the second century in Ireland instead of creating several new categories for every existing written line. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough
OK, time to close this.
It is clear there is no consensus and
The majority is clear in favour of keeping the categories.
Proposal fails due to lack of consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yours is not the final word on this. This is not a straight up democratic "vote", and those who have objected to the categories have presented convincing arguments, IMO. Those who have opposed haven't said much apart from "give us more time". An admin will have to evaluate the strengths of these arguments. Zoporific 00:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - No they haven't. They have clearly failed to convince a single member of the majority here; talking to the like-minded isn't making "convincing arguments". Those who have opposed have said that this proposal is disruptive, utterly unnecessary and the the editors putting the work into building this find the current structure very useful. These things are always closed by an Admin - I'm merely saying it's time some Admin did so. And only one decision is consistent with the discussion; proposal FAILED. Sarah777 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Five pillars starts: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers." These categories should not be designed for maintenance or other editing purposes. If you need something for that then make a list in project space or add categories to the talk pages. The discussed categories should be designed to organize mainspace articles for the benefit of the readers. I don't think they do that. Instead, I think they are likely to waste time for the readers and annoy them. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suggest that the only people that are remotely likely to be annoyed are a certain tiny group of Wiki editors. If there are no articles there is nothing for the reader to read; and the articles are being written to be read, surely? Your speculation on the views of the reader is just that - speculation (that I'd regard as plain silly). In my opinion continuing to push this issue is being disruptive and wasting the time of productive editors. Sarah777 (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Sarah, you've expressed your opinion, probably more than anyone else on this post. The point is it's not your decision to make when and how to close the nomination. I don't think there's any danger of anyone not understanding your point of view by now. Zoporific 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter has a point that all of this should be for the benefit of readers, not editors, but I don't think that anyone would disagree with that. However, it's precisely to benefit readers that a comprehensive system of categories and year-in-Ireland articles is being constructed. I think we all agree that at the moment it's incomplete; this discussion is really about what to do in the meantime.

The editors working on these articles and categories want more time to flesh out the skeleton which is currently in place, but the deletionists would have us knock it down on the grounds that a partially complete structure is unsatisfactory.

This seems to me to be a strange logic. First, it assumes that rebuilding the structure will be easy and straightforward, while the editors involved in creating the content have repeatedly explained that this will involve a lot of extra work.

And secondly — crucially, IMRHO — the deletionist argument ignores that thee categories and the related year-in-Ireland articles are part of huge series of articles and categories which have been carefully designed for ease of navigation with templates to ensure consistency of categorisation and cross-linking.

I fear that the deletionists have not spotted this, nor understood its importance, so I'm going to spell out again. In the past, these articles and categories were manually categorised, leading to all sorts of gaps and inconsistencies in categorisation. That's a disaster for readers, a much more severe problem than underpopulated categories, because it leads to categories and articles not being made available to readers in the places where they should be in the category tree.

For that reason, templates for Irish chronology always place each category and article in the appropriate categories. They don't check to see if the categories exists, because if that is done, then consistency is lost.

Deleting these categories without touching the templates will leads to a series of redlinked category entries on articles, which is usually deprecated. But while the redlinks could be avoided by making the templates apply #ifexist conditional tests, that would break the consistency of categorisation.

Yes, underpopulated categories are best avoided, but not at any price, and cost of the zealous deletion of these categories will be to undermine one of the few year-in-country article-and-category series which is accurately and consistentently cross-linked. It seems to me really silly that through over-zealous pursuit of one laudable goal, we are facing the prospect of causing much greater damage by removing consistency of categorisation from such a huge series of carefully-organised and cross-linked articles and categories.

I suggest that if the deletionists are really interested in helping the reader and in not undermining the work the editors who are creating the content for the readers, that they join us in a discussion at WT:IE to explore possibilities for alternative structures which might meet all side's concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "deletionists" have correctly noted that most of the categories contain one article and aren't likely to contain more at any point, while the "inclusionists" carry on creating the same disputed categories. Unless I'm missing something, no templates will be broken by an up-merge to the decade categories. For example Category:500s in Ireland has no template for individual year sub-category links. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please check again — you are missing something. The Category:500s in Ireland indeed has no template for individual year sub-category links; the links are in the articles (e.g. 506 in Ireland).
And the deletionists claim that the categories are not likely to contain more articles, but the those opposing disagree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 9 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 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary layer of categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I assume the nomination is not an attack on the whole concept of Category:Fictional characters by author, but just a complaint that this had only one sub-cat and no other articles. Keep now, as I have just populated it with 2 lists from the author's other novel series. In any case, the sub-cat should also be kept as it fits within a separate category & taxonomy for that novel series. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that the category has been expanded. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:25, 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 upmerge. Kbdank71 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Canadians of Doukhobor descent to Category:Canadians of Russian descent

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. When closing the previous discussion as no consensus, I looked at this category with two entries. Seems like overcat. If upmerged it will not overload the parent category which has nine members. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there were 70,000 Doukbours who came to Canada before WWI so eventually it might get more articles, however, Doukhobor is really more of a religious than ethnic category, and I'm assuming the people in the article aren't practising. Kevlar67 (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Kevlar67 notes, Doukhobors are a religious sect, not an ethnic group separate in any significant way from regular Russians. A category for notable practicing Doukhobors would be valid; a category for non-practicing people descended from Doukhobors is just OCAT. Ergo, upmerge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as original nominator. Religion of one's ancestors is not defining. LeSnail (talk) 18:38, 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 no consensus. Kbdank71 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - redundant layer of categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also lacks context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but you have also nominated the head category Category:Garth Nix characters, Otto; they can't both be redundant. I have just populated that one with lists of characters in the authors' other series. In any case, this one fits multiple taxonomies, namely the head category Category:Old Kingdom series for the book series. I've added an explanation and link to answer Carlos' plea for context. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge to Category:Garth Nix characters. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:28, 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 keep. Kbdank71 17:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by company Plus all sub categories.

per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 23#Category:Home Depot

I open these categories up for a deletion debate. The goal is to establish that company categories are indeed allowable under category guidlines. Reading the Home Depot debate... there appears to be some ambiguity as to why the Category was deleted. Can I create Category:Home Depot People? How about bringing back Category:Home Depot? Let's get it on the table... if they should be deleted then they should be deleted. Another option maybe to turn them into lists.
Keep it is not an over categorization to have acategory for peopleare associated with a certain corporation. Itis a useful research tool for those people looking to research corporate history and events. Many of the notable people involved with certain companies are not mentioned on the companies main article entry and only through a category like this will researchers be able to gain more information.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all that have a people or similar modifier - on general principles. People by company categories should be deleted as being no more defining than actors by television series are. People can and do work for a variety of companies in the course of a professional career. Those categories that aren't specifically about people associated with the company (e.g. Category:Procter & Gamble) may be useful container categories for non-person categories related to the company and should be considered separately. Otto4711 (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy with this nom - I don't think the old argument offered by Otto above actually works for everybody. It did not succeed here [[1]] and rightly so - the majority of these people spent their whole working lives in one institution. The comparison of CEO's with actors does not really work - very few CEO's get more than 3 companies into their career at that level - most only get one. At the same time, not all workers are categorizable by employer - not everyone with a summer Mcjob etc etc. We need a sensible compromise agreed, allowing us to categorize: senior management, long-term designer-type roles, people strongly associated with a company by committing fraud/horrible accident/whistleblower etc. It might be as well to set a limit of 3 companies per person as a control. Relatively few companies have enough notable "people" to justify a sub-cat (and Home Depot did not seem to be one of them). Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I too have been struggling with this nomination. Unlike many other people categories where someone is a member simply from association, some of these are actually based on notability gained from having worked at the company. Given that, some of these categories will likely be defining characteristics. So doing these as a group likely should be defeated as a group. There may be some here that can be deleted, but others not. Also, in some cases here, individuals have spent long times, even careers, at the company. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all If the people are important to the company, they'll be mentioned in the article, if not, not defining. Once these are gone, the veterans categories ought to go as well, as most people who put in a year-or two-or four especially during peacetime are not defined by their military experience either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Category:Yahoo!, Category:Enron, and Category:Procter & Gamble. These should not have been included in this discussion. While they have some people articles, they have have many articles that are not people. Major corporations that have lots of articles should have a catgegory to collect them together, such as these three. I have no comment at this point on the actual people categories. Hmains (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your argument with Category:Yahoo! which is mostly not people but Category:Enron has a lot of people, and Category:Procter & Gamble is exclusively people (just like the home depot category which didn't have the word "people" in the title) so it absolutely belongs here.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you look again. I upmerged some of the articles in Category:Procter & Gamble yesterday, and it is not only people. There are at least two products, two articles on companies and the sub categories. So this is not a people only category. In just looking at Category:Enron it has at a minimum, a book and two films. I don't need to look further. It is not only a people category and should not have been nominated under that pretense. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's got 3 articles and 5-8 people. If you remove the people, is a three article category even necessary?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you re read my nomination and the Home Depot discussion... my point was that there was ambiguity about why the home depot category was deleted. Some people DID feel that all company categories should be deleted. That's why they're part of the discussion. You should definetly continue to voice your opinion that people categories may be bad and company categories are good... here's my question back to you on that... aren't company categories, without the existence of people categories, going to have people added to them by default... how would you police that?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Am I reading this nomination correctly, in that it actually covers maybe 500-1,000 categories if not more? It does not appear to be limited to the categories listed above. Based on the inclusion of the categories mentioned by Hmains what other potential problems might be hidden in the vast mass of categories nominated? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The more you dig into the categories the more issues are raised. Category:Directors of IBM is part of another tree. So if it is deleted here and the rest remain, we may do a disservice to the encyclopedia. I think this nomination should be withdrawn and reconsidered. There are too many issues. And to everyone who has voted to delete, do you really want to delete Category:Wikimedia Foundation? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I think the nom is to open a discussion rather than mass deletion. Just picking McDonalds people at random there is no case for deletion (or for upmerge to Category:McDonald's). Some XXX people cats may be unworthy - it just has to be done case by case. Home Depot - "employs more than 355,000 people and operates 2,164 stores" - yes, it should have eponymous categories IMO and deletion review is the way to go. Occuli (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question What does "it should have eponymous categories IMO" mean? The Home Depot category was deleted for the same reason given by people who support these categories being deleted. There is no difference.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that I think it should have categories Category:The Home Depot and Category:The Home Depot people (or at least Category:The Home Depot CEOs). (The cfd nomination was for a simple rename. It's not satisfactory that an attempt at a rename should be at the risk of deletion.) Occuli (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my thought. The guy goes in there to ask for a category to be renamed and next thing you know the whole thing gets deleted.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all unless better individual cases are made, per my comment above & those of others, above. McDonalds - which presumably could in theory have hundreds of notable vacation-flippers - is indeed a good example - 14 people, most senior execs, one murdered-at-work, one record-breaking burger-gobbler, and the wife of Ray Kroc, who at least spent a lot of the profits. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are you saying Mcdonalds is a good example for a keep or a good example for a delete?--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good example for a keep. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all. The nomination says "Category:People by company Plus all sub categories." A large number of subcategories have no CfD tag. Many of them are also subcategories of other categories and a part of other category structures. And are all subsubcategories (for example Category:American astronauts in Category:NASA personnel) supposed to be included in the CfD? There may be thousands of bios for which the only category related to the subjects field is a nominated subcategory. If a persons association with a company is not important to their notability then the category can be removed on an individual basis, for example people who had a low company position in their youth before becoming notable for other things, or board members who became notable for other things and have been on many company boards as side jobs.

Regarding the deleted Category:Home depot, it never had a deletion tag. The template box said "This category is being considered for renaming to Category:The Home Depot. This does not mean that any of the articles in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for Discussion page." Should it have been deleted without retagging? Some people may have seen the category and not cared about the minor renaming the CfD was alledgedly about. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is an outcome that can result from the discussions. This is a normal occurance and not a surprise result. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those with a sustainable and relevant number of entries (eg the IBM employees one with 166 entries), merge the rest to the category for their company or organisation. Orderinchaos 11:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while researching the history of several major restaurant organizations, I found that there area many individuals that have had a major impact on the industry as a whole while working for several companies throughout their careers. By associating these individuals with "company people" categories you can allow the reader to see how an industry boosts it self as a whole and how that individual fits into his profession. --- Jeremy (talk) 18:15, 4 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 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - we don't categorize on the basis of former affiliations. Otto4711 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete None of the people in the category are famous because of their former membership of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. (I do not agree with Otto4711 generalization about this kind of categories, but in this case, I believe s/he is right.) Andries (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to main category for the party. Both became notable as politicians whilst members, then left to found their own parties. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to main category for the party, per Johnbod (which seems to be Category:People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). Each of the 2 persons was an elected representative of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, not merely a member. (One was a Minister.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:29, 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 no consensus. Kbdank71 17:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category clearly violates WP:BLP,WP:OCAT, WP:NPOV and it faces the exact same problems as teh Category:Racists and the Category:Anti-Semitic people[2]. Yahel Guhan 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please look at the closely related recently endorsed deletion of category:critics of Islam ~~pending~~ Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_27 Andries (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see it! Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the recently endorsed deletion of category:critics of Islam Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_27. Andries (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is not a true equivalent to Racists or Anti-semitic people because that category is based specifically on an opinion. Activist categories are based on affirmative actions undertaken. I haven't yet formulated an opinion on the category, but that aspect of the nomination doesn't wash. Otto4711 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed for the one person in the category. And anti-Islam has so many aspects. Who tells us that the person is anti-Islam (as opposed to pro-something other than Islam). Isn't every evangelical anti-Islam in the sense that they reject the prophethood of Muhammad and would like everyone to believe as they do and not as Muslims believe? And what makes you an activist? Walking in peaceful marches? taking communion believing in the Presence or the Living Body of the Son of God - all contrary to Islam. Or having a beer and pork chops? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've had a delete on 'anti-Islam writers' and on the Critics of Islam, so this is no different from anti-Islam activitists. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly rename. The precedents pointed out do not necessarily relate to this category. As Otto4711 points out above, this is not about a subjective category of opinion, but a category based on definitive actions and self-casting. It's unquestionable that a large number of people are notable (in some cases almost exclusively) for speaking out against Islam and/or its related customs. Additionally, the category is very new and has not yet had time to populate. Those both being so, the complaint about it being a category intended for one or few people just doesn't wash. Addressing the facetiously broad rhetorical questions of Carlossuarez46, the category is explicitly intended for those "whose anti-Islam activism is an identifying characteristic or whose notability is related to it". That is, simply rejecting Islam or writing the occasional apologetic holding Christianity above Islam does not come close to qualifying a figure for the category. The two examples cited by Matt57 are false precedents, though put forward in good faith. In both cases, the vagueness of the categories and their requirements were the major factor in their deletion. Checking deleted revisions, Category:Anti-Islam writers had no inclusion criteria. Category:Critics of Islam stated it was simply for those who had "participated in the criticism of Islam". This category has more stringent criteria, avoiding the fatal flaws of the previously discussed categories. All in all, there have been no relevant precedents cited and no solid policy-based reasons for deletion provided thus far. Vassyana (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Addressing the policies cited by the nominator: BLP and NPOV are both not violated if being an anti-Islam activist is a commonly noted defining characteristic or if such activities are an integral part of the subject's notability. Addressing WP:OCAT, there is nothing that applies to this category negatively. The closest criteria of OCAT would be those regarding trivial descriptions, categorization by opinion and subjective criteria. Since the category is based on defining characteristics and activist activities, OCAT does not apply. Vassyana (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the deleted Category:Critics of Islam, which was deleted because it was being overused like crazy, and add a note that it is only for people for whom the criticism of Islam is a defining activity, not ever public figure who has expressed disagreement with some aspect of (say) Saudi domestiic legislation. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that is impossible due to the unanimous CFD and the subsequent endorsement of the deletion at deletion review. Andries (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like many categories, there is a gray area, but that is not a valid reason to delete it: the category:catholics does not get deleted only because lapsed catholics exist too. Andries (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name of this category brands people in a negative way: the words "anti" and "activist" together in one expression are seldom used to mean anything positive. Secondly, the category contains only Dutch politians. Other countries have different traditions in criticism of islam, and will certainly have other ideas of what constitutes an "anti-islam activist". Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 10:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I admit that the terms "anti-" and "activist" has slightly negative connotations, but what do you suggest as a better alternative? I do not know any, except category:critics of Islam which will remain deleted. Andries (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree we need a category. Category:People involved in controversies over Islam? or "over the relations between Islam and the West"? Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People involved in controversies over Islam is more neutral, but also less clear and an unwieldy name. Anyway, thanks, for your suggestion. I find the behavior of people who vote for deletion without offering an alternative title or name for a clearly required category not constructive. Andries (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"People involved in controversies" is a bunch of weasel words. Anyone either critical of Islam or anyone pro-Islam who says or does anything that is controversial gets dumped together - not meaningful: so, we get the Pope, Putin, Osama bin Laden, John Walker Lindh, Farrakhan, and Muhammad Ali all grouped together because they have soooooooo much in common. Laughable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 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 keep. Kbdank71 16:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian Americans in music to Category:Asian-American musicians Funk Junkie (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American classical composers to Category:African-American classical composers Funk Junkie (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romanian American musicians to Category:Romanian-American musicians Funk Junkie (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexican American musicians to Category:Mexican-American musicians Funk Junkie (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American musicians to Category:Jewish-American musicians Funk Junkie (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jamaican American musicians to Category:Jamaican-American musicians Funk Junkie (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American rappers to Category:African-American rappers Funk Junkie (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American musicians to Category:African-American musicians Funk Junkie (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object: the norm is to not use dash. Instead of these nominations, the foo-American categories that exist should be nominated to remove the dash. Hmains (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Hmains. Several of these, in fact, did once exist at the proposed format, but were specifically moved to the current one by CFR discussion. If you feel strongly that the hyphens should be present, that's a perfectly valid question to bring to CFR — but it's not a speedy. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel strongly. There are several categories containing dashes such as African-American singers, Scottish-Americans and so on, so I thought the dash should be there. Also, most of the subcategories in Brazilian people by ethnic or national origin have a dash. Funk Junkie (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly object. Actually the hyphen in Asian American is considered obsolete, like referring to an Asian American as "oriental." миражinred (speak, my child...) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per Mirazhinred. (See previous discussion from 2006 which did not reach a consensus). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage (use of the hyphen to distinguish between "British ordering" and "American ordering") is confusing, does not reflect real-world usage, and should be struck. cab (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion categories OCAT by race/ethnicity/religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My personal preference is the hyphen and WP:NCCAT#Heritage seems to support it, but it looks like it isn't used in practice. I just wish one method would be used consistently. On Wikipedia there are African-American actors who work for African American film directors, and African American children who belong to African-American families. Does anybody know if this is something I can get speedily renamed, or if I should nominate the hyphenated African-American cats at CfD? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I would have to assume that the names of the articles for these ethnic groups are based on the most common usage, and I don't think any of these articles have a hyphen in their names. If there is a consistency issue with other categories using the hyphen, then maybe it's time to move the hyphenated category names to un-hyphenated names. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasons stated by HongQiGong. I also think its a good time to rename the "hyphenated category names". They seem to go against common use. Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 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 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:King of the Geats to Category:Kings of the Geats — Snocrates 08:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should this be Category:Geatish kings (mentioned in main article and Category:Geatish clans) -- pb30<talk> 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but main article is still at King of the Geats, so category should follow article name. Snocrates 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag updated at this timestamp. Snocrates 00:27, 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 Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British colonial regiments to Category:Colonial regiments of the United Kingdom — Kirill 10:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that this qualifies under any of the criteria. Snocrates 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The by-country convention for military units and formations (WP:NCCAT#State-based topics) applies, no? Kirill 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Britain and the United Kingdom are not the same thing. This category includes historical regiments, some of which existed before the United Kingdom did. Snocrates 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. I suppose we'll need to go through the contents in detail. Kirill 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination can be withdrawn at this point, I think; it'll clearly require some more complex work than a simple renaming. Kirill 01:28, 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 merge/split per Choser. Kbdank71 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indo-Paki Ayatollahs to Category:Indo-Paki ayatollahs — Snocrates 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lebanese Ayatollahs to Category:Lebanese ayatollahs — Snocrates 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Iranian Ayatollahs to Category:Iranian ayatollahs — Snocrates 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Iraqi Ayatollahs to Category:Iraqi ayatollahs — Snocrates 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ayatollah appears to be capitalized in articles, should it really be lowercase? -- pb30<talk> 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that when used as a title for a specific person, it could be capitalized, but when we are using it in a general sense, it should not be. I essentially adopted the approach used with the categories for popes: we would refer to "Pope Benedict XVI" but the category is Category:German popes. Snocrates 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: They still have speedy rename tags, which need updating. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tags updated at this timestamp. Snocrates 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not having formulated an opinion on the nom as a whole, the construction "Indo-Paki" seems very weird to me. "Paki" is, AFAIK, an insult to Pakistani people so absent some compelling reason for retention it probably shouldn't be used in a category name. Otto4711 (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, although it is an insult in the UK almost exclusively, but "Indo-Pak" and "Indo-Paki" are very standard abbreviations in India and the diaspora, especially in politics/diplomacy/war etc. Try them on google. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom except split Category:Indo-Paki Ayatollahs to Category:Indian ayatollahs and Category:Pakistani ayatollahs. Given the distribution of Shia, the categories besides Iraq and Iran will be small; however, the situation is analogous to Category:Popes who subcats have survived various discussions. I attribute "Indo-Paki" to Muhammad Hussain Najafi (Ayatullah), who was born before either India or Pakistan existed, but then most Category:Italian popes came long before the creation of the state of Italy. There are no occupational subcategories of Category:South Asian people.-choster (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom except split Category:Indo-Paki Ayatollahs to Category:Indian ayatollahs and Category:Pakistani ayatollahs per Choster. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom except split Category:Indo-Paki Ayatollahs to Category:Indian ayatollahs and Category:Pakistani ayatollahs per Choster. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 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 rename. Kbdank71 15:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Onsens to Category:Onsen Criterion #3: This was moved to the plural, and now we want to move it back to the earlier Onsen (which was already plural). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Category:Onsens? and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Pluralization. The latter specifies pluralizing according to the major English dictionaries. "Onsen" does not appear in Merriam-Webster, whereas it does appear in OED, which gives the plural as "onsen" (not "onsens"). Fg2 (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose speedy move back : Actually, OED provides two alternative plural forms. One is "unchanged"; the other is made by adding an "-s". Words in English are usually pluralized by adding an "s", so most users would intuitively recognise "onsens" as the plural of "onsen". Snocrates 06:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snocrates is correct about the dual plurals in OED. I missed the "-s" (probably a case of "just sees what he wants to see"). I still support Category:Onsen as the name of the category for reasons like the ones Jpatokal and Nihonjoe gave. Fg2 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support move back. "Onsen" is not a common word in English (eg. dictionary.com gives no results at all) and thus, according to MOS:JP, should not attempt to form Anglo-Saxon plurals. See also Category:Geisha and Category:Samurai for existing examples of a category using the Japanese plural. Jpatokal (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support move back. per Fg2 and Jpatokal. Oda Mari (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a full CFD should be proposed. Snocrates 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Onsen per above. It is already plural. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag updated at this timestamp. Snocrates 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support move back. Plurals without an "s" are not unheard of in English (deer, for example). I also agree with the reasoning provided by Jpatokal and Fg2. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note with amusement that the article Onsen alternates between using both forms of the plural. Snocrates 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have corrected this error. Thank you for pointing it out. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support move back per each of the above arguments. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support move back to Onsen. LordAmeth (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support move back to Onsen per the experts above. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 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 15:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Chinese in Japan to Category:Chinese expatriates in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Target category conforms to the convention of Category:Expatriates in Japan; while source category is ambiguously named (Chinese food in Japan? Chinese language in Japan?). The ones who are naturalised/born as Japanese (e.g. Chen Kenichi) should be removed and placed into Category:Japanese people of Chinese descent, while the article Chinese people in Japan is probably the best main article of both of those categories. cab (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support in the sense that I'm not against it, but I'm concerned that Category:Japanese people of Chinese descent and Category:Chinese expatriates in Japan are two groups of people that are basically the same in the context of reader interest, or at least very similar, especially since both categories are very small in terms of number of articles. Would Category:Ethnic Chinese in Japan or Category:Chinese people in Japan be better, even though the naming would not conform to the sub-categories in Category:Expatriates in Japan? A category like that would include articles from both Category:Chinese expatriates in Japan and Category:Japanese people of Chinese descent (everybody currently in the latter category happens to live in Japan, at least I assume). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:33, 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 merge. Kbdank71 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ultra-Royalists to Category:French Ultra-royalists

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate categories. The less-specific category is defined as being members of "a reactionary faction which sat in the French parliament from 1815 to 1830". I suggest keeping the specification "French" is helpful, but it could also be merged the other way. Snocrates 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support there should be other ultra-royalists in the world... 70.55.85.35 (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The two categories cover the exact same subject. Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 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.

January 30

Category:Flooring

Category:Ramayana

Civil servants of sub-national governments

Category:Nepal Army Involved Peace Missions

Category:Hamlets in the Town of Fallsburg

Category:Wallonian people

Years in Ireland

Category:499 in Ireland[edit]

Category:Garth Nix characters

Category:Canadians of Doukhobor descent

Category:Old Kingdom series characters

Company-People Categories

Category:Former members of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy

Category:Anti-Islam activists

foo Americans ... to foo-Americans

Category:King of the Geats

Category:British colonial regiments

Ayatollahs

Category:Onsens

Category:Chinese in Japan

Category:Ultra-Royalists