< March 31	April 2 >

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Tiptoety ^talk 01:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete/listify or articlify. Defined as "botched or possibly botched executions". Having edited in this area I actually considered creating this once, but decided against it for the following reason. The problem with this category is one of definition: what constitutes a "botched" execution? Is it when the person does not die? Or one in which they don't die at the expected time? Or just one where crazy or unexpected stuff happens (note that Saddam Hussein is included in the category)? This would be a very good subject for a list, or even a full article with examples, since no article about this topic yet exists in WP. I understand why the category might have been created at this point—it's probably easier to group these together this way than go through the "hassle" of writing an article that discusses the different possible meanings of "botched", with explanations of why each of these were "botched" executions. But I do think we should begin converting this to an article at this point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/listify. While I agree that the category makes sense as a grouping of executions that have something in common, it is much better as a list or a full article precisely because this "something" is not always the same thing, as duly noted by Good Olfactory. However, my delete is weak because we used to have a category named Category:Famous patients (not the best of names, granted) that held e.g. Jeanna Giese and Louis Washkansky, but at the moment these are simply two disjoint articles despite having a very significant common property, and that's not a good thing either. GregorB (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; "botched" is in the eye of the beholder - anti-capital punishment people may well consider that all executions are botched except for the unsuccessful attempts which aren't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If anyone wants to use the next few days to create a table called List of executions that were not successful to explain why each one was botched, feel free to do that. Then the reason can be explained along with citations. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually a list should have a corresponding category, but this is one instance where the added specification of a list is necessary to be meaningful. DGG (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 13:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Leeds environs to Category:Districts of Leeds

Nominator's rationale: Following discussions at Talk:Leeds and decision to merge Leeds and City of Leeds. PamD (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, & project discussion. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Districts of Leeds to Category:Places in Leeds

Nominator's rationale: Following discussions at Talk:Leeds - more appropriate name for new combined category. PamD (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, & project discussion. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dark Angel (band) albums to Category:Dark Angel albums

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to preemptively disambiguate. "Dark Angel albums" is not needed for anything else, so why not have this one there? Disambiguation should only be used in categories as an absolute last resort. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Unlike cases such as, say, Category:Alabama (band) albums, I see no ambiguity here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Dark Angel, Dark Angel (band), Dark Angel (album) (not by the latter band), Category:Dark Angel members. I would personally follow the article, Dark Angel (band), as I think category names should give no scope at all for ambiguity. Occuli (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons set out by Occuli and reasons I gave at the identical 2009 JAN 22 CfD that ended in "no consensus". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Occuli, Good Olfactory. No reason to deviate from the norm of having the cats follow the article names and no suggestion that the article name is in the wrong place either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. There is, in fact, consistent and overwhelming consensus and precedent to delete epo categories except in certain cases. This isn't one of them. This category has two subcats, both of which should be Albums by artist and Songs by artist parent cats (and are as noted linked to from the main article). It also has the main article and the nav template. Not exactly helpful for navigation. As for WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, if you want to change it, this is not the place to do it. Kbdank71 13:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category, not needed for the material. The lead article and the extensive navtemplate are more than sufficient for navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category usefully organizes categories including the artist's albums and songs, and would join almost 200 other artists who have such categories as an aid to navigation. There is clearly no consensus for slam-dunk deletion. This nomination (and all other such nominations) would greatly benefit by having the nominator explain why the 200-odd other such categories are ok, while this one must be deleted. An explanation of how navigation is improved by the deletion of this category would also be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you really ought to know by now, neither WP:ALLORNOTHING nor WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a remotely persuasive argument. As I have explained in any number of CFD discussions to which you have been a party (making your pretense of not knowing my argument even more tiresome), WP:OC#EPONYMOUS advises against categories named for people unless the material to be categorized is of such complexity that it is not easily navigated in the category's absence. Clearly, since every song and every album is linked both through the performer's article and through a navigational template, the material does not begin to approach the necessary complexity. Otto4711 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you are proposing all or nothing here, but I have never seen you offer any objective standard that could be met. All I see is here and in the past are arbitrary decisions on your part, almost all of which appear to be delete. My stance is that the categories are an aid to navigation across categories. Can you offer your explanation of how deletion makes Wkipedia better off? Alansohn (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the nom could explain why WP:OC applies at all to a category which appears on exactly 2 articles. (Preamble to OCAT: "For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as "category clutter". To address these concerns, this page lists types of categories that should generally be avoided.") Is the dreaded clutter present on Jeanette Biedermann or on ((Jeanette))? If the concern is that hundreds of articles mentioning JB will be inappropriately lumped into Category:Jeanette Biedermann, why not merely add ((parent category)) per user:jc37 in the close of a similar cfd? Occuli (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is utter nonsense. WP:OC#EPONYMOUS states: In general, avoid creating categories named after individual people, or groupings of people (such as families or musical groups). Articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories) typically are already links in the eponymous article in question. You know this is a part of OCAT. You know this. You have been around more than long enough to know what it means when the word "eponymous" appears in a nomination statement. This eyelash-batting pretense is disingenuous at best and a bad faith argument at worst. Instead of repeatedly busting out this line of bullshit, try explaining how OC#EPONYMOUS doesn't apply. Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, WP:OC#EPONYMOUS is pretty clear. What I don't get, then, is how we ever got to the hundreds of categories in Category:Categories named after people in light of this? It's hard for me to know what to make of this guideline when it seems to have been so widely disregarded, not once, not twice, but hundreds of times. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I will vote to Delete, since I'm not convinced that a Jeanette Biedermann category is essential. Seems to me, though, that WP:OC#EPONYMOUS could perhaps be clarified or expanded in some way to better explain what the rules are: there seems to be such a disconnect that it's puzzling, at least to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ample precedents where consensus agreed on retaining eponymous categories shows that WP:OC#EPONYMOUS is defunct and should be ignored. While I appreciate the usual and customary bullying from Otto, making demands that the authoriteh of his interpretation of policy be respected, we are completely free to ignore it. Not only can consensus change, it clearly already has in this case. The bigger problem with Otto is that his bullying repeatedly descends into profanity, and his approach of "busting out this line of bullshit" demonstrates a basic incivility that comes out when his bullying is challenged. This is a precedent that needs to be busted big time. Alansohn (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ample precedent that eponymous categories should be deleted and navigation templates should be used instead. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is ample precedent that such eponymous categories are retained. Can you offer any policy justification for deeltion? Alansohn (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alansohn, there is indeed ample precedent for retaining. But in terms of policy, wouldn't you agree that WP:OC#EPONYMOUS is quite explicit in this regard? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The ample precedent for retaining shows that WP:OC#EPONYMOUS is no longer policy, and should be safely ignored. Our task is to come up with a dividing line between those eponymous categories that should be retained and those that shouldn't.
      - The only reason why OC#EPONYMOUS might be considered in question is because you and one or two other extreme inclusionists !vote to retain every such category regardless of its contents. You love yourselves some eponymous categories and would rather disrupt and distort the process than critically examine the categories in question. Those few instances where your disruptions and distortions have been bought into instead of being ignored like they should have been do not indicate a change in consensus, no matter how much you'd care to pretend otherwise. There was a perfectly workable compromise/consensus in place regarding these categories. The "dividing line" was clearly drawn until you and a couple of your cohorts decided, with no reasoning or justification, to complain about it. Otto4711 (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Contrary to your continued uncivil personal attack of being an "extreme inclusionist", I have a far more balanced track record of deleting, keeping and merging than "extreme deletionists", such as yourself, offering clear and concise explanations of why categories should be kept, deleted, renamed or merged. My focus is on using the category system as a means of improving navigation, and not as a way for narrow-minded editors to impose and arbitrarily enforce manufactured rules, regardless of their effect on navigation. I agree completely with you that many eponymous categories should be deleted, especially if there are no eponymous subcategories. Where such eponymous subcategories do exist -- as in this case -- a parent category is an extremely obvious aid to navigation. I do appreciate your recognition that the narrow views of a small handful of people that had been imposed here are no longer consensus. What you deemed to be a "perfectly workable compromise/consensus" is no longer the case. As with any changing neighborhood, the old-timers have a choice of welcoming the newcomers into the community and having their interests reflected or doing everything in their power to see that they are excluded and discouraged from active participation in the community. Otto, you have chosen the most uncivil version of the latter. New folks have moved in and consensus has changed; WP:OC#EPONYMOUS is dead. If you insist on staying despite your pervasive incivility, you ought to try and offer a revised consensus on why this category should be deleted when hundreds of other such categories have reached a consensus for retention. Otto, if you can't get along with everyone participating at CfD, given your inability to control your anger and patently offensive profanity, it may well be past the time to move and take your "bullshit" elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Contrary to your claims, "hundreds" of such categories have not been kept following discussion. Hundreds of such categories have in fact been deleted. You have yet to offer a reason why this category, in the face of every article relating to Ms Biedermann being linked through her article, is necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Take a look at the parent category to find hundreds of eponymous categories. The reason I have offered is that the category provides an effective parent for navigation through the multiple subcategories. Even if every single Jeanette Biedermann article is linked through the parent, WP:CLN insists that those navigating from other articles should have the opportunity to navigate using categories, in addition to any other lists, templates or article content that may exist, a parent category is an extremely obvious aid to navigation. The argument you offered for deletion "small eponymous category, not needed for the material" acknowledges that there are larger eponymous categories that would meet your standard. Given the community's rejection of WP:OC#EPONYMOUS as policy, useful suggestions for a replacement policy would be most helpful. Alansohn (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        <sigh> Hundreds of eponymous categories have been deleted over the last couple of years, including several hundred eponymous musician categories. You know this to be so yet to make your non-existent case you continue to pretend otherwise. Exactly how many hundreds of CFDs do I need to link before you drop this nonsense? OC#EPONYMOUS hasn't been "rejected" anywhere outside your own mind. CLN doesn't "insist" on anything, despite your repeated attempts to claim otherwise. CLN states that while categories, lists and navtemplates can often work together, there are instances where one is clearly superior. CLN does not, regardless of your wishes it were otherwise, mandate the existence of any category. And as far as my "acknowledging" that there are necessary eponymous categories, I've been saying that all along so what you hope to prove by pointing it out is unfathomable. Yet again, you have failed to show how this category meets the community consensus of OC#EPONYMOUS. The place to argue against the clear consensus is at WP:OC, not in every stray CFD you stumble across that you want to try to manipulate to establish something that has in no way, shape or form been established. "I like eponymous categories, pay attention to me, I like 'em I like 'em I like 'em so ignore the outcome of hundreds of CFDs that don't support my eponymous category fetish" is meaningless. Otto4711 (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus can change. When results from multiple CfDs show that consensus has changed, prior precedents are made irrelevant and can be, and should be, ignored, leaving WP:OC#EPONYMOUS dead as a doornail. As WP:CLN emphasizes, "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." While there are cases where lists might be superior to categories, all you've done is quoted the statement without showing any reason why that might apply in this one case. I do enjoy your continued refusal to accept that consensus has passed you by, and I would hope that some effort on your part to accept the new reality and to reach an updated consensus accepted by the various interests here would be beneficial. Alansohn (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) And once again, a handful of aberrant results does not indicate the 180 in consensus that you claim it does, especially considering that eponymous categories continue to be deleted, as they were in such recent CFDs as March 3 (six categories nominated, all six deleted), March 4 (two nominated, both deleted), March 11, (seven categories nominated, all seven deleted, even Occuli saw that those were unnecessary) and March 27 (six eponymous categories for TV shows nominated, all six deleted), along with a few mixed in here and there done one at a time rather than several at once. There is simply no support for this notion that consensus about these categories has changed when around two dozen of them were deleted within the last month. I do not enjoy your continued pretense that the consensus here has changed or your misstatements and distortions about that consensus. I don't believe that I argued that listification of this category would serve any useful purpose. What I did say is that the existing lead article and extensive navtemplate will allow anyone interested in Ms Biedermann or any of her work to locate and navigate any such material. Otto4711 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Calvinist organizations. The fight to decide what should and what should not be in this re-named category can continue elsewhere. This rename is not to be read as the final say on what should be in the category. And yes, it would be a breach of process for anyone—even an admin (!)—to unilaterally decide to manually empty a category and then delete it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reformed organizations to Category:Reformed tradition organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name would lead to putting in the name of any sort of organization that has been reformed (with a small "r") but this Category referes to organizations that are part of the "Reformed tradition " or "Reformed faith" a.k.a. Calvinism. --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator seemingly cannot see the difference between Calvinism and the Reformed Churches, although there is at least a small one. I suggest that he perhaps read the article Reformed churches which clearly indicate that there is in fact a difference between the two, in that the Reformed churches are only a part of broader Calvinism. The churches self-identify as "Reformed" in their names, not as "Calvinist", and it seems to me at least to make sense that we acknowledge the churches' own apparent differentiation of themselves from pure "Calvinism". However, Category:Reformed churches organizations, or perhaps Category:Organizations of the Reformed churches would also be acceptable as renames. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at both articles they show no such thing "clearly". If the Reformed chrches do not represent Calvinism, who does? But these categories seem to be falling into the mistake of only categorizing those churches who used "Reformed" in their names. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These (John Carter's) claims are all irrelevant to the need for renaming the category, and are posted here for no good purpose. His proposed names would exclude any organization not associated with a particlar Reformed "church", especially since "churches" with a small "c" is used in the category tree only for church buildings (or their congregations). --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::::Yeah, I don't why John, who I see is an admin, chose to make this so personal: "the nominator seemingly cannot see the difference between Calvinism and the Reformed Churches..."~~ Hey I don't know squat about these churches but the category still seems terribly vague, just for grammatical reasons. Any organization can be "reformed." The upper case on Reformed is of little help, since it could be a proper noun or just sentence case. I like John's suggestions of Category:Reformed church organizations (not "churches", though) or Category:Organizations of the Reformed churches. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see... the nominator's Talk page indicates that this may be related to a larger and somewhat heated discussion about what falls under the Reform church banner? Anyway, I still see it as a basic naming issue, and am happily ignorant of the whole affair, whatever it may be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Category:Organizations of the Reformed churches seems the best option offered. I note (again) that English Reformation, in its anxiety to avoid the word Protestant, several times refers to the Church of England as a "reformed" church, but it is certainly not a Reformed church! There are very few articles in all these categories, it seems to me, & we appear to be in danger of selecting only based on the use of the word "Reformed" in the name, which is partly an accident of history, giving artificial groupings. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Calvinist organizations the category explicitly defines Reformed as Calvinist, so let's call it like it is rather than pussy-foot around. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I seek to avoid John Carter's "Calvinist" vs."Reformed" debate here (it can be found elsewhere), for voting purpose I find Carlossuarez46's Category:Calvinist organizations just as good as my proposal and thus much better that those using the term "Reformed churches" --Carlaude ^(talk) 08:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That would be fine with me, too, as it removes any confusion over the use of the word "Reformed" in this context: i.e., a proper noun or just an adjective of organization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too - though a note should be added to the category, with links to the articles that explain the terms. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be noted, and would be done, that the proposed category would include text to the effect of "The organizations contained within this category are all non-denominational organizations of one or more of the Reformed churches." (denominations fall in their own categories.) Yes, the need is at best a dubious one, but one which might be useful for those who do not think of their churches primarily in the single term "Calvinism". However, very likely, for at least the larger churches which call themselves "reformed", they will in time have their own categories, which many do not now have. In fact, as I go through categorizing and assessing all the articles in the various subcats of Category:Christianity, which I am now trying to do (see User:John Carter/Christianity assessments), I think many of them will be created. If, over that time, this category proves redundant, well and good, I have the power to delete it myself, as an admin. If at that time it should prove valuable, then it can have the appropriate language added to it to prevent confusion. Personally I oppose "Reformed tradition" because that term is possibly even more poorly defined. Reformed churches at least has an article, Reformed tradition does not, as it is just a redirect to Calvinism. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly do not "have the power to delete it myself, as an admin", though it is perhaps rather typical that you think you do. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that perhaps you read Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Speedy delete policy. I have every reason to believe that the catgory, particularly if I chose to depopulate it, would qualify for speedy deletion on that basis. In fact, had the party who started this discussion even advised me formally of it before starting it, I may well have done so on my own. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of the local admins explain to JC why this would be a gross breach of procedure, especially now this debate has been started? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an Admin should not be treating a CFD debate in progress as the occasion for closing the debate as a speedy. The fact that we are having a debate clearly shows it is not a case for a speedy deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose directing to Calvinism/Calvinist: this is a theological position, not a denomination. Comment --"Reformed" is an ecclesiastical stream, and a sub-set of Protestant. Anglicanism came out of the Reformation, but it would not be usual to apply the adjective "Reformed" to it; that also applies to Lutheran. I cannot offer a good suggestion, but possibly Category:Parachurch organizations of Reformed Churches. The present redirect for Reformed tradition is clearly inappropriate (for the reasons given. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Calvinism is not a denomination-- but a theological position(s) and a denominational family-- is why

Category:Reformed organizations is (and/or Category:Calvinist organizations will be) a Parent category to Category:Reformed denominations and not a Sub-category of it.

You will note that

Category:Christian organizations is a Parent category of Category:Christian denominations & not a Sub-category to it.
Category:Lutheran organizations is a Parent category of Category:Lutheran denominations & not a Sub-category to it.
Etc. etc.

There is no need to have separate categories for Reformed Parachurch organizations and Reformed Church organizations. (A parachurch organization-- by definition-- cannot be a Church organization. --Carlaude ^(talk) 06:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. No objections raised.--Aervanath (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Number-one singles on the Canadian airplay chart to Category:Canadian BDS Airplay number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: To match the naming pattern of other similar Number One by chart categories, most of which use the format "[name of chart] number-one singles". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Moot User fixed both categories accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian Country number-one singles to Category:RPM Country Tracks number-one singles and Category:Canadian Country Singles number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: Since Canada has had at least two country singles charts, this needs to be split to match the name of each chart. I suggest Category:RPM Country Tracks number-one singles for all songs prior to 2000, and Category:Canadian Country Singles number-one singles for all songs from 2004 onward (peaks in between don't seem to be verifiable, and may not have been on a noteworthy chart). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. - I would've done that, splitting them by RPM #1's to #1's of Canada's current chart, but I figured that it wouldn't matter since both charts in Canada seemed to be almost the same. But I see where you're getting at. Good idea. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There. - Okay, there. I splitted it into two categories. One for the RPM number-ones, and one for the number-ones on Canada's current chart. I know it may have been too early to do so, but that was a very bright idea that you had. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, recreation ok if the articles are recreated (aka the RD of BRD). And I would caution against discussing editors in CFD discussions (yes, this is directed at, let's see, everyone but Occuli here). Take it elsewhere and don't bring it back. Striking everything that doesn't have to do with this CFD. Kbdank71 13:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed solely for the episode list. It is unlikely that many, if any, individual episodes of MP are independently notable. Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – on 30 March there were several members in this category and Category:Melrose Place characters was not empty. I wonder who removed these, and whether there is any connection with the Melrose Place cfd? Occuli (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it flowed from that CFD. I reviewed the IIRC three episode articles and two character articles, searching for independent reliable sources to establish their notability. Finding none, I redirected them. Otto4711 (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that there was a process for this sort of thing (Prod, followed if challenged by afd) rather than a unilateral redirecting (which you also attempted for Jake the Peg, which is certainly notable although difficult to track down online as it was released in early 1966). (I am unfamiliar with Melrose Place and content to remain so.) Occuli (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you were under that impression were you? Just fell off the banana wagon yesterday did you, haven't read WP:BOLD or WP:BRD, have you? You don't know about redirecting articles, what a load. Otto4711 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Otto4711, let me just say that not knowing about WP:CIVIL is much worse than not knowing about WP:BOLD or WP:BRD. GregorB (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]~~

While Otto's abusive and bullying tactics are bad enough, his complete and utter lack of civility is of far greater concern. I think it's well past time for a CFD to deal with the problem. Alansohn (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep I seem to recall that when a team name changes, a new category is created but the old one is kept. Because as stated, the only coaches that coached the "Red Wolves" did so since the name change. Personally, I don't understand, as all coaches coached the Arkansas State men's basketball team, regardless of what they were called. Perhaps in the future we can gauge consensus for a rename to remove that name from the category, thus making any name changes irrelevant. But until then, this is how it's done. Kbdank71 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in addition, the hatnote on the category does state "Men's basketball coaches at Arkansas State University." which would encompass the Indians and the Red Wolves. --Kbdank71 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final buttinsky note: This couldn't be done for pro teams as they can move, but colleges move far less often. --Kbdank71 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arkansas State Indians men's basketball coaches to Category:Arkansas State Red Wolves men's basketball coaches

Nominator's rationale: Nickname has changed; "Indians" is no longer the correct reference. fuzzy510 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the coaches coached the Indians, not the Red Wolves, this is an anachronism as much as calling Immanuel Kant a Russian because the town in which he was born is now (but not then) in Russia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also: Category:Arkansas State Indians football coaches is properly named. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So then shouldn't we, for correctness' sake, go back and make a new category with the old iteration of a team name? I can understand doing that for professional teams, where different team names can also signify different franchises with different history, but since the college teams have the same history, isn't it just a lot less unwieldy to name it with the current name and make a note on the page that the team's name had changed, a la Category:Syracuse Orange football players? --fuzzy510 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep All (without prejudice to future nomination in smaller batches). I am bringing this CFD to a merciful end because there is clear concensus on the part of knowledgeable editors that it covers far too wide a swath to allow for proper discussion of particular categories or groups of categories. Even if it were allowed to run longer, there is simply no credible prospect of reaching agreement on any course of action. (Non-admin close.) Cgingold (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of:

Propose renaming of:

Neutral: I am nominating these categories because there has been several requests for deletion recently regarding the categorisation of "current" events, with a number of categories being picked off individually. I feel that it would be more appropriate to hold a centralised discussion on the subject, so I am nominating all affected categories for discussion here. I am neutral on the subject, as long as the same action is conducted for all related categories. --G W… 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pointy nomination capturing a variety of category formats that serve different functions. The nomination is far too massive and convoluted for a reasonable discussion to transpire. Otto4711 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not trying to make a point, I am trying to prevent creeping deletion of categories on an issue that should be resolved centrally. They should either be kept, or deleted in bulk, hence this nomination. If you can suggest a more appropriate forum, then please do so. --G W… 17:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Otto. Some of these could be deleted or listified, others could have 'current' removed, others are populated by template ... all seem related to the recent 'current spaceflights' cfd which was in any case a rename, not a delete. Occuli (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I was going to seek review of that decision, however Kbdank71 convinced me there may be consensus against having categories of this type. That is why I started this discussion, and if this proves that the alleged consensus exists, I will stand by it. If this consensus is not forthcoming, then I will ask that several associated deletions be reviewed. I don't have a problem as long as we are consistent. If renaming, merger, or listification is a better option, then by all means propose it. --G W… 18:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is too vast. I am not sure that there has ever been any objection to 'Proposed' or 'scheduled' or 'future' or 'upcoming'. There are plenty of 'category:current XXXs' categories which have been merged into 'category:XXXs'. (Someone had a comprehensive list of cfds. Was it GoodOlf?) Occuli (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Good_Olfactory/CFD#Current_or_former Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, I tried to collapse the nomination list but obviously it didn't work. Anyone with a better grasp on the coding want to take a whack at it? Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure if this is the right place to comment, but in regards to Category:Current infantry regiments of the British Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), this category should be kept. At present there is no way to find out which British army regiments are active from the hundreds of articles about disbanded/merged regiments. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is far to disparate a group of categories to consider as one and far too large a group of categories to consider individually in a group dynamic. Future radio stations and programming, for example, is a dynamic category including a shifting lineup of radio stations as they change formats or complete some aspect of the licensing process. Losing this category would cripple the WPRS efforts to properly maintain radio station articles. - Dravecky (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, or better still speedy keep as disruptive mass nomination of unrelated categories. This lumps "current" categories in with "future" categories, the whole lot combining a huge range of subjects which deserve to be considered on their own merits. The categories which brought me here are Category:Future parliamentary constituencies in London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and the other parliamentary constituency categories, all of which are a logical and coherent way of organising articles on constituencies whose boundaries have been defined and for qhich candidates are being selected, but which have so far not been used in any election. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is not intended to be disruptive. I felt that it was necessary to centralise discussion on this issue. Please could you explain why you feel that "current" and "future" categories should be treated differently. --G W… 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intended or not, it has that effect since there are a bunch of very different issues involved. I wonder about something like Category:Current events as of September 2008. Not sure if this is a maintenance category which should be hidden or something that needs to be deleted. Grouping this one with something like Category:Future airports makes no sense to me and probably many others. Might I suggest that the requester withdraw the nomination and resubmit in smaller pieces. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto, Bhg, etc. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Category:Future aircraft carriers. As large, expensive capital ships which can take years for construction, future aircraft carriers are often notable and discussed in reliable sources. This category serves to keep them separate from active aircraft carriers. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Current events ongoing. I might have said rename, but there is only one entry here and that happens to be up for deletion. If we keep this one, it needs a rename. While I basically support the Keep comments above, there are categories in this mess that need an action other then keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Category:Current bills to Category:United States proposed federal legislation. Not only is the current name ambiguous, I thought it was about paper currency, it really is only about proposed US legislation. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I echo the keep comments above. This nomination is spectacularly poorly bundled of wildly different categories. Adding insult to injury the prod did not even point to the right discussion and I had to do a considerable search to find it since so many categories have been nominated and hidden that they aren't easily found searching the page. At worst it would be a rename. The concept should have been debated on a few categories before becoming broad. I came in because of a prod on Category:Future airports in the United States. This will always be a small number but it's very helpful to see what's on deck.Americasroof (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and renominate in smaller batches With a nomination this complex and sprawling, it's no surprise that there is a lot of bathwater mixed in with the babies. Many of these need an upmerge/merge/rename instead of outright deletion, but with such diversity of categories, it's impossible to hold a meaningful discussion. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Category:Future airports There is a huge amount of difficulty in gleaning information about future airports. Major authorities are not interested in answering inquiries and it is only through a cooperative source such as this that we have a really useful resource. The category has been actively updated in more recent times and for me it is one of the most valuable sources available. I am not sure what other category is being proposed, but at present the existing category seems to me to be eminently sensible. Mikesflight (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2009

I added the Mikesflight comment in proper location after he accidentally overwrote another discussion.Americasroof (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Renaissance sites in the United States to Category:Renaissance revival architecture in the United States

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to have been modelled after sister categories Category:Renaissance sites in Italy and Category:Renaissance sites in Germany. But of course, unlike those two European countries, the U.S. was never a site of the actual Renaissance. It's a Renaissance revival architecture category and should be renamed as such, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -choster (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bond to Category:Bond (band)

Category:Bond DVDs and videos to Category:Bond (band) DVDs and videos

Category:Bond albums to Category:Bond (band) albums

Category:Bond songs to Category:Bond (band) songs

Category:Bond members to Category:Bond (band) members

Nominator's rationale: These are all at present easily confused with other uses of 'Bond', 007 in particular; and per bond (band). Occuli (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename if possible, very obvious confusion with the shaken martini. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match article and to avoid the martini dude and the investment instrument, and a bunch of other uses. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Partisan songs to Category:Yugoslav partisan songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is meant to be a subcategory of Category:Yugoslav partisans, so the current name is too broad. GregorB (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - seems fair. Orderinchaos 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per above PRODUCER (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per above. Occuli (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. Enigma^msg 16:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. It contains one article, which I just added to it, actually. Enigma^msg 07:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. To quote from Category:Albums by artist: "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the onlyalbum the artist has recorded." GregorB (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per GregorB, and in any case there are 2 – someone had removed them, see eg old version. Occuli (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete and I'd like to yet again oh, never mind. If anyone would like to recat these articles in a different category, feel free. I can provide the list of articles if needed. Kbdank71 12:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American players of Australian rules football
Category:Austrian players of Australian rules football
Category:Brazilian players of Australian rules football
Category:Canadian players of Australian rules football
Category:English players of Australian rules football
Category:Fijian players of Australian rules football
Category:French players of Australian rules football
Category:German players of Australian rules football
Category:Greek players of Australian rules football
Category:Korean players of Australian rules football
Category:Lebanese players of Australian rules football
Category:Papua New Guinean players of Australian rules football
Category:Samoan players of Australian rules football
Category:South African players of Australian rules football
Category:Spanish players of Australian rules football
Category:Welsh players of Australian rules football
Category:Zimbabwean players of Australian rules football

Delete: These are all small categories, with the most populated having only three articles.

Only Australian rules footballers in the top Australian leagues pass WP:Athlete and while some may be of European descent, very very few players who qualify for a wiki article are actually of non-Australian nationality. The only significant country that has sent footballers to play in Australian leagues would be Ireland and I thus haven't nominated that category. The others though are already as populated as they can be and have no potential for growth.

I'd suggest deleting them all and adding the relevant players into the already existing Category:VFL/AFL players born outside of Australia. For those that have international backgrounds but weren't born overseas then categories such as Category:Australians of American descent can be used. Jevansen (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment. If, (1) we're going to have players of this sport broken down by nationality; (2) we're keeping Category:Irish players of Australian rules football; (3) we're (presumably) keeping Category:New Zealand players of Australian rules football; and (4) some of the categories above probably include people who are indeed nationals of the other country (e.g., Mike Pyke is unambiguously Canadian)—what would be the rationale for deleting these? If we're going to divide by nationality, I suggest it be done. Completely. But if we're not going to divide by nationality, then let's not do it. But to do it half way and include only nationality categories for Australians, New Zealanders, and Irish people, just because they contain more than 3 or so articles seems somewhat inconsistent? For that reason I would think these would best be considered individually. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will be nominating the NZ category in the future, I just left it out of this group nomination because it was decently populated, unlike those above. That leaves only the Irish category, which remains for a good reason, so it hardly sets a precedent. Ireland play Gaelic football, a brand of football similar to Australian rules. In recent years, the best Irish Gaelic football players and the best Australian rules player compete against eachother in International rules football. My point is that there is a history there and quite a few professional Gaelic footballers who have played at Australian Football League clubs, thus making it a handy category to have. No other country has such an association with our game.

Secondly, you are the one who decided to create a category exclusively for 'Australian players of Australian rules football'. WP:AFL has never had a nationality category for Australians who play the sport. Previously we just grouped everyone into Category:Australian rules footballers, that is - People who play Australian rules football, which had nothing to do with nationality. You could be Kenyan, Dutch or Australian, the category applied to anyone who played the game. The only nationality category which should exist is the Irish one, for the reasons stated earlier.

Finally, the rationale for deleting Category:Canadian players of Australian rules football, for example, is simple, it has no potential for growth, a valid reason according to the CfD guidelines. He hasn't even made his debut yet and if he does he will become the first ever Canadian to play in the AFL. What is the point of having a category with only one person in it? Might as well rename it Category:Mike Pyke. Jevansen (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not the "one" who made the Australian nationality category. (I think you're thinking of Barack Obama there.) The category you refer to was being used as a category for Australians and as a subcategory of the predecessor of Category:Players of Australian rules football by nationality when I found it; i.e., it was acting as a nationality category. I merely suggested we make the name clearer. The Canadian example was just that—an example. What then would be the rationale for deleting, for instance, the New Zealand category, but keeping an Irish category? Why keep the Irish category but not the NZ category, in other words? There are quite a few NZers who live in Australia, and it seems likely to me that there are roughly as many NZ nationals who play the game as Irish nationals. I couldn't really care less if these are divided by nationality, but as I said, either we subdivide by nationality or we don't, but to go half-way seems to me like an ill-advised idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is just simply not true. The category I refer to was being used as a category not just for Australians, but for ALL Australian rules footballers. Granted, at the time of your nomination it seems to have been a subcategory of 'the predecessor of Category:Players of Australian rules football by nationality', but that was a mistake by User:Youndbuckerz, who created all these categories. For the record, this user is not a member of WP:AFL and does not contribute to Australian rules football articles (expect in relation to their 'nationalities'). This does not change the fact that we have never applied Category:Australian rules footballers as a nationality category, perhaps you could have made a query at WP:AFL instead of going to CfD?

As for you other point, I have already explained why the Irish category is a unique case. I would have to look through the NZ one but I suspect it's another case of players of NZ descent being included, rather than just nationality. The big difference is the people in the Ireland category are guys who have generally been recruited to Australia to play this sport while the other includes guys who moved over to Australia as a young child etc. How about this, we delete both and thus have NO nationality categories and for Ireland we can create something like Gaelic footballers who converted to Australian rules football, or preferably something shorter. Jevansen (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the first point—yes, it is "true"—it just requires you to perhaps see things from a point of view of an outsider who came across the category tree without any preconception of what it was. It is not difficult to see that it was being used in both senses, whether you (or the WP:AFL club) were aware of it or not. It in fact created a self-referential loop, but it most definitely was being used as a nationality category in the category system, and no one was making any effort to remove it from the nationality tree.

As to the second point, that is "a" reason to keep the Irish category but none others, but I'm not convinced it's a NPOV or necessarily "good" reason to keep one nationality category. If it's a category for a specific class of players that were recruited, then the category should be renamed that, but not kept as a sole nationality category. So yes, I'd agree that your last proposal is a "better"—meaning more internally consistent—solution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you located Category:Australian rules footballers as a subcat of the nationality category, does not mean it was being used as a nationality. As I explained, User:Youndbuckerz created Category:Australian rules footballers by nationality and populated it with all these subcats, one of which seems to have been the already existing Category:Australian rules footballers, which never belonged there. On the 18th of March, about a day after this occured, I brought the issue of over categorising up at WP:AFL as you can see here. Now this was less than two weeks ago. If the category had been sitting there as a subcat for a year without being removed then u would have a point but in this case it was an error on the part of a user which sooner rather than later would have been spotted. You make it sound like it had been there for an age and dictated how we assigned the category. Jevansen (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were only Australians in it, as far as I saw, and it was in the nationality tree. It was a subcategory of Category:Australian sportspeople, which itself is an ultimate subcategory of Category:Australian people, which is a nationality category—so it was at least quacking, and I figured it was at least half-duck. The non-Australians (or at least those who someone thought were non-Australians) had been removed and placed in their own nationality categories. I think the time period in this regard is irrelevant—what really matters is what was the category being used for at the time of nomination. At the time, it had multiple uses and was a real mess. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No capacity for growth in any of them. Further, why it is ill advised to have only one sub category for Irish players (where there is a demonstrated history of player recruitment) and none for any other nation is a mystery to me. A category tree with a parent cat of "Australian rules footballers" with one sub-cat for the special case of Ireland seems eminently sensible to me. What seems ill-advised to me is creating a sub-category that contains 99% percent of the parent category just because of the one special case of Ireland. A further point about the Irish as there appears to be some confusion. The Irish sub-cat does not contain Irish nationals resident in Australia who took up Australian rules football and were subsequently recriuted. The category contains Gaelic football players who were resident in Ireland and were specifically recruited in Ireland by Australian rules football clubs to change codes and play in the AFL. This situation does not apply for any other nationality and is not likely to change in my lifetime (Australian rules football will never be an international sport). That is what makes the Irish a special case (and different from NZ). Some research before planning bold and wonderful category charges would be a refreshing change. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ill-advised": read—"inconsistent". If it's a category for a specific class of players that were recruited, then the category should be named that, not as a nationality category. I would also appreciate some assumptions of good faith from you, Mattinbgn. Maybe "AGF" is the wrong way to state this, but suffice it to say—You can disagree and state your opinion without making sweeping derogatory characterizations of others' actions and level of knowledge or "research" on a topic. (In fact, it may turn out I know more about the topic than you would think—always something to keep in mind when you are dealing with people for whom you don't know their "true" identity.) Also note that I have made no proposal here for any "category changes". If you're referring to a previous discussion where you didn't get your way, that just sounds like sour grapes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/related discussion. Note that there are some related categories nominated at 2009 MAR 30 CfD. Unlike some of these ones, the categories there are all unambiguously populated with players who are not non-Australian. (If you can figure out that quadruple negative, you win a kewpie doll.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To complicate matters further, Category:Australian rules footballers should probably have never been on player pages to begin with.

It is like Category:Cricketers and Category:Cyclists, a cat that should be populated purely by subcats (players by clubs etc) and not by player articles. This seems to be been muddied by having it included as a subcat of Category:Australian sportspeople when it should only have been in Category:Sportspeople by sport, so in that regard I can understand how it would have looked to User:Good Olfactory. As Matt mentioned up the page, Category:Australian players of Australian rules football seems rather unnecessary as it contains 99% percent of it's parent category.

Would it be reasonable to recreate Category:Australian rules footballers purely as the sport's father category? It of course wouldn't be included in Category:Australian sportspeople. I'd then suggest that, along with the 17 categories proposed for deletion here, we also delete Category:Australian players of Australian rules football. As a precedent, you will notice that Category:American players of American football has all but two player articles and is instead used as a 'father category' for Category:American players of American football by state. Now the state categories are barely populated at all yet all the different national categories in Category:Players of American football by nationality are pretty well populated. So the American Football project is categorising players by nationality if they are not from the USA but is most cases including no national category for a player who is from the USA. If they, one of the biggest sports project on wikipedia, can do it why can't WP:AFL? I propose we keep Category:Irish players of Australian rules football as a subcat of Category:Australian rules footballers and allocate it to the relevant players but don't worry about a specific nationality category for the Australian players. If they're still an argument about keeping the Irish category but no other nationalities then we can look at my earlier suggestion of renaming it Category:Gaelic footballers who converted to Australian rules football. Thoughts?. Jevansen (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all listed, recreate Category:Australian rules footballers per nom, Mattinbgn and comment above. Players by nationality are irrelevant as their nationality is not really covered in the press aside from the Irish players. A category for Indigenous/Aboriginal players may be of use as that does get local press coverage. Per Jevansen, the target category wouldn't be created under Australian sportspeople, but under the code itself. Orderinchaos 09:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; unnecessary over-categorisation. Support renaming the Irish category to something that recognises that the players were recruited internationally/from another code, rather than being Irish-specific. If you leave the Irish category as is, the inconsistency is likely to lead to the recreation of other "nationality" categories over time. Somno (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all- I agree with Jevansen and Mattinbgn. Reyk _YO! 11:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, categories of very limited use, extremely low potential for growth, over-categorisation, and all the other reasons pointed out above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion and move of contents -- Category:Feminist philosophy move contents to Category:Feminism.

Rationale: The contents of both are basically the same category. I am trying to tighten up the social philosophy categories. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Feminist philosophy (and its two sub-categories not mentioned in the proposal) seems a reasonable category to maintain and a better point of intersection than would be the outcome from just swamping into the Feminism category. AllyD (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The nominator appears not to have looked very hard at Category:Feminism, which is a parent category for a wide range of sub-cats of people, literature, and ideas. Feminist philosophy is a distinct subject of academic inquiry, and a logical intersection between feminism and philosophy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with your analysis there BHG, and it's not because I haven't read, do not understand, or am stupid either. Feminism is a theory, feminist theory is obviously also a theory, feminist philosophy is also a theory in the same regard as proof theory and literary theory. It seems to be that there is room for tightening up. Do you understand where I am coming from? If you could restrict you comments to the merits of the proposals, and refrain from conclusions about myself, I would greatly appreciate it. However, with all of that said, I am perfectly willing to accept the consensus of this discussion and work within it. I am merely trying to organize and tighten up these categories... Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, Greag, I wasn't going to bite you. :)

At least not yet ;)

Anyway, I'm not a philosopher, but it seems to me that proof theory and literary theory are are a rather different nature of inquiry, in that they are tools of inquiry rather than philosophical perspectives. I'm sure that a philosopher could rip me apart for my lack of familiarity with the structure of these things, but may I suggest that it would be appropriate to ask for assistance here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism_Task_Force? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Category:Feminist philosophy and Category:Feminist theory might be looked at, though. Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this for the reasons I stated above. Should I propose this merge instead? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kiss to Category:Kiss (band)

Nominator's rationale: Rename Per main article and to disambiguate from kiss. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, per Kiss (band). Occuli (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename if possible definitely not what would be exptected. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nirvana to Category:Nirvana (band)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article and to disambiguate from Nirvana. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, per Nirvana (band). Occuli (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename if possible definitely not what would be exptected. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 1

Category:Botched executions

Category:Leeds environs

Category:Districts of Leeds

Category:Dark Angel (band) albums

Category:Jeanette Biedermann

Category:Reformed organizations

Category:Number-one singles on the Canadian airplay chart

Category:Canadian Country number-one singles

Category:Melrose Place episodes

Category:Arkansas State Indians men's basketball coaches

Temporal categories

Category:Renaissance sites in the United States

Category:Bond

Category:Partisan songs

Category:LoveHateHero albums

Australian rules football

Category:Feminist philosophy

Category:Kiss

Category:Nirvana