< August 20	August 22 >

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. --Xdamr^talk 12:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category isn't really populated by anything, and it probably won't expand at all. The current articles within it are likely to be merged at some point anyway. TTN (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment if characters are categorized by genre, this could get populated... since it's japanimated porn. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- I have little clue what this is about, but the charcaters from a fictional work are usually best merged inot a single article, after whcih there is nothing to categorise. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment if an article exists on a character from Japanese cartoon porn (Hentai) then it would populate this category. If the characters are merged into a list, wouldn't it still populate this category? 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but it would contain too few articles to be a category. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as too small, unless this will be populated in the next few days.

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 Category:21st-century female professional wrestlers to Category:Female professional wrestlers. --Xdamr^talk 12:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded and too specific. There is already a category for female professional wrestlers. TJ Spyke 14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as part of a larger schema (Category:21st-century sportswomen) Mayumashu (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upmerge – this is not the way to go (although one must admire the boundless energy of those who create and populate these tiny intersections). Occuli (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Since the parent Category:Female professional wrestlers has over 200 articles this doesn't seem like a "tiny" intersection-- but rather a way to break-up one large category that can't fit all on one page anyhow. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is it. And if we were to place all female sportspeople of the 20th century at Category:20th-century sportswomen, we ve have a list of a few if not several thousand Mayumashu (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Seems useful.--WillC 15:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - the usual way to subcat Category:Female professional wrestlers would be by nationality, and then (if US) by state. There is no reason why there should not be some large cats, such as Category:1960 births (and I would suggest Category:21st-century people and then leave it alone). Occuli (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Category:Female professional wrestlers. I have grave doubts of the merits of splitting sportspeople by period. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per Peterkingiron. I rather oppose many of the subcategories per century. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 (re-created deleted material and creation of a banned user). Category was previously created by User:Pastorwayne and was deleted via CfD. New category was created by User:West Bishop, a sockpuppet of User:Pastorwayne. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Ack. The description of the category reflects the problems with this category: "A category for Preacher's kids, as for others whose parentage is significant. Children of all preachers are included, of all religions." I'm not sure what "as for others whose parentage is significant" means, but it's specious. It uses a collquialism to define "children of clergy", which does not apply to children of, for example, a child of a rabbi. There is an extant article, List of children of clergy, which would effectively duplicate this category, and a category under which that page falls, Category:Religion and children. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom & for not scratching the surface of what would be an enormous category. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Moreover, the title is too informal. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – I have a feeling that something similar has been deleted before. The closest I could find was Children of Protestant Ministers. There is the article Preacher's kid. (However Military brat and Category:Military brats, which was kept at cfd, are perhaps analogous.) Occuli (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - with different inclusion statement, as similar to Category:Military brats, Category:Children of national leaders, and other "children of" categories. Who one's parent(s) is/are often is significant in one's own accomplishments and notability. Category:Preacher's kids was used as the name because of the article Preacher's kid. Perhaps a better category would be Category:Children of clergy? It would certainly be more inclusive. West Bishop (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -- This is a significant characteristic, known by that term. It is partly derogatory in the sense that it is often applied to those who rebel agaisnt their parent's principles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - this is categorization based on stereotype. Including someone in this category asserts a conclusion that these people exhibit one of the two (contradictory and in one instance unsourced) behaviour patterns ascribed to the offspring of clergy in the article. Does anyone seriously believe there's some unifying trait amongst Tori Amos, Ingmar Bergman and The Wright Brothers based on the occupation of one or another of their parents? Otto4711 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 Category:Coastal defence ships classes to Category:Coastal defence ship classes. --Xdamr^talk 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Coastal defence ships classes to Category:Coastal defense ship classes

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The suggested merge target was selected because it was created back in 2006, while the suggested merge candidate category was created in January 2009. (It also has an unnecessary plural at the end of the word ship.) I personally have no preference on which spelling of defence or defense is used, but there should really be only one category. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per nominator, elimnation the plural. And I even prefer "defenSe" as well. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 Category:Ships of the Republic of the Philippines Navy to Category:Ships of the Philippine Navy. --Xdamr^talk 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ships of the Republic of the Philippines Navy to Category:Ships of the Philippine Navy

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the titles of Philippine Navy and Category:Philippine Navy. Bellhalla (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per strong argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 Category:Music videos directed by Deaton-Flanigen to Category:Music videos directed by Deaton-Flanigen Productions. --Xdamr^talk 12:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Music videos directed by Deaton-Flanigen to Category:Music videos directed by Deaton-Flanigen Productions

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question Were all of these videos created by Deaton-Flanigen Productions? Debresser (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answered on talk page. The company is credited as "Deaton-Flanigen Productions" in most sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 18:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Belgian Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Belgian Naval Component
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Colombian Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Colombian National Armada
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Dominican Republic Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Dominican Navy
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Greek Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Hellenic Navy
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Italian Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Marina Militare
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Japanese Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Morrocan Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Royal Moroccan Navy
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the New Zealand Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Royal New Zealand Navy
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Pakistani Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Pakistan Navy
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Thai Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Royal Thai Navy
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Uruguayan Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the National Navy of Uruguay
Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

Nominator's rationale: These are all subcats of Category:United States Navy ships transferred to other navies but currently use non-standard names for the navies that were the recipients of the ships. The proposed category names use the styling currently in use for each navy's article and/or category. The only exception is for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, which, as far as I can determine, did not have a navy. The proposed name for the Royal Moroccan Navy ships also corrects the spelling of the country's name. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rename per nom. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 08:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename Sounds sound. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. --Xdamr^talk 12:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Any of the singers in this list could die or simply retire tomorrow. Confirmation of tours, albums or not, in terms of definition, if a posthumous album of unreleased Karen Carpenter songs came out tomorrow, is she to be categorized as Category:2000s singers? Wolfer68 (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep – it seems likely that some of them will survive the next few months; if not they can be removed. I expect a few words in the criteria would suffice to clarify the position re Karen C, Elvis, Michael Jackson etc. Occuli (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nomination. Likely or not, we can still never be 100% sure of the future as Wolfer68 says. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - this is WP:CRYSTAL for the next few months. No prejudice to re-creation 1/1/10. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nominator and most eloquently by Otto4711. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 Category:Desserts of Brazil to Category:Brazilian desserts. --Xdamr^talk 12:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Desserts of Brazil to Category:Brazilian desserts

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard name per Category:Desserts by country. Tassedethe (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename. For consistency purposes. — Σxplicit 02:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename - what with this and the nomination below, are you trying to play with our minds Tassedethe? :) Grutness...wha? 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This nomination must be a mistake, because the convention in Category:Desserts by country is indeed, as stated in the nomination below, "Deserts of Country". Debresser (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Heh - a first victim of Tassedethe's nefarious scheme! This is for desserts - the one below is for deserts :) Grutness...wha? 23:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Dessert, in case anyone is still confused. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 Category:Deserts in Colombia to Category:Deserts of Colombia. --Xdamr^talk 12:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deserts in Colombia to Category:Deserts of Colombia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard name per Category:Deserts by country. Tassedethe (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename. For consistency purposes. — Σxplicit 02:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per above. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 Category:Seals to Category:Seals (insignia) as most popular choice. --Xdamr^talk 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Seals to Category:Seals (emblem)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Seal (emblem) and to disambiguate from Category:Seals (mechanical) (and the animals in Category:Pinnipeds). Tassedethe (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename and make into a disambiguation category since there's more than one thing called a seal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to something, but the main article is currently misnamed. Many seals show emblems, but they are not themselves emblems at all. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question - would Category:Seals (insignia) work? Otto4711 (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's certainly better, & maybe the best that can be done - or Seal (authentification), although that risks confusion with electronic ones. Part of the problem is that modern seals often function as logos, and the articles mostly concern "designs of seals", but even in these cases there are one or more physical stamping devices somewhere, which is what the Asian & older western articles are more about. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about Category:Seals (embossing)? Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not the right word for many types - they are stamped or impressed Impression seal. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename. I liked Category:Seals (insignia). Debresser (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. --Xdamr^talk 12:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't see the point of this category. If you remove the article on video game remakes, which doesn't really belong, there's only one article left... Software bloat itself. 74.138.229.88 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Also totally subjective and pejorative. Reminds me of the category Category:Shitty Games that we deleted a while back. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and Shawn. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 Category:Defunct Eastern League teams to Category:Defunct Eastern League baseball teams. --Xdamr^talk 12:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Defunct Eastern League teams to Category:Defunct Eastern League baseball teams

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate category, merge to be correct subcategory of Category:Former Eastern League baseball teams. Tassedethe (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per nominator. BTW, anybody want to take on the "former" category? Debresser (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. --Xdamr^talk 12:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category with no inclusion criteria, and seems very vague. Contents unrelated to Category:Definition otherwise I might have suggested merge. Tassedethe (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete per noinator. If kept, at least 3 of the 4 articles have to be removed from this category. Debresser (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. --Xdamr^talk 12:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Danish people of German descent to Category:Danes of German descent

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Standard naming per Category:Danish people by ethnic or national origin. Tassedethe (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose change. Though I appreciate the effort to achieve consistency, I would rather support changing all of these "Danes" categories to "Danish people". There's no good reason to use "Danes" when the parent category is Category:Danish people. The ethnic descent category are the only ones where editors have used these special nouns to refer to people, rather than the standard "Fooian people". They should all be changed, since not all nationalities have appropriate special nouns that can be used instead of "Fooian people". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Good Ol’factory that the change should be made the other way around. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. --Xdamr^talk 12:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - strikes me as non-defining and, if fully implemented, will result in any number of categories being added to articles since politicians frequently run for any number of offices. Otto4711 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. --Xdamr^talk 12:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dancers from Ireland to Category:Irish dancers

Nominator's rationale: rename per standard for Category:Dancers by nationality. Tassedethe (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - perhaps the intention is to distinguish this from Category:Performers of Irish dance. Occuli (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- we need to distinguish "Dancers from Ireland" (e.g. ballet dancers) from Category:Performers of Irish dance, who may be of other nationalities. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Not so long ago we rename a lot of "Northern Ireland XXX" to "XXX from Northern Ireland". These occupational categories are a mess. Perhaps we should make a clear guideline. I propose "XXX from Country". Debresser (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 Category:Jewellery makers to Category:Jewellers. --Xdamr^talk 22:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Jewellery makers to Category:Jewellers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I believe that these two categories cover the same area so that a merge is appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Modern UK usage is that a Jeweller is the retail outlet; they may well repair jewellry, but they do not make them. I only looked at one article: Barney Barnato and he was a diamond magnate, not a jeweller. Probably needs a rethink, and a tidy up. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'll agree that the Category:Jewellery tree does need work. However these two categories do overlap. I am not opposed to a reverse merge. The definition for jeweler that I could find are 'someone who makes jewelry' and 'someone in the business of selling jewelry' that would say that jeweler is ambiguous and the reverse merge would be better. For the UK retailers, it might make sense to move them into Category:Jewelery retailers of the United Kingdom which would avoid the ambiguous term. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Comment -- I think merge...

Part of the problem here is historical. Until relatively recently jewellers tended to both make and sell mainly their own jewellry, and often to run associated side businesses like money-lending with precious jewelry deposited as security. This traditional pattern persists in India and some other less developed countries (though it is probably changing there as well). The basic language describing the trade developed under these conditions, and jeweller and jewellery-maker meant roughly the same thing. As countries industrialized there was a tendency, becoming very marked perhaps after 1850, for the jewellery trade to become more complex, with manufacturing jewelers, wholesalers, and retain jewellers, with the last increasingly relegating themselves to a selling rather than to a production role. The so-called haute joalliers, dealing at the upper end of the trade -- the famous firms like Harry Winston, Cartier, Van Cleef and Arpels, etc., etc. -- still tended to manufacture in house, but at lower levels less so. The practice never entirely disappeared, " and in fact underwent a revival from the 1960s with the rise of the concept of the "artist-craftsman" both designing and making their own objects (often one offs), many of whom were jewelers with a shop where they sold their own production and other items, and the equivalent of "jewellery art galleries" offering this same group venue for exhibitions either out of their own cities, or if they had no shop.

In some cases, the public confusion has been augmented by the fact that purely retail jewellers tend to like to put out an image of thiemselves as artist-manufacturers in the old tradition, perhaps feeling it results in higher, and less questioned prices. Manufacturing and wholesale jewellers, agreeing, seem obligingly to have tended to keep themselves very much out of the public eye in order not to undercut this "front-end" representation.

I think that the best organization might be to have a master category like "jewelry trades" with a number of sub-headings since the demarcation lines between "occupations" both tend to be fuzzy, and in the case of individual jewellers and firms fluctuating -- sometimes a producer, sometimes a designer, sometimes a retailer, and often all of the above and more as the opportunity presents.

Finally, in Toronto where I live, I haven't run into "jewellery-maker" as a formal term at all; the appropriate term for a person making jewelry would be "manufacturing jeweller" if it is a larger commercial operation, or just "jeweller" if it is individual work or a manufacturing atelier with helpers, but not a commercial factory. A "manufacturing department" is what the workroom areas in a large jewellery shop that made some of their own items might be called. To refer to someone as a "jewellery-maker" would be, to me though I may be unrepresentative in my reaction, ambiguous and a little insulting, implying possibly that the person lacked the requisite artiistic talent and was a mere assembler of poorly designed and executed work? Clearly this is not the intent with the Wikipedia category.

To digress, what might be useful would be to have stronger articles on jewelry history in Wikipedia, particularly of actual jewellery makers as opposed to pure retailers. I notice that some of the histories of the most famous firms are quite spotty, though this may be more attributed to the lack of suitable primary and secondary sources in the area than lack of desire on Wikipedians' part--FurnaldHall (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose merging --This whole tree needs a tidy up and rationlising, but this is not the way to do it. Category:Jeweller might make a good parent, with Category:Manufacturing jewellers (or "jewellery manufacturers"), Category:Jewellery retailers (both for people and companies), but we also need Category:Jewellery trades for related trades such as gemcutter, goldsmith, silversmith etc. Some may need splitting by country, but the structure needs to be got right first. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course we have Category:Goldsmiths, and silversmiths already. You may be right about the tree, but since there seems no consistent distinction between the people in these 2 cats, a merge is a sensible way to start. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Category:Jewellery makers appears to already contain many of the articles for your Category:Manufacturing jewelers and Category:Jewelery trades. I will add that in look at this, I have been struggling with how to split out the manufacturing since you have mass production, haut manfacturing and small craft shops, individuals and tribes. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And many modern ones who clearly are just designers with no practical training. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per above, without prejudice to a new scheme being developed. But the cuirrent categories seem randomly allocated. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose merge per Twiceuponatime. Debresser (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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. --Xdamr^talk 12:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The article in question Sicko film is also up for deletion. I can barely read the page written, but there are no reliable sources I can find that suggest what films are and aren't "sicko films". On looking it up, I can't find any major film source discussing Sicko film outside the Michael Moore film of the same name. Since nothing can be found, i'm nominating this category for deletion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. This is too arbitrary a term and I don't consider it a genre. Mjpresson (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Mjpresson. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[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.

August 21

Category:Hentai characters

Category:21st-century female professional wrestlers

Category:Preacher's kids

Category:Coastal defence ships classes

Category:Ships of the Republic of the Philippines Navy

Category:Music videos directed by Deaton-Flanigen

U.S. Navy ships transferred to other navies

Category:2010s singers

Category:Desserts of Brazil

Category:Deserts in Colombia

Category:Seals

Category:Bloatware

Category:Defunct Eastern League teams

Category:Definitions

Category:Danish people of German descent

Category:Candidates for Governor of Louisiana

Category:Dancers from Ireland

Category:Jewellery makers

Category:Sicko films