< August 27	August 29 >

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:Broad gauge (7 feet) railway companies to Category:Seven foot gauge railways. --Xdamr^talk 12:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Broad gauge (7 feet) railway companies to Category:Seven foot gauge railways

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the other categories in Category:Railways by gauge. NE2 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per correct argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to be consistent with other categories in the parent. Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 4 September 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 Category:University of Alabama athletics to Category:Alabama Crimson Tide. --Xdamr^talk 12:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Alabama athletics to Category:Alabama Crimson Tide or Category:Alabama Crimson Tide athletics (whichever is more standard)

Nominator's rationale: both men's and women's teams are nicknamed 'Crimson Tide' and to disambiguate from University of Alabama at Birmingham and other University of Alabama campuses' athletics 'programs' Mayumashu (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds doubtfull. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful? Mayumashu (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn t checked but, yeah, as it turns out, most pages listed at Category:College athletic programs by college use the sports nickname in the category page name. It seems to be fifty-fifty for including the word 'athletics', so either suggested name would be 'standard' Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to Category:Alabama Crimson Tide My estimate is also 50-50 on including the word "athletics", but I prefer to match to the title of the parent article. We should address the "athletic" issue across the board in a separate discussion. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 4 September 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: speedy delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I've now created Category:Former hospitals in London - in essence after creating Closed hospitals, I decided Former hospitals would be a better idea. . Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For categories you've created, you can place a speedy delete tag yourself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Tagishsimon, please use ((db-author)) in future if you create a category and then change your mind; it's quicker and saves the need for discussion. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:39, 30 August 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: speedy delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I've now created Category:Former psychiatric hospitals in England. In essence after creating Closed hospitals, I decided Former hospitals would be a better idea. Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 29 August 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 per nom Erik9 (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross (United Kingdom)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to bring category name into line with article. --Xdamr^talk 15:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 29 August 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. --Xdamr^talk 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I would argue that none of the contents match the category name. The Stock characters subcat is clearly mis-categorized here, IMO. I would also suggest that the Holy Grail category is primarily a religious and mystical concept/entity, rather than a philosophical concept, per se. The three articles categorized here include a) two fictional elements from the Lemony Snickets books and b) Hermetics, which is a literary and linguistic term for a writing style, not a philosophical concept. When one disregards the miscategorized subcats and articles, I for one believe what we have here is an empty category. And while I do see that a popcat had been added to the category page, there is such a profusion of "themes/subjects in works" categories that I think we need to be rigorous about weeding out the ambiguous ones. Literature addresses all philosophical concepts. There is no meaningful way to separate them out here, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Shawn says, nothing here seems to add value. AllyD (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Articles and subcategories are at best remotely related. Debresser (talk) 23:00, 29 August 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 Category:Recipients of the Conspicuous Service Cross to Category:Recipients of the Conspicuous Service Cross (Australia). In the absence of any controversy or objection, nominator acting as closing admin. --Xdamr^talk 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Conspicuous Service Cross to Category:Recipients of the Conspicuous Service Cross (Australia)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to bring category name into line with article. --Xdamr^talk 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 29 August 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:

Category:Star of Military Valour to Category:Recipients of the Star of Military Valour
Category:Medal of Military Valour to Category:Recipients of the Medal of Military Valour
Category:Meritorious Service Decoration (Canada) to Category:Recipients of the Meritorious Service Decoration

In the absence of any controversy or objection, nominator acting as closing admin. --Xdamr^talk 22:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Star of Military Valour to Category:Recipients of the Star of Military Valour
Category:Medal of Military Valour to Category:Recipients of the Medal of Military Valour
Category:Meritorious Service Decoration (Canada) to Category:Recipients of the Meritorious Service Decoration

Nominator's rationale: Rename to bring these into line with conventional category names for recipients of military/civil awards and decorations. --Xdamr^talk 15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renames to reflect that categories are being used for articles about recipients, not the medals themselves. Alansohn (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per correct argument of nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we sure that the suffix "(Canada)" is not desirable? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at present there is only one Meritorious Service Decoration article. Off the top of my head I can't think of any more identically named medals (though it may be possible that one or more foreign-language awards may translate to that name). Per usual practice therefore, in the absence of any other medals of the same name, 'Canada' seems to be superfluous. --Xdamr^talk 12:43, 31 August 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. --Xdamr^talk 12:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. There is nothing about being a footballer that makes being Jewish noteworthy: there is nothing about being Jewish that makes it noteworthy that someone from within that religion becomes a footballer. We don't have articles for Christian/Muslim/Agnostic/Atheist footballers, nor should we. Kevin McE (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mastercategory Category:Jewish sportspeople was kept a little over a month ago -- the second unsuccessful attempt to delete it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entirely notable. Just see the parent category as well as numerous articles http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/championsleague/archive/2008/04/24/foreskins-and-total-football.aspx] and books on the subject matter. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We went through this already too: Ethnic footballers. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, Keep. The Ethnic footballers CFD was closed just 2 months ago. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent that being a Jewish sportsperson is a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per outcome of previous discussions. Not to mention that we were pretty fed up with all "Jewish" nominations. Was that just one month ago? Debresser (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - useful for stuff like Maccabiah Games, but Israelis aside, I'm slightly dubious of religious cats like this.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:29, 2 September 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. --Xdamr^talk 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one person with an article in the category as of now. that article is up for deletion. No need for the category. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created as some sort of promotion. There is a precedent for creation, see Category:Magicians, but this category is unhelpful until there are some non-deleted articles for inclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty. And I am shocked at the English. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 29 August 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: Speedy Delete. --Xdamr^talk 15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Surely an inappropriate category. Pejorative term, and no clear definition. See Self-hating Jew. Rd232 ^talk 10:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion - as an attack page. If not speediable then delete as subjective and pejorative. Otto4711 (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted it, But I am somewhat confused. Rd232, you created it. Why?--Jac16888^Talk 11:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't create it exactly. An IP added the category to two pages, without creating the category page. [1] So in nominating for deletion, I had to create the category page. See the page history of Self-hating Jew and Johannes Pfefferkorn. Rd232 ^talk 12:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the category is a redlink, all you need to do is remove it from the articles. No need to create and go through a CFD for a non-existent category. Otto4711 (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A stupid, unencyclopaedic, subjective, bilious category and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:51, 28 August 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 Category:Reamonn CD covers to Category:Reamonn album covers. --Xdamr^talk 12:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reamonn CD covers to Category:Reamonn album covers

Nominator's rationale: For consistency purposes. All other subcategories in Category:Album covers use the "-album covers" naming convention. — Σxplicit 04:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and convention. Occuli (talk) 09:50, 28 August 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. --Xdamr^talk 22:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization and non-defining characteristic. There's really no logical reasoning to separate British ballads from Canadian ballads, American ballads (note that Category:American ballads nor Category:Canadian ballads exist), etc. It's sensible to separate them by language, but not by nationality. — Σxplicit 03:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Ballads and Category:British songs. There is a Category:British songs by genre, but "ballad" isn't really a genre, so it doesn't really fit to the "songs-by-nationality-by-genre" subcategorization scheme. I also suggest merging Category:Scottish ballads into Category:Ballads and Category:Scottish songs. Jafeluv (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There appears to be only one entry in the category and there are more appropriate categories for that entry, Diggers' Song. I have added the song to Category:Traditional ballads and Category:English folk songs. Cjc13 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "Category:Traditional ballads" is enough for traditional ones, & plain "ballads" includes '000s of modern commercial work, with a vague definition. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cjc13 only. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This category tree certainly requires work, but this is not the right solution. Many Scottish ballads recount events in the lawless Scottish marches in the period before the formation of a single British kingdom. Otherwise, there should be a distinction between a ballad and an English folk song, in that a folk song should have descended in purely oral tradition, whereas an English ballad was written and published by some one and circulated as a pamphlet or handbill. I think the solution is to make the present category a parent for Category:English ballads and Category:Scottish ballads (though they are not quite the same thing) with a parallel Category:Irish ballads. The contents of Category:Traditional ballads then need to be distributed. The distinction between ballads and folksongs may be too fine, but that needs to be discussed properly, which can hardly be done here. The collectors of the English Folk Dance and Song Society were specifically not interested in collecting Victorian (published) ballads, so that it would seem that there is a real distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Restructuring is needed, but the category tracks a defining characteristic, best described by Peterkingiron's summary of the issue. Alansohn (talk) 02:46, 4 September 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. Would advise at the very least a rename nomination to something of the form Category:Indigenous inhabitants of the "New Territories" in Hong Kong, or similar. The Basic Law deals with "indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories" not "indigenous inhabitants of Hong Kong", as such this category is at present misnamed. --Xdamr^talk 22:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous inhabitant people in Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this category is pretty bizarre, especially in its vague wording. It could apply to a large segment of the population of Hong Kong for no particular reason. Category tagged. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for vague formulation per nominator, and the non-defining characteristic of being a native citizen. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is a potential distinction between those whose ancestors came from Hong Kong and a (probably larger) group who came from other parts of China. I believe those from the New Territories also to be an identifiable subgroup. However, I presume there has been a lot of intermarriage, so that the category may not in fact be a useful one. If retained, it needs to be better defined. However, I am English and not an expert on this. Can some one list this on a Hong Kong related page, so that we get comments from those who really know the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the article for this category of people - Indigenous inhabitant - needs a lot of work, this is a category of people that is legally recognised by Hong Kong law (see Article 40 of Chapter III of the Basic Law - [2]). In other words, this category is neither bizarre nor vague. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd like to know how we would go about ascertaining the proper status of the individuals who have been so categorised? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same source [3] cited by User:HongQiGong goes to great lengths to define "permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region", but has little to say about indigenous inhabitants. With the factors of intermarriage and migration, how can we definitively know who is and is not "indigenous"? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great question for Talk:Indigenous inhabitant and the various articles that have been thus categorised, but not a reason to delete the category in the face of the fact that it is a legally recognised categorisation in Hong Kong law. This categorisation is not invented by WP. It is invented by Hong Kong law. If Hong Kong law is vague on this subject matter, that is reason to improve the article on the subject matter and research if articles thus categorised here on WP should actually be categorised so. It is not reason to delete the category. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:09, 3 September 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 Category:Oregon beauty pageant contestants to Category:Oregon beauty pageant winners.

Categorisation by participation in a contest is overategorisation. However in this case the category in question is being used to categorise winners, not merely participants. That being the case, the category should be renamed accordingly. I am content for this category to be immediately renominated should any editors wish to query this categorisation on the basis of state competitions.

--Xdamr^talk 12:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this is OCAT. If we categorize by participation in any beauty pageant we are clearly not categorizing by defining characteristics. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I created this category, I wondered whether I should call it "Oregon beauty pageant winners", or whether it might make more sense to create a separate category for each of what seem to be the four main Oregon beauty pageants: Category:Miss Oregon contestants (or "...winners"), Category:Miss Teen Oregon winners (or "...contestants"), Category:Miss Oregon USA title holders (or...)

I'm not really sure what the best way to characterize these ladies is, and I don't really have a strong preference. But there is certainly a natural category in there. There aren't that many notable pageants, I don't think...and those who win any of them share the quality of being part of the various Oregon-based pageants (several of which are affiliated with one another).

On the national level, we have Category:Miss America delegates and similar; they are simply part of the Category:Beauty pageant contestants, rather than an overarching Category:American beauty pageant contestants. Is that the best way to handle it here?

Like I said, I'm not really tied to any of these, but I think they should be categorized somehow. -Pete (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about Category:American national-level beauty pageant delegates, Category:Oregon beauty pageant winners, or both. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speaking from the UK point of view. I can see a need for categories about the national competitions, but not for state competitions. Categories (and articles) should be about achievement (or notability); merely entering a competition is irrelevant. A quick look at the articles suggests that Danijela Krstić should be deleted (does not seem to be notable); also Jodi Ann Paterson (does not appear to achieved anything). Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose alternative cat structure: Sorry, I should have been clearer. Every person currently in the category is the winner of a statewide pageant. Certainly merely competing would give no automatic claim to notability. I'm not sure whether winning does, either; I'm not really familiar with how much news coverage a typical Miss Oregon Teen USA, for instance, gets; such winners may often fail WP:V or WP:NOTE. In the examples given, I tend to agree about Danijela Krstić (though further sources may reveal her to be notable); but Jodi Ann Paterson was a Playmate of the Year, clearly notable.

So, I think the best solution might be to create Category:Miss Oregon title holders, etc. for each of the pageants. I'd think an umbrella category Category:Oregon beauty pageant winners by pageant would be useful, but that one's less important. -Pete (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can live with a category for pageant winners, but I still don't think that is a matter of notability (at state level that is). I do agree that there should be lists of these people with a brief bio. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the general worry about the notability/defining characteristic in being a (regional) pageant contestant. In general Category:Beauty pageants could perhaps do with some organising. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what's your thinking on simply renaming the cat to "Oregon beauty pageant winners" or "…title holders", or creating separate cats for each pageant? Once again, doing such a rename would not exclude any entry from the category; every woman currently listed (or anticipated to be listed) is a winner, not merely a contestant, of the pageant in question. -Pete (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - separation out to the state level is normal and often accepted (see here where subcats can be used to break up large categories, as well as the alternate where the state is an integral part of the characteristic as the state is where the pageant was won, which in both cases applies here). Cats have absolutely nothing to do with notability. Person from the City of Foo, is not notable, but the people in there are supposedly notable. If people in a cat are not notable, then that is a separate issue dealt with in those individual articles (for instance Krstić I think is quite notable due to the press coverage of her/father's immigration status along with the beauty portion; remember that notability is not importance, just be noticed by the media). Notability is not dealt with at the category level. Notability only concerns whether or not we have an article on the topic, not whether we can cover something somewhere or even have a category. Most winners of a major state level beauty contest are going to pass WP:BIO as there is going to be mentions in the main state paper(s) as well as the local newspaper(s) when they win, and how they fair at the national contest, plus in more modern times the local TV stations will also have content available online. All of this means they usually pass WP:NOTE/WP:BIO, as notability is not international notability, as a small percentage of topics out of the 3,000,000 Wikipedia articles would pass for world-wide notability (for instance I have no idea who the mayor of London is, assuming they have a mayor, and I doubt too many people in China do either, but he/she is still notable). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:46, 3 September 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:

Category:Books about the 2001 War in Afghanistan to Category:Books about the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)
Category:Opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War to Category:Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)
Category:Afghanistan War prisoners of war to Category:War in Afghanistan (2001-present) prisoners of war

--Xdamr^talk 12:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Books about the 2001 War in Afghanistan to Category:Books about the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)
Category:Opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War to Category:Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)
Category:Afghanistan War prisoners of war to Category:War in Afghanistan (2001-present) prisoners of war

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the parent category, Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present); in the case of the prisoners of war category, a rename is also needed in order to clarify to which Afghanistan War (see War in Afghanistan) the category applies. Note that my proposal does not involve using an en dash after "2001", even though the parent category does include an en dash, since past CfD discussions suggest that there is no consensus to use en dashes in category titles instead of regular dashes. (All category creators notified using ((cfd-notify)).) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename This would seem uncontroversial to me, as I can see it is part of a larger process of uncontroversial article movements being carried out by the nominator to achieve consistency among articles related to an ultimate parent article, the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) itself. Further, as the category creator, I had originally named it to conform to a parent article (Opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War) that has already been moved for the sake of this consistency process, and I see no reason to not continue this process to conclusion.--Cast (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can this be renamed to not use -present? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would probably require a change at the level of the parent category or the main article, both of which use "–present", but I can't think of an appropriate replacement. I wonder when the time will come that we can replace "present" with an actual end year... –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of correctly disambiguated parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Considering the parent category uses an en dash (–) as opposed to hyphen (-), shouldn't the proposed renames use it as well? — Σxplicit 03:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. I am against the use of special dashes in names of articles and categories in general. Isn't there any guideline on this account? If there is, please drop me a note on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "post 2001 Afghanistan conflict". I am unhappy about "2001-present" (whatever kind of dash) as it will ultimately become obsolete. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that "post 2001 Afghanistan conflict" also would become obsolete at some point, such as when a new conflict begins in Afghanistan or when the current conflict enters a new phase (e.g. ISAF troops withdraw). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I am not happy with the '-present' but I don't see a better alternative so far. So let's change to something better then what we have today and see if a solution to my concern appears. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 4 September 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.

August 28

Category:Broad gauge (7 feet) railway companies

Category:University of Alabama athletics

Category:Closed hospitals in London

Category:Closed psychiatric hospitals in England

Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross

Category:Philosophical concepts in literature

Category:Recipients of the Conspicuous Service Cross

Canadian medal recipients

Category:Jewish footballers

Category:Pakistani magicians

Category:Self-hating Jews

Category:Reamonn CD covers

Category:British ballads

Category:Indigenous inhabitant people in Hong Kong

Category:Oregon beauty pageant contestants

Category:Books about the 2001 War in Afghanistan