< January 26	January 28 >

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 16:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Actors by year to Category:Actors by century

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contrary to the current name, these are by century groupings and not by year groupings. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 27 January 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 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Donner party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Delete from the main article Donner Party (note capitalization), all the other articles are linked - this cat also seems to include things named after the ill-fated group, but these too are linked from the main article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The cats aren't just for the main article, they allow navigation from each article to all the other articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - small category with little seeming growth potential. Suggest creating a navtemplate to address any issues of getting from one article to the next although I suspect that anything named for the Donner Party already contains links to Donner Party along with other currently categorized articles. Otto4711 (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Except for Sutter's Fort, which I would remove, the relationship of the subject of each article to the Donner Party is central to its identity, and indeed for the two people listed central to their notability, and thus cannot be OCAT.-choster (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly it can be overcat. Ossie Davis, to pull an example at random, is probably reasonably defined as "husband of Ruby Dee" but Category:Ruby Dee spouses would be deleted as small with little to know chance of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is being a spouse of Ruby Dee a primary characteristic the way it is for these articles? The first sentence of Ossie Davis is "Ossie Davis (December 18, 1917 – February 4, 2005) was an American film actor, director, poet, playwright, writer, and social activist." The first sentence of Daniel Rhoads is "Daniel Rhoads (December 7, 1821, Paris, Illinois – December 4, 1895) was a California, USA, pioneer and rancher who helped rescue the Donner Party." I would thus expect Davis to be categorized with actors, directors, poets, playwrights, writers, and activists, and Rhoads with pioneers, ranchers, and the Donner Party.-choster (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an example where the category unites things that are disparate but related, and here it seems useful to do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This illustrates the purpose of categories: to aid the reader to navigate to related articles. And these are certainly related. The people of the Donner Party are notable only because they were in the party. Others are notable only because they helped out. Otherwise, they would be unknowns with no WP article. Delation makes no sense except for those trying to push a point of view. Hmains (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only is this a strong defining characteristic for these individuals in this category, for nearly all it is the only one. Per WP:CLN the creation of lists and navigation templates would be a wonderful addition to the category, not a replacement. There are ample existing articles to populate this category, and no reason that additional articles will not be created in the future. Alansohn (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a useful and encyclopedic tool..keeping it wound together..Modernist (talk) 14:05, 31 January 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. Kbdank71 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People killed by Yahweh to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: This category is very vague, as it deals only with people supposedly killed by Yahweh, while there are other names of God and Yahweh is used in different circumstances by different scholars. It should be renamed into Category:People killed by God, Category:People killed as heretics or Category:People killed in the bible, which would include more people and make some more sense. --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the name is wrong, but all the nominated choices are similarly bad IMHO:

• People killed by God: some would contend that that is basically everyone who is dead, including by "natural causes".
• People killed as heretics: Jan Hus, those killed in the inquisition, etc. really are a different group that what we have here.
• People killed in the Bible: Abel, Goliath, and Jesus are all "killed" in the Bible but really being killed in the Bible is not particularly how we think of them; and for those whose take on the Bible is that it is a work of human creation - not divine - then this formulation of the category differs little from "People killed in Shakespeare's plays" or such.

What makes these articles similar is that the Old Testament tells us that God kills these people. Is that sufficient upon which to categorize? I'm not sure. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Indeed, the Elohist is spinning in his grave. These entries would fit into a Category:Hebrew Bible people killed by God, comprising a subset of Category:Biblical people. As to whether it is a logical category to keep, I have no opinion.-choster (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in the Judeo-Christian religion, isn't it pretty much standard dogma that any supposedly untimely death is "God's will"? Given that, couldn't any death potentially be categorized here? If anyone's interested in a literary analysis of the Bible that lists who was supposedly killed by Yahweh or whatever deity name, a list article that can be notated and sourced is the way to go. Otto4711 (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No, not really Otto, but nonetheless the category, if kept, should be Category:Hebrew Bible people killed by divine intervention. But a list might be better. The direct acts include earthquakes & plagues, but I think it is fair to say they are all presented as Divine interventions. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry to harp, but the two new suggested choices are inapt as well, IMHO:

• Hebrew Bible people killed by God: limits who we are talking about, but does not avoid the contention that everyone who is killed in the Bible including by "natural causes" was killed in essence by God.
• Hebrew Bible people killed by divine intervention: we keep the limitation of who we are talking about, but does divine intervention really differ from "God" - the link from divine intervention disambiguates to miracle (I assume, not some secular stuff) which again is something supernatural or otherwise unexplainable attributed to God or His agents (in the context of the Bible). Note: that what was considered supernatural or otherwise unexplainable was different when the Bible was formulated than today (e.g., compare the explanation of a rainbow in a recent physics or optics textbook with Genesis 9.13-15.)

Let me give some examples, to see if we would or wouldn't categorize these in the proposed rename of this category - all of these are presented in the context of the Old Testament, of course:

• Uzzah, died upon touching the Ark of the Covenant
• Lot's wife, turned to salt upon looking back at Sodom that was being destroyed by God
• The rest of the Sodomites, Gomorrahites, etc.
• Those killed in battles by various kings of Israel or by Joshua
• Those killed in the Plagues of Egypt

I am still doubtful that this category is salvageable, but let's give it a go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can conceieve of an interesting article but the chances of it being written, and done well, are so infinitessimal that I prefer deletion. Here is what an interesting article would be about: there is a significant body of research (that I do not have access to) on the changing view of God and God's justice by the Hebrew Bible's various authors. Some schoalrs have studies the way "justice" and "mercy" are attributed to God in various texts, and how the meanings must have changed for Hebrews over the hundreds of thousand + year period in in which the Bible was written. Thus, at one time a killer had to be killed; at a later time, a killer could receive mercy from God but his descendants would be killed (mercy thus existed, but someone still had to pay for the crime); at a later time, a person could receive complete mercy. I am not talking about a later time in the "history" contained within the Bible (between Adam and King Cyrus) but in the time during which different Biblical texts took their final form. Needless to say much of this research is speculative and there has therefore been great debate. My point: such an article would include a list of "people killed by God" but in the context of the actual scholarly debates in which these incidents constitute data for scholars. That would be an interesting article. But simply as a list this has zero value I find it very difficult to imagine that anyone could read it without infering that it is making some interpretive claims. Indeed, there has been a lot of interpretation surrounding these individuals and to provide a list without all the interpretation is reckless and un-encyclopedic. And I have no reason to believe that among the current Wikipedians are enough editors who are willing or able to do the research necessary to make this a good article. Therefore, delete. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Valueless category. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above...Seems useless to argue over, an article......maybe. Modernist (talk) 14:02, 31 January 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: relisted on feb 3. Kbdank71 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pocket PC software to Category:Windows Mobile Professional and Classic software

Nominator's rationale:

• Rename.

1. To match other standards for software categorization on Wikipedia. Other categories reference the operating system, rather than the hardware it runs on. For example: Category:Windows software rather than Category:PC software. Category:Windows Mobile Standard software has already been created.
2. The term "Pocket PC" is being phased out by Microsoft, who defined the term as a specific hardware standard for an edition of their Windows Mobile operating system. The current naming convention specifies that the hardware standard defined by Microsoft is now known as either a "Windows Mobile Professional device" or a "Windows Mobile Classic device" depending on whether a phone radio is a part of the device.
3. Other operating systems that run entirely different applications run on what many people know as the Pocket PC. Some examples of such are: Familiar Linux, Jlime, and Openmoko Linux. Therefore, it is inaccurate for one to use the term "Pocket PC software" as a synonym for "Windows Mobile software".
4. As a reminder to editors, a decision to rename this Category does not mean a decision not to merge this category with Category:Windows Mobile Standard software to form one category as Category:Windows Mobile software. That requires a separate nomination, is a separate discussion, and is mutually exclusive.

-Brianreading (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if it were really matching Category:Windows software this would be called Category:Windows Mobile software. I suggest creating a Category:Windows Mobile software as the supercategory of this category and the other Mobile Standard category. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree, It's now subcategorized under Category:Windows Mobile software. Brianreading (talk) 03:19, 28 January 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, CSD G6: Housekeeping, + CSD C1: empty category - as the correctly spelt version exists, there is no point in prolonging this. Bencherlite^Talk 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sport in Redbidge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Mispelling. Correct category exists. Mauls (talk) 16:05, 27 January 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. There was some movement toward using personnel (officer) and personnel (non-officer), but not enough support in my mind. Recommend renominating both categories if this is what is desired. Kbdank71 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Royal Navy sailors to Category:Royal Navy ratings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Rating" is the correct term for a non-officer member of the Royal Navy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but Category:Royal Navy sailors (ratings) or Category:Royal Navy ratings (sailors) would be clearer for those not familiar with the terminology. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Ouch! I can see this being a problem since ratings has more uses then even I knew. I think this proposal is going to be very confusing. While it may be accurate, it will confuse many readers. My question would be, what can we find for a name that is not as confusing. Most readers would take this category as ratings of the Royal Navy. If there is nothing better, then keeping the current name well be better then the proposed change. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The situation is parallel to Category:Royal Marines ranks (referring to Ranks, not ranks). For Canada, where the term would be "member," non-comms are placed in the generic "personnel" category and only officers separated out.-choster (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So would Category:Royal Navy personnel work? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a jumble of schemes: the aforementioned Canadian one, which I think neatly sidesteps the terminology question while allowing officers and civilians to be separated; several nationality-based categories (e.g. Category:German soldiers alongside Category:German military personnel); and the UK and US scheme which tries to make Foo personnel purely a subcategory farm with enlisted, commissioned, and civilian staff all pushed down another level. I think the first is simplest to maintain. Is anyone from WP:MIL monitoring? -choster (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with the Canadian way is that people, especially using hot-cat, are surely very liable to add officers to "personnel" without realizing it is supposed to be for non-officers. This actually makes maintenance harder; at least with the UK/US scheme you know anyone in the main cat needs sorting somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it wouldn't technically be incorrect, at least not any more than "personnel" is accurate for someone who might have been discharged decades ago after a single enlistment.-choster (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the Canadian model is a valid example. The Personnel and officer distinction for the Army only exists as I haven't got round to creating the soldier category (I've started the categorisation and its WIP). Also only Canadian Admirals are categorised for the Navy so essentially there is no Canadian model. In terms of difficulty of maintainance myself and others spend large amounts of time using these categories and I can state that once the categories are established these are almost always used correctly and where they are not I recategorise them without a lot of difficulty Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although I think Category:Royal Navy ratings might work alongside Category:Royal Navy officers and within Category:Royal Navy personnel, because it disambiguates and clarifies itself by the context, I agree that it may not be easily understandable (and therefore useful) to a reader when displayed at the bottom of an article outside its contextual hierarchy. Borrowing some of the suggestions above, how about renaming both second-tier categories according to a common scheme? Something like Category:Royal Navy personnel (officer) and Category:Royal Navy personnel (non-officer) might make sense. EyeSerene^talk 15:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better than the present situation, I think - we have Category:Royal Navy officers already. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant Category:Royal Navy personnel (officer) as a rename of Category:Royal Navy officers; Category:Royal Navy personnel (non-officer) as a rename of Category:Royal Navy sailors, and both to be retained as sub-cats of Category:Royal Navy personnel. There are other alternatives; Category:Royal Navy commissioned personnel and Category:Royal Navy non-commissioned personnel, but that may be getting to WP:JARGON. EyeSerene^talk 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to admit I like the personnel (officer) and personnel (non-officer) scheme as being both correct and obvious to editors not familiar with service jargon. Cottonshirt (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What on earth is wrong with using the correct terms? This is an encyclopaedia - it's meant to inform, not to be dumbed down for those who don't understand. Its whole purpose is to help people understand things they don't! A note at the top of the cat would make it completely clear. And as for Category:Royal Navy personnel (officer), er, why? I think most people know what an officer is in a service context. And people are saying "ratings" would confuse matters! This would just be a pointless category title. And the Royal Navy doesn't use the term "non-commissioned" for its ratings, so anything that includes that would be completely inaccurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:59, 30 January 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 The articles are already categorized in Summer/Winter Olympic games. Kbdank71 16:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2020 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:2022 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:2024 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:2028 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Each of these categories have just one article each in them—the main article of the same name about the Olympic Games for that year. Rather than being somehow inappropriate, these are all just premature. The formal bidding process has not even started for any of these Olympics, and right now they cannot be legitimately populated with anything beyond the main article (which are themselves—sometimes quite humorously—stocked with outlandish but entertaining speculation and crystal-ballism). Of course delete without prejudice to re-creation in the future when needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Per nom/per WP:CRYSTAL. Lugnuts (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into a new Category:Future Olympic Games. Whether WP:CRYSTAL-ball articles should exist, particlularly for those as remote as 2024 and 2028, is a question for AFD discussions, not a CFD. There is a template linking Olympic Games by year, which includes these and is probably an easier navigation tool than a template anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nature of the articles was a passing comment (notice their inclusion in a parenthetical), not the basis for the nomination. Just to restate for clarity in case my nominating statement was too unclear: the basis is that they are small, with only one article each, and unlikely to expand soon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is why I said merge. As long as the articles continue to exist, they need a category (but not one each). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each already has two parent categories, which they could be upmerged to as per usual—I don't see a need for a "future games" category, since that is essentially a "current" type of category (i.e., "Olympic Games that are currently in the future"), which we usually don't like to create. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 28 January 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: relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 5 (see relisted discussion for detailed explanation). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete Miscapitalization of Category:Senior wranglers. Tobias Bergemann (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Wrangler is a title, thus a phrase treated as a proper noun. Category:Senior Wranglers is correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had not thought of that, and the capitalization issue did not come up when Category:Senior wranglers and Category:Second wranglers were considered for deletion in January 2008. When I encountered Category:Senior Wranglers and Category:Senior wranglers, there were four articles in Category:Senior Wranglers and 60+ articles in Category:Senior wranglers. I then moved the four articles to Category:Senior wranglers. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (not delete). However, I agree that this is a title and so should have both initials capitalised. For preference, merge Category:Senior wranglers into Category:Senior Wranglers. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Senior Wranglers per above - is the other tagged though? Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments last year; these are basically valedictory (US wording) categories - who graduated first and second in Mathematics in Cambridge in the 19th century is well taken care of in the lists - to categorize on the basis of people graduating first or second in a specific major from a particular school is just not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - whichever has deletion templates, delete them and thems that don't nominate them. This is the equivalent of Category:Valedictorians, which was correctly deleted a year ago. Being first or second in class is not a defining characteristic on either side of the Atlantic. Otto4711 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We went through all this at vast length a year ago, and decided it was. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but merge. "Being first or second in class is not a defining characteristic on either side of the Atlantic." may be true in general, but there is one exception. This one. Being a Wrangler is very defining and is always mentioned about the person in any summary of their life. As Johnbod, says we did go through all this before. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - same objections as last time. This is a variety of valedictorian, categories for which were deleted. Same reasoning for deleting those categories applies here. Otto4711 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Strike out second vote. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Senior Wranglers. (Is Otto4711 now getting 2 votes?) Occuli (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It's part of his contract as an official member of the claque. He drives a hard bargain! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you check on my claque membership? I don't want to vote twice, but I was thinking of closing it now that I've voted. --Kbdank71 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A rather strong defining characteristic for the individuals who have received this honor. I will wait about 24 hours to vote a second time. Alansohn (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not defining and per Category:Valedictorians and per consensus can change (and this can stay open until we're all dead as far as I care, I'm not going to get questioned again about relisting it because nobody wanted to close it). --Kbdank71 16:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't know about this. I can understand how some editors could view this as defining. However, I don't even think the school(s) a person attended is defining, let alone the person's placement at the top of the class of that school, so I'm going to have to say delete, as was the valedictorians category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 2 February 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 16:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:First-party developers to Category:First-party video game developers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As far as I can tell this category only deals with video games. SharkD (talk) 04:52, 27 January 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 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Second-party developers to Category:Second-party video game developers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As far as I can tell this category deals only with video games. SharkD (talk) 04:50, 27 January 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 16:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Level editors to Category:Video game level editors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with other categories in Category:Video games. SharkD (talk) 04:48, 27 January 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 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Game modification tools to Category:Video game modification tools

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with other categories in Category:Video games. SharkD (talk) 04:47, 27 January 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 16:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Game creation software to Category:Video game creation software

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Tobe consistent with other categories in Category:Video games. SharkD (talk) 04:45, 27 January 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 16:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Game engines to Category:Video game engines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with other categories in Category:Video games. SharkD (talk) 04:44, 27 January 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 16:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computer game mods to Category:Video game mods

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with other categories in Category:Video games. As an alternative, Category:Video game modifications might be as good (or better) a choice. SharkD (talk) 04:38, 27 January 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 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:3D video games to Category:Video games with 3D graphics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with other categories in Category:Video games by graphical style. SharkD (talk) 04:25, 27 January 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 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oblique video games to Category:Video games with oblique graphics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with other categories in Category:Video games by graphical style. SharkD (talk) 04:24, 27 January 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 16:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Isometric video games to Category:Video games with isometric graphics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with other categories in Category:Video games by graphical style. SharkD (talk) 04:23, 27 January 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 16:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cel-shaded video games to Category:Video games with cel-shaded graphics

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be consistent with other categories in Category:Video games by graphical style. SharkD (talk) 04:22, 27 January 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. Come on, people, nothing about My Cousin Vinny? I'm so disappointed in you all. Kbdank71 16:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Youths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - A poorly-defined category as there is no semblance of agreement on what age-group is included within the meaning of "youth". It also overlaps with Category:Children, so is largely redundant in any event. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -choster (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom—merge with Category:Children? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for a merge - the one person in it is already in a couple of child sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Poorly defined. POV category as well. DiverseMentality 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Note also that it's been around for over a year and only has one entry at present; it clearly hasn't demonstrated any utility. Postdlf (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too vague. Wandering Courier (talk) 02:59, 31 January 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: renameCategory:United States Virgin Islander politicians to Category:United States Virgin Islands politicians, delete the rest. Kbdank71 15:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Virgin Islander athletes to Category:Virgin Islands athletes
• Category:Virgin Islander basketball players to Category:Virgin Islands basketball players
• Category:Virgin Islander martial artists to Category:Virgin Islands martial artists
• Category:Virgin Islander mixed martial artists to Category:Virgin Islands mixed martial artists
• Category:Virgin Islander speed skaters to Category:Virgin Islands speed skaters
• Category:Virgin Islander lugers to Category:Virgin Islands lugers
• Category:Virgin Islander sportspeople to Category:Virgin Islands sportspeople
• Category:Virgin Islander lawyers to Category:Virgin Islands lawyers
• Category:Virgin Islander American football players to Category:Virgin Islands players of American football
• Category:United States Virgin Islander politicians to Category:United States Virgin Islands politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Virgin Islander" is a noun only; the adjectives that other categories use is "Virgin Islands", "United States Virgin Islands", or "British Virgin Islands". Rename these outliers to conform with other categories in Virgin Islands people. Also reformatting the American football players one to the now-accepted naming format. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename the US one per nom; Delete the others. There's no point in having these categories each simply as a holder for two categories on two separate territories with no jurisdictional link. We don't have "Samoan Islands" biography categories of this form, or "Mascarenes" ones for Mauritius and Réunion - we shouldn't have these either. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I tend to agree with Grutness on this. Which prompts me to point out that there are 7 other similar (though correctly-named) occupational categories withing Category:Virgin Islands people by occupation that should be considered for deletion on the same grounds. The paired categories could be linked to one another with CatRel if that's deemed appropriate. Cgingold (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with delete comment (nom). I thought of opening my nomination with the statement that I see little utility in grouping the USVI and BVI people together this way, but I didn't because I didn't want to make things too complicated with a mixed-delete-or-rename nomination. Anyway, I essentially agree and would be fine with deletion of these as an alternative. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I would support separate category trees for British and U.S. Virgin Islands, but the next level above this one does not yet exist. If this is created and all subcategories are properly split, all the nominated categories can be deleted as redundant. I would suggest that for the moment we close this CFD and then restart it when the new structure is in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 13:49, January 27, 2009
  • Um, huh? The "next level above this" for all of them would be the Caribbean equivalent, which does exist in all cases. There are already separate categories for BIV and USVI in almost all of these cases. Grutness...wha? 21:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, prefixing all with "United States" before "Virgin Islands". While I will assume that all of these are for USVI-related articles, there is the realistic possibility that article relating to the British Virgin Islands may be included. In addition to addressing that concern, all of the categories are likely USVI focused and should be prefixed with "United States", as is proposed for Category:United States Virgin Islands politicians. I will support a rename that reflects this change. Alansohn (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not all for the US Virgin islands. Most of them (all except the last one) are for the Virgin Island group overall, and serve simply as holder for separate categories, one for the BVI and one for the USVI. Grutness...wha? 21:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I too can confirm that that is how these are used. They are not misnamed USVI categories. They are categories that are intended to hold USVI and/or BVI subcategories. I endorse Grutness's comments throughout this discussion, as they are an accurate representation of how I found the categories to be structured. I agree that they should all be deleted, save the final one that should be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the Grutness/Good Olfactory argument. (Does deletion without upmerging mess up the category tree?) Occuli (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be OK to just have a straight delete of them. The USVI and BVI categories appear to be appropriately categorized themselves—they are accessible through the American/British trees, for e.g. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Additonal comment (nom). I should also point out that for the sportspeople categories at least, deleting does eliminate the sticky problem of the fact that at the Olympic Games (and presumably other competitions like the Pan-Am Games), USVI competes as just "Virgin Islands", whereas BVI competes as BVI. So there could be some confusion that "Virgin Islands lugers" is just referring to lugers from the USVI, whereas in reality the USVI lugers is a subcategory of it. So deleting will also be beneficial in this sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 28 January 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.