< January 3	January 5 >

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roger Rabbit to Category:Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, of course. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. An obvious move. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 07:13, 5 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 16:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the following categories (see dropdown box):

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

Category:Populists by nationality

Category: American populists

Category: Argentine populists

Category: Brazilian populists

Category: Chinese populists

Category: Dutch populists

Category: Iranian populists

Category: Japanese populists

Category: Moroccan populists

Category: Peruvian populists

Category: Portuguese populists

Category: Russian populists

Category: Turkish populists

Category: Venezuelan populists

Category: Populist Parties

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. This is a follow-up from the deletion of a "populist parties" subcategory. The same POV/subjective considerations apply for any categorization by the "populist" appellation. It's hard enough to categorize people and parties by political terms like "liberal" or "conservative". "Populist" is broadly the political support of "the people" versus "the elites", but that's quite unhelpful when it comes to categorization. What degree of support of "the people" is needed? What groups qualify as "the people"? What groups qualify as "the elite"? What degree of "anti-elitism" is needed? To some degree, almost all politicians who work within a democratic framework are "populists", depending on how you define these issues. One additional reason it's even harder than the conservative/liberal issues is that most "populists" don't self-identify as "populists"—the term is usually applied to them by other observers, so it's even more of a subjective assessment. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I gingerly oppose. While marking a modern politician as a "populist" can be quite subjective, there exists an historical Populist Party (United States), with members who could indisputably be placed inside a Category: Populists. The organizations that call themselves "Populist" could be placed in Category: Populist Parties. Furthermore, historians can and have made judgments on who qualifies as a "populist" (in Classics, for instance, the Gracchi are widely referred to by that label). ALL inclusions into these categories should, of course, be sourced as self-identified, or recognized by RS's in the appropriate field. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered that approach, but the problems I saw were these: for these nationality/people categories at least, most of the categories (except the American one) have only one person in it and the people typically do not meet the standard you set out. If that approach were taken, Category:Populists would probably be enough without the nationality subdivisions as there would only really be a handful of persons who could qualify. Because of the need for solid references to meet your standard, I suggest a list would be more appropriate so that the references can be easily presented. Category application is supposed to be self-evident, and using your standard it is not, suggesting we need a list. For the parties, including any party that uses the name "Populist" without any other standard would seems to be categorization by shared name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What would be appropriate would be categories for people who are/were members of specific parties -- for instance, Category:Populist Party (United States) members. Cgingold (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Purge Populist Paries of articles not including that name or (possibly) People's Party (or does that have its own category?). Where there is no clear link with such a party, this will be a POV category, which cannot remain. Accordingly Delete the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took all the names of the populists by nationality section, so you can delete the categories like American Populists and Peruvian populists, unless you consider that due to being more American populists we should keep that one at least, like the Category: Syrian Arab nationalists (there aren't any more nationality specific Arab nationalist categories). I also added the Gracchi and started adding politicians from the United States Populist Party to the Populists category. I will add a fully referenced List of Populists article, and some references on the articles of each of the refered populists articles to prove they belong there. And Using "People's Party as the standard for finding populist parties may be dangerous and erroneous... user:lususromulus
• Delete per nom. --tickle me 23:01, 5 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: upmerge. Kbdank71 20:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American expatriate American football players in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete A quadruple intersection of nationality, expatriate status, sport, and country (or at least a triple intersection if you count "American expatriate" as one factor). For now could be upmerged to Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany, though the target itself is a triple or quadruple intersection as well. There are a bunch more of these quadruple intersection categories for sportspeople so consider this a test nomination. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Very little American football is played outside US (and possibly Canada). Accordingly, Category:American expatriate players of American Football ought to be the furthest that this category tree should branch, if that far. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Germany, to Category:American expatriate players of American football as per Peterkingiron, and Category:Expatriate players of American football in Germany, an equivalent of Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany. Indeed, the schema is built of triple intersections (but not quadruple ones, as this page is), but eliminating them would leave very long quite shapeless lists at Category:American expatriates, Category:Expatriates in Germany, and Category:Expatiate players of American football. Nothing in Wikipedia:Overcategorisation says triple (or even quadruple) intersections are illicit - each should be judged on its own merits, and subdividing expatriates by expatriate sportspeople seems to me a very natural one, for between a third to two thirds of expats with wikip notability are expat sportspeople. Mayumashu (talk) 05:28, 5 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oh Yeah! Cartoons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Too narrow a category, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category with a low amount of articles (four in fact). Oh Yeah! Cartoons didn't exactly have too many cartoons, either. DiverseMentality 05:27, 11 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete This and Category:ChalkZone characters should be deleted as they are too narrow. The characters have been redirected, and there's nothing else to put in the categories than what's already there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Both categories serve no use, especially Category:ChalkZone characters. Categories seem like "fillers". DiverseMentality 05:29, 11 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 to Category:German conservatives in the German Resistance and Category:German monarchists in the Gernam Resistance. Kbdank71 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting Category:German conservatives opposed to the Third Reich

Suggest merging Category:German monarchists opposed to the Third Reich to Category:German monarchists

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Merge - overcategorization based on political opinion or belief. Otto4711 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both - Otto, you appear to have overlooked the other, more important parent cat, Category:German Resistance members. I think there is a good case to be made for keeping these, as they are the counterparts of the other sub-categories of that parent cat. Far from being monolithic, the German Resistance was a complex phenomenon. As the main article says:

"The term German Resistance should not be understood as meaning that there was a united resistance movement in Germany at any time during the Nazi period, analogous to the more coordinated (for example) French Resistance. The German resistance consisted of small and usually isolated groups."

In essence, depending on their background/political orientation, they had differing motivations & goals, and worked in different ways to achieve those goals. Those differences are reflected in the various sub-categories, one of which (Category:Communists in the German Resistance) was renamed in this CFD. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A double merge to include the resistance category is also acceptable. That would focus attention on what they did, which is a proper basis for categorization, rather than what they thought, which is not. Otto4711 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• REname both to conform to the style of Category:Communists in the German Resistance, as Cgingold. Merging to German monarchists would submerge those brave enough to resist the Third Reich into an amorphous category. The resistacne was small and fragmented and totally unknown to the Allies, but nevertheless significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories are not doled out on the basis of how brave the people in it were. Otto4711 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep or rename both These are part of a pattern, one that deserves to be kept. This goes beyond 'opinion': these people took action. If these must be renamed, then I suggest:

Category:German conservatives in the German Resistance and Category:German monarchists in the Gernam Resistance to make it obvious that these people were Germans and that the category does not include non-German conservatives or monarchists, who also may have resisted Hitler. Hmains (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cgingold, with rename to synchronize with Communists in the German resistance, if necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 6 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 Deleted. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elecric trucks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete I propose that the currently empty category Category:Elecric trucks be deleted since it was only recently created (November 2008) and appears to simply be a misspelling of the existing (and non empty) Category:Electric trucks. The latter correctly spelled category has the letter "t" in the first word of the cateogry name (and it should remain as is in my opinion). 67.86.73.252 (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged for speedy deletion as empty and misspelled duplicate. Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 4 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, although vegaswikian brings up a valid point, why would be combine brands and buildings in the same category? Kbdank71 18:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vegetarian beers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Well meaning but inappropriate cat. The majority of articles in the cat are breweries not beers, so the cat is misleading, and will likely remain so, as under WP:PRODUCT we only exceptionally have an article on a product rather than the company. A better approach would be to create a List of vegetarian beers. SilkTork *^YES! 11:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Vegetarian beers and breweries or similar, per Category:Beer and breweries in England etc. 'Vegetarian' seems to be a defining characteristic of a beer, and presumably a brewery specifically sets out to produce vegetarian beer. Occuli (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/Keep - Some beers are suitable for vegetarians and some are not by virtue of their ingredeients. If you look around the internet there is substantial information about which beers are vegetarian (there are entire sites dedicated to it), so it seems logical to document beers and breweries with that information. With breweries like Coors and Anheuser-Busch their entire range is suitable for vegetarians so these breweries are vegetarian by nature because it's implicit in their brewing process (rather than specifically setting out to make a vegetarian beer). The category is informative about their products and adds information value to the articles. There may be a substantial number of people who want to know if the beer is vegetarian, just like coeliacs might want to know if an ale is organic. Betty Logan (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Renaming to Category:Vegetarian beers and breweries gets us back to the problem of including brands, companies and buildings in a single category. Since 'categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles', this combination is rather odd albeit common in the brewery groupings. As a container category, things like Category:Vegetarian beers and breweries can make sense to roll up Category:Vegetarian beers, Category:Vegetarian breweries (buildings) and Category:Vegetarian breweries (companies). If kept, the companies need to be split out into their own category. So maybe my keep is more of a Split opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 9 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Europe songs to Category:Europe (band) songs

Nominator's rationale: As with most other bands named for places, I think that this category should have (band) in it, so that it's more obvious that the songs are by Europe, the band, and not about Europe, the continent. Compare Category:Alabama (band) songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely, rename per nom. If I thought there were a lot more of these I'd suggest adding another Speedy criterion. Cgingold (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. When I first saw it I thought it was about the continent not the band. SilkTork *^YES! 11:27, 4 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 Category:National Association baseball players to Category:National Association of Professional Base Ball Players members by team and * Category:National Association of Base Ball players by team to Category:National Association of Base Ball Players members by team. As for the side discussion as to whether or not the team categories should exist or not and whether or not a nomination will go through without the nominator getting trouted, and whether or not we should bring back the journalists categories without getting deleted straight off as recreations (moving away from the keyboard to take a breath), good points all around, if someone wants to mass-nominate something, feel free, but for now I'm going to go ahead with the NAPBBP cats. --Kbdank71 19:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Association baseball players to Category:National Association of Professional Base Ball players by team

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To coincide with Category:National Association of Base Ball players by team. This would identify the difference between the two leagues. Neither league is considered a "major league", so inclusion under Category:Major league baseball players by team would not be proper. Neonblak ^talk - 04:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, but to Category:National Association of Base Ball Players by team. The actual name of the organization was National Association of Base Ball Players, with "Players" part of the name. It was abbreviated NABBP. We probably want to avoid Category:National Association of Base Ball Players players by team, don't we? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it have to be "National Association of Professional Base Ball Players players by team" ? That's akward and long. Or should this be one of the rare cases that the category be abbreviated? Like say "NAPBBP players by team", that way the coinciding category could then be "NABBP players by team" ? Neonblak ^talk - 03:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with my first suggestion or Category:Players in the National Association of Base Ball Players by team. The abbreviation is not well known at all, so I think we need to spell it out. We can either choose to not use the second "players" or choose to place it at the front of the category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion would be something akin to Category:Players by team in the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players ? Doesn't seem right, but to be the other way, we'd have to not use "players" consecutively. Category:National Association of Professional Base Ball Players members by team? Neonblak ^talk - 04:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Association of Professional Base Ball Players members by team is a good suggestion. I think that's the best one so far as it keeps the same format and yet avoids the awkward double repetition. It's a difficult problem because the name of the association is so strange. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until more suggestions come forth, the suggested changes would be these:Neonblak ^talk - 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:National Association baseball players to Category:National Association of Professional Base Ball Players members by team
• Category:National Association of Base Ball players by team to Category:National Association of Base Ball Players members by team
• Support both per above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports teams & tv journalists[edit]

• Comment - In light of a recent CFD dealing with tv journalists (perhaps Good Ol’factory can provide the link), I would like to open up a different line of discussion. I certainly have no objection to categories for players in these leagues. But I do have reservations about individual categories for each of the teams -- a concern which pertains, of course, to ALL sports team categories.

The issue is very simple: category clutter -- the very same issue that the tv journalists CFD revolved around. In that case, the majority of participants felt that categories for individual media outlets were not a good idea. In that context, I raised the issue of sports team categories for comparison, and argued that if those categories were deemed acceptable, tv journalist by network categories should be as well.

I just completed a brief survey of players in these two leagues -- the full roster of 9 Fort Wayne Kekiongas players (chosen at random from Category:National Association baseball players), and 7 players from three random teams in Category:National Association of Base Ball players by team. Here are my findings for Team-Categories per Player (not including team-cats for managers):

• Fort Wayne Kekiongas players:
  • 8 cats - 1
  • 7 cats - 1
  • 6 cats - 1
  • 4 cats - 2
  • 3 cats - 2
  • 1 cat - 2

• NABB players (Brooklyn Excelsiors, Cleveland Forest Citys, and Rockford Forest Citys):
  • 10 cats - 1
  • 8 cats - 1
  • 6 cats - 2
  • 5 cats - 1
  • 4 cats - 1
  • 1 cat - 1

I presented a very similar breakdown for players on one American (NFL) football team in the other CFD, and several editors who were opposed to the tv journalist cats remarked that the sports team cats were no better. So I would like to pose the question: Should sports team categories be exempted from the general concern vis-a-vis category clutter? If so, why? If not, why not? Cgingold (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Aha, very interesting. (And clever, I might add.) I would like to know what you think. My sense is that in theory they should not be exempted if we have the general rule, but in practice you would never be able to gain a consensus for deleting the sportsteam categories. (Kind of like the high school alumni cats, IMO. They shouldn't exist, but good luck on getting them deleted.) So yes, we should have an exception for practical reasons, even though it may bother me that it's internally inconsistent. Or else we should completely reverse on the TV journalists issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost forgot about this little discussion... I'm glad to see you found it intriguing, GO. To answer your question, I do find it rather unsettling that professional athletes pile up so many team-categories -- 5 to 6 of them, on average, for these players. I mean, the more teams someone plays for, the less meaningful any one of those categories becomes. On the whole, I think they should be deleted across the board, though I would be open to considering exceptions for particular sports that may not adhere to the general pattern (assuming there are any).

Having said that, I have to confess that I erred in setting up a comparison between television journalists by network and professional athletes by team. Here's the thing: I just finished a survey of articles in Category:American television journalists, in which I picked out 25 network-level journalists from the first page of names (the majority of whom aren't network-level). It turns out that the average number of networks they've worked for is less than 1.5 -- about one-fourth the number of teams-per-athlete. In other words, they are much more closely identified with their network(s) than most pro athletes with their teams. So in reality, it's unfair to the journalists to talk about their (potential) categories in the same discussion as the athletes. Cgingold (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! Even more interesting. It would be quite fun to see a "test" nomination for a sports-team category. The blow-back could be incredible! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I would be quite pleased to see all of the player by sports team categories disappeared but I also know there's no way in hell that the proposal would go through. Otto4711 (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I, personally, like to use the players by team categories as a convenient navagational tool, but on the other hand, I believe that alone should not be a legitimate reason to keep them. I want to opperate within consensus and established parameters, if they go, they go, not going to lose sleep over them, I'd just switch over to list of players by team (which need work).Neonblak ^talk - 04:26, 12 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 Category:Music students by teacher to Category:Lists of music students by teacher; LISTIFY and then DELETE its subcategories. Postdlf (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music students by teacher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Lists of music students by teacher

Category:Students of Nadia Boulanger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jadassohn students (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete and Listify both (using Jadassohn's full name).
• Nominator's rationale: The fundamental issue here is the use of categories vs. the use of lists. We have several CFD precedents against the use of categories like these for J.S. Bach, J.P. Sweelinck, and F. F. Bruce (although apparently none of them was listified, which had been requested). Assuming that is still the prevailing sentiment, these should be converted from categories to lists, which would then belong in the renamed Category:Lists of music students by teacher. Alternatively, or additionally, they could be converted to navboxes, as I suggested in the previous CFD. Notified category creators with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but rename using Jadassohn's full name). It's all very well saying "oh these should be lists instead of categories", but as you point out yourself previous categories of this kind have been deleted without being converted into lists. Surely if you choose to delete a category because you think a list would be better, then it is your responsibility to create the list first, rather than allow useful and notable information to be lost. --RichardVeryard (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly appreciate and share your concern, Richard -- which is exactly why I noted the failures in the previous instances. Ordinarily, when listification has been requested, a list is created by a closing admin immediately prior to deletion, but for some reason it didn't happen -- perhaps because both lists and navboxes were mentioned. However, I believe the lost info (i.e. the names) can still be recovered and converted to lists and/or navboxes. Cgingold (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When the consensus in a discussion is "listify", there's now a procedure that's followed. The category is placed on the page WP:CFD/W/M and the category is not deleted until someone creates the appropriate list. So there's no danger of deletion happening before the list being made if that's the result of the discussion (which it should be, in my opinion). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case, please can someone recover and listify the pupils of JS Bach. --RichardVeryard (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Responded on your talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per the cited precedents along with others such as Collaborators of Bertholt Brecht. Otto4711 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but with full name). I consider these as similar to Alumni categories. In some cases, pupil-teacher descents can be traced back a long way to very notable composers or otehr musicians of the distant past. I would not welcome this in respect of other disciplines. The F. F. Bruce list was in my view properly deleted without listification. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete–Listify per nom. Reasons for keeping that have been given are good reasons to listify, but we consistently delete these "people by person" categories in all their varieties. (I don't know why when a user suggests listification, many users just ignore the proposal and say "keep", then give reasons that in no way justify a "keep" over a "listify".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I presume both (or all) of you support the renaming part of the proposal? Cgingold (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would. I suppose the proposal is slightly confusing on its face, what with it's two parts, so I shouldn't criticise others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then delete per discussion (with the full name, as noted). Students of <teacher> just opens a door too broad for the category system. And when I consider the famous quote of q:Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants." This could get way out of hand. - jc37 06:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then delete per discussion. I'm not convinced from the discussion that keeping the category is the right decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:53, 4 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.