< July 15 July 17 >

July 16

Category:Renewable energy banks

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Renewable energy banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Extremely small, unlikely to grow. Seems a shout-out for one particular bank. Cybercobra (talk) 23:27, 16 July 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.

Category:Ethnic enclaves in the United Kingdom

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. Maybe a rename? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ethnic enclaves in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Ethnic enclave" is a slippery concept and is too subjective to form the basis for a category. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at ethnic enclave these all seem to match the definition in that very North-American centred article. But I think in the UK the term suggests a majority of the resident population, perhaps a high majority, which most of these don't have by a long stretch. I don't think these would often be so called in the UK, and we should not use US English for a UK category. Category:Ethnic commercial centres in the United Kingdom would be more accurate. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 17 July 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.

Category:College soccer venues

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:College soccer venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to be a duplicate of Category:College soccer venues in the United States. Am I right ? thisisace (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the US category apparently thinks so. He took it upon himself to blank the older category when he created his own. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 17 July 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.

Category:Genes by chromosome

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Genes by chromosome to Category:Human genes by chromosome
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "The title is misleading and not accurate. The order of genes on chromosomes can apply to any organism." ← Apparently renewed interest in this long-dormant proposal...procedural nom. DMacks (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

Category:Smiths

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:Metalsmiths and cleanup. Since most of what is in here is about metal, this means that the bots can do most of the work. No objection to Category:Smiths (trades), or is that Category:Smiths (trade), as a parent category and to hold what does not belong in the category as renamed. I did ask a question in the debate about how to deal with a few of the out of place articles, but I don't consider that as a disqualification from closing this debate. The fact that the main article was at metalsmith, was also a faction in the choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Smiths to Category:Smithing
Nominator's rationale: The new name broadens the category to include smiths and smithing related content (tools, techniques, etc.), which the category already includes. Wizard191 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People categories are always grouped in their own parent in these cases, so that they can be included in people trees. For the sake of a very few articles your suggestion would mess this up. Several of the techniques you mention are practiced by goldsmiths etc, who come under this category. Johnbod (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be made a subcat of Category:Metalworking and the non-person articles in it moved up to there. Olaf Davis (talk)
No, I can't see anything either, which doesn't mean it isn't there somewhere. I'll add a bit to WP:COP. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What happens to Leathersmiths? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a redirect, and the article doesn't even mention the term. I guess it should go. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Locksmiths, gunsmiths, & for that matter clocksmiths clearly are "skilled in metalworking", or were in the periods when they were likely to be notable - I don't see the problem. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 25 July 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.

Category:Ukrainian police

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian police to Category:Ukrainian police officers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More accurate and to fit in with every other similar category in Category:Police officers by nationality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 16 July 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.

This category is not a nationality and is fundamentally racist.

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. WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish chess players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Beganlocal (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:USELESS for what, according to WP Policy, are inappropriate arguments for keeps and deletes. Please bear in mind also that the purpose is for discussion - we are not voting, we are advocating. Beganlocal (talk) 19:07, 16 July 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.

This category is not an occupation and should be deleted. There is no need to categorise criminals by nationality or affinity.

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. WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American criminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Beganlocal (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the subcats. I contend that eg 'attempted murder' is not much of an occupation. Occuli (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A professional would do the job right, you think? Maybe so. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Occuli. I am hesitant to define a profession or occupation as merely what you do to make an income. If I steal to support myself I am not a professional thief and the property I steal cannot be considered my "earnings". I am against defining illegal acts as occupations. If I were an Iraqi and I decided to engage in acts of war against the American troops in a "professional" way - that is to say I do this full time and am involved with receiving funds and purchasing arms etc, does that make me a "soldier" and should I be categorised by occupation as a soldier? No.
Another good point. In my view people are approaching this from the wrong viewpoint. Sbsolutely everything on wikipedia should be subject to deletion if it cannot be shown that it belongs here. See "What Wikipedia is Not". We are not a travel guide or a telephone directory for example. The categories exist for various reasons, and each category ought to meet a minimum test in order to be worthy of inclusion. We do not see "Politicians with Brown Hair" as a category for a very good reason. Please see WP:USELESS. Beganlocal (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, as would adding the British Prime Minister to a category of "Politicians with Brown Hair". Do you think it belongs in Wikipedia? No. What does having brown hair have to do with how you conduct your politics? About as much as being British, Italian, Irish, or Jewish has to do with how you commit crime! Beganlocal (talk) 19:04, 16 July 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.

Intersection of British and Fraudster not a matter of encyclopaedic interest and is fundamentally racist.

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. WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British fraudsters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I have read Categorisation of People by Occupation and Categorisation of People by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality. Without opining on the general legitimacy of the Category:People by occupation, I would point out that this is not an occupation and could be considered racist. There is no need to categorise the British by crimes, especially the crime of fraud. Beganlocal (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. This is no more racist against Brits than Category:Canadian award winners is racist in favour of Canadians, even if you call 'Brit' and 'Canadian' races. Besides racism the only argument given is 'there's no need', which by itself is not very persuasive. I think, Beganlocal, you'd be better off starting some sort of centralised discussion about what things should and shouldn't be categorised by nationality than CfDing a load of individual ones like this. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, interesting point, but Canadian award winners are grouped because as people who are awarded for cultural contributions it is likely relevant to include them alongside other members of the same culture who have also made a contribution. That is very different from grouping criminals by race or nationality. What if I were to start categories about Criminals of Pakistani Heritage in England, or Jamacian Youth Crime? Inappropriate, yes? So why American Fraudsters, British Criminals, etc. Beganlocal (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These categories are generally not categorising by ethnicity, but by nationality, which is different. There's nothing racist in categorising anyone by their nationality - it's merely a statement of fact. Pretty much everybody on Wikipedia is categorised by their nationality, so nominating a handful of such categories (out of thousands) for deletion seems to be in contravention of WP:POINT. You would be better off discussing than CfDing. And is "criminal" not an occupation? What other occupation did John Dillinger or Al Capone, for example, have? It's how they made their living, ergo it was their occupation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 16 July 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.

Intersection of Scottish and Fraudster not a matter of encyclopaedic interest and is fundamentally racist.

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. WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Scottish fraudsters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I have read Categorisation of People by Occupation and Categorisation of People by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality. Without opining on the general legitimacy of the Category:People by occupation, I would point out that this is not an occupation and could be considered racist. There is no need to categorise Scots by crime. I am not given to understand that the Scots are notable for fraud. Beganlocal (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case what is the point in grouping them for the purposes of criminal activity? You make my argument better than I can sir, I salute you! Beganlocal (talk) 19:14, 16 July 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.

Intersection of Italian and Fraudster not a matter of encyclopaedic interest and is fundamentally racist.

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. WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Italian fraudsters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I have read Categorisation of People by Occupation and Categorisation of People by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality. Without opining on the general legitimacy of the Category:People by occupation, I would point out that this is not an occupation and could be considered racist. There is no need to categorise Italians by crime. Beganlocal (talk) 11:38, 16 July 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.

Category:BRIC countries

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:BRIC countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can't see the advantage of having this category, since all it does is categorizes the article BRIC as well as the four countries that make up BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. With nothing else to categorize, this category is doing nothing that BRIC doesn't already achieve by listing the countries there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:04, 16 July 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.

Category:East German political parties

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:East German political parties to Category:Political parties in East Germany
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories; merge to standard naming format of Category:Political parties by country. (I thought at first there might be a distinction—one for parties in the GDR and one for contemporary parties that focus on "East German" issues in the reunited Germany—but no. They are all GDR parties.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:46, 16 July 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.

Category:United States gay rights cases

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 as nominated, noting that this seems to be the standard form of the subcategories of Category:United States case law by topic. A reformatting of these per Alansohn's suggestion could be proposed in a broader proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States gay rights cases to Category:United States LGBT rights cases
Nominator's rationale: Rename - broadens the scope to include bi- and trans-rights cases. Otto4711 (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nom. thisisace (talk) 20:39, 16 July 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.

Category:21st-century former rulers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:21st-century former rulers to Category:21st-century rulers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per convention not to subcategorize politicians and rulers into "current" or "former" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now why would you do that, and where did you move them?? In general it is not accepted to start working on a category while it is still under discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved one into Category:21st-century rulers and the rest (about 6 or 7) into Category:21st-century prime ministers. I did this because I was already doing this before Olfactory nominated the category. It was also not going to empty the category or effect the "debate." As I said above, I also had planned on asking for category's deletion, once I was done with it. Carlaude:Talk 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should still not anticipate the outcome of the debate. Unlike an article edit, the rest of us cannot see what was there after contnets have been removed. Empyting a category is bad form and should result in discipliniary action. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware of this, however I did not consider removing 15% of the articles akin to "empyting" a category. Carlaude:Talk 03:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scrach that-- Dimadick‎ has done the moving we need already-- but please just delete the category, as these articles are still not needed in Category:21st-century rulers. Whatever you do, please close this CfD soon. Thanks. Carlaude:Talk 14:55, 22 July 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.

Category:ECRG MEPs serving 2009-2014

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:ECRG MEPs serving 2009-2014 to Category:European Conservatives and Reformists MEPs serving 2009–2014
Nominator's rationale: Expanding the abbreviation ECRG (which is actually incorrect, as it's ECR, but whatever) and replacing the hyphen with a dash. 'MEPs' could also be expanded, but I'm pretty sure that 'MEP' is actually used more often than 'Member of the European Parliament' in normal discourse, so it's probably unnecessary. Bastin 02:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
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.

Category:Departments and Government of Billings, Montana

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Departments and Government of Billings, Montana to Category:Government of Billings, Montana
Nominator's rationale: Rename for conformance with other subcategories in Category:Local government by city in the United States. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 01:14, 16 July 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.

Category:Cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses to Category:Legal cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses
Nominator's rationale: Rename to a more accurate description. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 00:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, there are no other categories that use the construction "Civil rights cases". The suggested rename does not address the vagueness of "involving". Otto4711 (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with 2. In the UK at least, we can describe a person as being a Jehovah's Witness. thisisace (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, but that doesn't contradict the fact that "Jehovah's Witnesses" is also well-understood as the name of the religion.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we need to exclude any cases involving the religion itself? What about class-action suits of many JW people-- do you want to exclude that also? Carlaude:Talk 04:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the existing name and nominator's suggestion would allow this category to be applied to an article concerning any legal case where the JW faith of some participant(s) was notable, and rightly so. Of course, attaching this category implies that religion was fundamental to the legal case, but future editors can consider each application on a case-by-case basis. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This option seems to exclude any cases that do not involving the religion (as a body) itself. One or two JWs are not "the" Jehovah's Witnesses, even if it is over JW ideas, like blood transfusion. Carlaude:Talk 05:06, 18 July 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.
More