< June 16	June 18 >

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 (but feel free to purge away). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Technical terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is way too broad. Practically any term from any scientific or engineering discipline could be considered "technical terminology". Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems useful for the terminology sub-cats, which are pretty specific. What useful purpose would deletion serve exactly? Johnbod (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My counter-argument to that would be "what useful purpose would retaining serve?" The sub-categories are definitely standalone useful, but what has been achieved by tying them together into a vague and all-encompassing parent category? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Johnbod. Debresser (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: as above. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- but this should primarily be a parent category for categories and lists on particular classes of terminology. Accordingly the category probably needs to be purged of matter that ought to be in subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see this as an umbrella category to cover all the subcats - as per previous comment there should be no articles in it. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some pruning and reorganization would be helpful but there are no issues with the category justifying deletion. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 21 June 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) 03:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House of Taillifer - :Category:House of Taillefer

Taille + Fer = Hewer of Iron. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename as typographical error, to match main article House of Taillefer. Bencherlite^Talk 00:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree The article also had this same typo (not in its title but in its text). Was changed in this edit. Debresser (talk) 12:07, 18 June 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 to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_15#Category:2002_Cincinnati_Masters,--Aervanath (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2002 Cincinnati Masters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Technical nomination to consider how to handle these. The contents of this category appear to have been moved to Category:2002 Western & Southern Financial Group Masters without a discussion. This is apparently a follow on to a rename of the tournament. I suspect that if this was a normal nomination it would pass. So I guess the question is should we delete this and modify the speedy deletion criteria to allow categories of this type to be handled there? Or should we require a full discussion here? In either case, how strongly should we scold the editors. In this case the comment I left was that the category was emptied out of process and should have been discussed here. Maybe a warning template (template:uw-CfDprocess)? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment --Alumni categorises for colleges that merge or change name are named according to the existing institution. When I get to an article I find that this is about a tennis event. My question is whether the tournament wnet by its present name in 2002, in which case the change would be appropriate, or whehter the sponsorship is more recent, in which case it would be highly inappropriate and should be restored. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the articles, it would appear that it became dual named in 2002. But the article quality is poor so this may or may not be correct. However, I have included the navigation template since it shows Cincinnati Masters as the correct name.
    ((Cincinnati Masters tournaments))
    Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments – Category:2003 Cincinnati Masters has the same problem. Category:Cincinnati Masters is the parent. The corresponding articles have also been renamed recently .. perhaps a gentle chiding would suffice. Occuli (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many more examples in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. This is not an isolated occurrence. I just listed this one to explore how to deal with these. I expected the delete to be supported. I was surprised about the considerations discussed by Peterkingiron which make a lot of sense and I did not even consider when I brought this here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 18 June 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abc radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-member category with a lengthy non-English text in the description page. Also an inherently ambiguous title (there are "ABC Radio" operations in at least the US and Australia. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This just seems to be an ad (in Arabic!) for an Egyptian radio station. Orderinchaos 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — and to boot, the non-English text in the description page appears to be just a straight repaste of the non-English text in the category's sole article. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and additional arguments of all above. Debresser (talk) 12:04, 18 June 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:National Renewal (Chile) políticals to Category:Chilean politicians

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:Chilean politicians isn't sub-divided by party, and this category name doesn't look a good way to start. If instead of merging someone can think of a better name and / or a better place in the category structure for it (it's currently an orphan), so much the better. Bencherlite^Talk 16:40, 17 June 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about patriots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I see that there was a declined speedy last October. It had been CSDed because it was "subjective" and declined because that was not a valid criteria. Yet I do think that WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE may apply and so am nominating it for deletion to give the issue a full airing. The question of 'who is a patriot' is open to interpretation, is it not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete much too vague. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one man's "patriot" is another man's traitor. Doesn't work for a category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Debresser (talk) 12:03, 18 June 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:Films about the 1948 Palestinian exodus. (Incidentally, I have heard some rumblings lately of editors wanting to reinstate "Nakba" to all of these article and category names, but for now, it does seem best to stick with the common naming format. They can always be changed if consensus changes in that regard.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Nakba Films to Category:Films about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Nominator's rationale: Nakba appears to be the Palestinian term for their 1948 exodus/expulsion from Israeli territories. I would suggest a category title that explains that in English (also addressing the correction to the capitalization of "films") OR the merge to Films about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (my preference). I think anything would be better that what we have now, which is pretty unclear to the average English reader. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep maybe rename. With the Israeli-Palestinian conflict now covering over 60 years, and with a large numbers of films, a sub-cat for this seems appropriate, apart from the possibility of placing it in other trees; it is Category:1948 Palestinian exodus. Personally I think the Nakba is a well-enough known term, though there is an issue whether it is "the Nakba" or "Nakba". A "films about..." phrasing would be better, but others may agree with Shawn that Category:Films about the 1948 Palestinian exodus is better, although that seems a somewhat POV term for the event now. It is the parent category though. How about Category:Films about the 1948 Nakba? Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard the term Nakba until today. So my preference between the two options you've presented would be Category:Films about the 1948 Palestinian exodus per the parent cat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived in Israel for many years and don't know the term. And we are supposed to try and keep this the English Wikipedia. So strong rename. Debresser (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Films about the 1948 Palestinian exodus As currently worded, I would assume Nakba Films is a motion picture studio. The term "Nakba" redirects to 1948 Palestinian exodus and we should use that term to conform to the standard of matching the title of the parent article. This name will also provide greater clarity as to the content of the category. The nominator's proposed rename would broaden the scope beyond the well-defined inclusion criteria addressed in the category title. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I should also point out that the parent Category:The Nakba was renamed to Category:1948 Palestinian exodus in February of last year for many of the same reasons as mentioned here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 22 June 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. Under populated, and for now clearly has POV concerns. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Army civilian victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty - POV fork? Ryan4314 (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not empty now - it contains Mahmudiyah killings. In that case the soldiers were charged, in which case there is probably a case for a category but with a better name - 'US misdeeds which led to a criminal conviction' or something like that. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a very clear description. Debresser (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to attribute misdeeds of some to a broader organization is not appropriate for category space where no footnotes can be used to show the factual unbiased linkage. It's also ambiguously worded I would expect to see civilians employed by the US Army who were victims of something or other categorized in something with this title. It seems to be a category for Category:Civilian victims of the United States Army, but even properly titled, it wouldn't be much different from creating Category:Civilian victims of Christians or Category:Civilian victims of Muslims or some other inflamatory or POV cat. So, it cannot stand. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I still see these categories as "empty", they only have one article in them, hence POV fork perhaps? Ryan4314 (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- has a clear description. Deletion could violate WP:NPOV. Iqinn (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the deletion of this category could be considered NPOV (which if you knew me, you'd know I'm no friend of the U.S.), than surely it's creation could also be considered NPOV. Fact is, this category was created soley for Abeer Al-Janabi, there are no other categories like this on Wikipedia. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - looks like a POV category for one redirected person who lacks independent notability. Otto4711 (talk) 04:30, 24 June 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered Iraqi children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty - POV fork? Ryan4314 (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – as is often the case it is empty because the nom had emptied it. The rationale is that Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi has been merged after afd and is now a redirect (to several paragraphs). However redirects can be categorised and this seems a good use of this facility: see WP:Categorizing redirects. (This does not mean we should keep this category but it should at least be upmerged to Category:Murdered children, Category:Iraqi murder victims and Category:Iraqi children.) Occuli (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I still see these categories as "empty", they only have one article in them, hence POV fork perhaps? Ryan4314 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the only entry today is the redirect that Occuli (re-)added recently. Nobody mentions from what POV this is coming, but this was created by Good Olfactory, so it may have been the result of another CfD? The only one I could find was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Category:Murdered Iraqi children, and there was only 1 article at that time, too. It's been speedy deleted for being empty, 2007 August. Time to retire it.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- as part of the Category:Murdered children tree. This parent includes Category:Murdered Brazilian children, Category:Murdered Swedish children, Category:Murdered Italian children... Category:Murdered Iraqi children is one of about 15 subcategories there. Keep as the size of the parent determines whether a subcategory is needed, not the size of the subcategory and there is also potential for growth. Iqinn (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, I'll concede my nomination on this point. (Have struck out nom) Ryan4314 (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - POV category which, along with the WP:UNDUE focus in the article on this person over the others in the family, comes off as "look at the evil Americans." Otto4711 (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (creator). Yes, I created this, but I don't think I did so because of the result of a previous CfD. For categories I create myself, I (generally) won't create it unless there are at least 2 articles (not just redirects) in it, so I'm not sure what's happened to the other articles in the meantime. I wasn't forking any POVs by creating it, but I can understand how it could be interpreted that way judging by the current contents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 25 June 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 be honest, I'm a little unsure about the rationale for changing "managers" to "head coaches", but no one has objected, so .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:ACB league players to Category:Liga ACB players
• Category:ACB league to Category:Liga ACB
• Category:ACB roster templates to Category:Liga ACB roster templates
• Category:ACB league managers to Category:Liga ACB head coaches (basketball, so American English preferable)

Nominator's rationale: to match article page Liga ACB. (We do not typically word-for-word translate proper nouns.)

Mayumashu (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to conform to standard of matching title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 18 June 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, but a rename to Category:Nobility of Flanders or something similar could be proposed in a new nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Flemish nobility to Category:Belgian nobility

Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as "Flemish nobility". The government of Flanders does not handle nobility, the Belgian government does. As for older noble titles, the only one that could be described as Flemish is the Count of Flanders: other ones like the Duke of Aerschot were not in Flanders at the time: the third one is a Spanish noblemen born in a village that is not currently in Flanders, and who never was a Fleming. He shouldn't be merged to "Belgian nobility" either, but the other two current entries in the category can be merged to it. Another option is to delete the category outright. As it stands, it makes no sense and would have only the counts of Flanders as entries. Since these have their own cat Category:Counts of Flanders, a duplicate cat for them makes no sense. Fram (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some very strange arguments here - to deny that Aerschot, a member of the House of Croÿ was Flemish seems very odd. What does "were not in Flanders at the time" mean? - he was Governor-General of it. There is a good case, following the much more comprehensive UK nob categories, for only using cat "Belgian nobility" for titles created since 1819 or whenever it was, in which case older Flemish titles should all go here. Category:Counts of Flanders should obviously be a sub of this one. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aarschot was at the time in the Duchy of Brabant, not in the County of Flanders. Croÿ (for which you added the whole house to the cat as well), is located in France. That someone from outside Flanders could become Governor-General is not so odd (e.g. Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba was governor-general of the Netherlands). Adding more non-Flemish (as in from the contemporary Flanders, not from Brabant) nobility to this category does not change the rationale, and seems not to be the most productive effort (why not wait for a conclusion of the discussion, instead of rushing now to add things?). Could you please provide a definition of which ones are to be included and which ones aren't before adding any more? Everything in what was then called Flanders? Everything in what is now called Flanders? Everyone who has any connection to Flanders, no matter if he was born there, worked there, had an estate there, ...? Is Axel Merckx Flemish nobility? Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor? Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor? Juan Carlos I of Spain? If you can't clearly define the category, it is better not to have it. If you can clearly define it, only articles that fit the definition should be included. Fram (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As Flanders explains well, it of all places has always had a changing definition, but has clearly existed. Everything in what was then called Flanders is the more sensible approach, since the category is clearly for pre-Belgian people. This would include Brabant in the Middle Ages - please remember this the English WP, and the English term "Flemish" will at times have been wider than local usage, covering all the southern Netherlands. Are you saying the Croys were not Flemish people? Merckx & his title are Belgian, and the Habsburgs are covered in the Counts of Flanders sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What was then called Flanders" is a very dubios definition in my opinion, and I would not call a Duke of Brabant "Flemish nobility". County of Flanders is much more restricted. According to Flanders, theterm would only designate the county in the Middle Ages, and your definition only applies from about 1500("In the Early Modern, the term Flanders was associated with the southern part of the Low Countries, the Southern Netherlands"). The house of Croÿ? Jean I de Croÿ was a Frenchman or a Burgundian. Jean II de Croÿ was a Burgundian and a (modern designation) Walloon, Philip I de Croÿ was a Burgundian Walloon, .. Later members include the French Gustave Maximilien Juste de Croÿ-Solre, the German Albrecht Prinz von Croy, the French Louise-Elisabeth, Marquise de Tourzel... In what way is this a subcategory of Flemish nobility? Fram (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Arguments over who should be included are not a matter for an CFD discussion. Today, Flemish tends to be used for northern Belgium and Walloon for the south. That measn that the term relates to more than the county of Flanders. The appearance of certain Holy Roman Emperors is not wholly strange: they were ruling the area, not becuase they were the Emperor, but becuase they were also Duke of Brabant, Count of Flanders, etc. However, since they were the ultimate rulers (subject to the nominal suzerainty of the Emperor - if a different person), I am not sure they count as nobility, as opposed to (say) royalty. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a category for which no unambiguous inclusion or exclusion criteria can be put forward, then we shouldn't have that category. Flanders has had different meanings over the ages, and the Government of Flanders does not issue noble titles. Fram (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A useful result of this debate would be to choose one of the possible definitions, to be added as a note. I am clear the definition should restrict the category to pre-Belgians. That the meaning of Flemish has not been constant does not prevent historic Flemish categories, any more than German, French or Italian ones. Johnbod (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps consider a rename to "Nobility of Flanders"? That should satisfy all. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / Consider Rename The category contents seem to be a defining characteristic, it's the name that appears to be the issue. Debresser's suggestion or some other alternate may address the issue. Alansohn (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that a name change will reconcile the nom, but I'd be ok with it. The convention is "Fooish nobility" though. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- there has been something of a movement lately to categorize Flemish names and things under "by country" categories. As sensitive as I've tried to be to other oppressed cultures divided between countries (Kurds, Sorbs, Tamils, et alia), even in those cases we haven't been pretending they are modern nation-states. Category:Counts of Flanders is already cross-categorized under County of Flanders, Counts of Belgium, Counts of France, Counts of the Netherlands. For navigation, this is entirely adequate. More seems needlessly POV.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?? This is only in a "by country tree" as a subcat of the Belgian category. Where else would you put Lewis de Bruges? It is one thing to put medieval Germans and Italians into "modern" categories, when these were well-known geographical & ethnic areas, if not yet states, in their day. It is quite another thing with Belgium - see for example Category:Belgian painters, which following the universal practice of art history, only includes people after 1819. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 21 June 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:Wikipedia Birthday Committee Erik9 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Birthday Committee to Category:Wikipedia:Birthday Committee

Nominator's rationale: This is a Wiki space category - not an article space category. Ian Cairns (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions_for_Wikipedia-related_categories that should be without the colon.
• Agree At the moment there is discussion about this subject on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Update_administrative_categories_section and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions, but in this case all would agree since even the proposed new guideline reads "should have "Wikipedia" (without a colon) as part of the name, if this is necessary to distinguish them from possible article categories". Debresser (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Wikipedia Birthday Committee -- in accord with long-standing policy.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:46, 21 June 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Local Government Areas of Adelaide to Category:Local Government Areas in Adelaide

Propose renaming Category:Local Government Areas of Brisbane to Category:Local Government Areas in Brisbane

Propose renaming Category:Local Government Areas of Melbourne to Category:Local Government Areas in Melbourne

Propose renaming Category:Local Government Areas of Sydney to Category:Local Government Areas in Sydney

Nominator's rationale: These four categories are expressed as being "of", possessive, an area they do not belong to, but merely exist "in". In each case, Local Government Areas belong to the State under whose legislation they exist (eg Local Government Act 1993 in Victoria), which confer no different status to metropolitan councils than they do rural ones. The metropolitan areas are carefully defined, for instance Perth's is defined as being the boundaries of the Metropolitan Region Scheme which is used by every level of government, so this is not an objection to the contents - they are verifiably correct. The categories are useful for navigation purposes, hence I am only proposing a rename. (The Western Australian project decided to kill off the Perth one a while ago and upmerge to Category:Local Government Areas of Western Australia, hence why only the four above are listed.) Orderinchaos 06:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (Edit: support rename of additional category per Mattinbgn below) Orderinchaos 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per nominator (and common sense). Debresser (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination and adding Category:Local Government Areas of the Riverina, New South Wales to Category:Local Government Areas in the Riverina for the same reason (and removing the non-needed disambiguation). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:47, 18 June 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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People who entered the Witness Protection Program to Category:People who entered the United States Federal Witness Protection Program

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity and to match the category definition and main article United States Federal Witness Protection Program. Witness Protection Program is a redirect to the USFWPP article, but I imagine that there are witness protection programs in other jurisdictions, so the name of the category can be ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with nominator. A classical case of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Debresser (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree -- There is a witness protection programme in UK, but who has entered it tends not to be publicised, because that would be counter-productive, just as we do not publicise the locations of women's refuges. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to standardize titles to match parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 18 June 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have received honorary degrees from Yale University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by award reception. Cf the following discussions: Honorary doctors; People who have received honorary degrees from Harvard; Honorary doctors of Anglia Ruskin University; Honorary Doctors of the University of Chicago; etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Depends If there are a few more such categories, then that would indicate a community feeling that we need such a category. Which would per definition mean it is not overclassification. But if this is the only one, or almost the only one, then I would agree with the nominator. Debresser (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't seem to find any more. The ones listed above did exist and were deleted previously. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then let's delete. Debresser (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify/Delete as undefining for the individual / overcategorisation by award, and per precedent; how many similar categories would Steven Spielberg be in (for example) if he had one for each honorary degree? Bencherlite^Talk 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed: Kofi Annan's list is a good illustration of this potential problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and extensive precedent that categorizing people by degree (honorary or otherwise) is WP:OCAT. Otto4711 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• possibly Rename to Category:Holders of honorary degrees from Yale University. I am not sure that many universities award many honorary degrees, and I am not sure that honorary degrees other than doctorates are notable awards. The award of an honorary doctorate is a measn of a univeristy acknowledging that a person is particularly distinguished. However, ultimately this is an award category, for which the usual solution is listify and delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I poked around a bit to see if I could find a list of everyone who's received an honorary doctorate from Yale but was unsuccessful. Yale awarded eight in 2006 and ten in 2007. That seems commensurate with Harvard, which awarded ten in 2009. Is that a lot, in the grander scheme of things? No idea, really. The other aspect of categorizing by honorary degrees is that the people who receive them tend to receive quite a few of them. Stephen Chu, a 2009 Harvard honorary Ph.D, has received to date ten honorary degrees. He's already in 20 categories. Implementing an honorary degree scheme would up that to 30. Anthony Fauci currently in 11 categories, has received more than 30 honorary degrees which would up his category count to over 40. I find it hard to believe that receiving an honorary degree, even from an institution as prestigious as Yale or Harvard, rises to the level of defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no doubt all these people are notable for something else, unless Yale is handing them out willy-nilly. Not defining for the person receiving it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 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: merge to Category:Members of Legislative Council from Maharashtra, Category:Members of Legislative Assembly from Maharashtra, and Category:Members of Parliament from Maharashtra. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former Maharashtra MLCs to Category:Maharashtra MLCs

Suggest merging Category:Former Maharashtra MLAs to Category:Maharashtra MLAs

Suggest merging Category:Former MPs from Maharashtra to Category:Members of Parliament from Maharashtra

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Propose upmerging categories that subdivide politicians by "former" status per standard practice for these types of categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per nominator, as in previous "former" categories. Debresser (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but expand abbreviations, I can recognise "Member of Legislative Assembly", but not MLC. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and expand per Peterkingiron. It took a lot of digging to find out what these abbreviations meant and they are not even mentioned in most of the articles. MLC appears to be "Member of Legislative Council". Vegaswikian (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support expansion of abbreviations (nom). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename. Merge categories and rename parents to expand acronym. — Σxplicit 20:33, 27 June 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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former Members of the Knesset to Category:Members of the Knesset

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Per standard practice not to subcategorize politicians by current or former status. The members of the historical (former) Knessets are being organized into lists, which is the usual way of ordering this information. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per nominator, as in previous "former" categories. Debresser (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as I think the distinction between current and former members in categorisation is useful. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge consistent precedent is that occupational categories are not split into current and former. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Occupation. This distinction can be made in a list of members, for example. Bencherlite^Talk 10:08, 23 June 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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former Shortland Street characters to Category:Shortland Street characters

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is no need to subcategorize characters from a TV show into current and former statuses. We definitely don't categorize fictional characters as being "dead" or "alive" (all too often the supposed "dead" are not really). This category would have to be restricted to "dead" characters or just those who haven't been on the show for some arbitrary period of time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per nominator, as in previous "former" categories. Debresser (talk) 08:21, 17 June 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Yugoslav Political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is acting as a holder category for the political party categories of all of the states that used to be part of Yugoslavia: Category:Political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Category:Political parties in Serbia, Category:Political parties in the Republic of Macedonia, etc. We don't need to group these categories in this way. The current name is ambiguous and could be interpreted as meaning "political parties that existed in Yugoslavia when it was a unified country", but that is not at all what the category actually is. (That's at Category:Political parties in Yugoslavia.) This category is categorizing all political parties from current countries that happen be a subpart of the former Yugoslavia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom - too confusing. This category would have been useful for political parties in the former Yugoslavia, but that is not what it is being used for and, if my historical understanding is correct, such a category would only contain one entry. Orderinchaos 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I might have suggested merging to Category:Political parties in Yugoslavia, but if it is treating the republics into which Yugoslavia fragmented, as still part of that late state, it must go. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 20 June 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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former Grand Ole Opry members to Category:Grand Ole Opry members

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Propose merging this "former" category with the parent category, which is defined as a "current members" category. As with politicians, no need to separate former and current members in this case—it is preferable to have category information "timeless" when referring to people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. As in previous cases of "former" categories. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 17 June 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set in impoverished urban neighborhoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly narrow category; subjective title and arbitrary inclusion criteria. Gilliam (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How does one define impoverished? Orderinchaos 06:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I suppose a category for films that are specifically about poverty itself might be useful, a category about films which merely happen to be set in poor neighbourhoods, but might actually be about something else entirely, really isn't. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 17 June 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.