< March 15 March 17 >

March 16

Presidential administrations follow-up

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 all. the wub "?!" 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the follow-up to a recently closed discussion for renaming presidential administration categories to "Presidency of NAME". There the Obama, Washington, and George W. Bush categories were renamed to this format; the rest are now nominated to conform with this format. See the previous nomination for rationale and a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 16 March 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:Films with posters designed by Bill Gold

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) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films with posters designed by Bill Gold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This seems like a trivial aspect of the films. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 16 March 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:Crises

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. the wub "?!" 13:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Crises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Can this category be saved? - at first glance this appears to be overcategorization by shared name. There would seem to be little relationship between for instance Midlife crisis and Global warming (except I suppose those little red sports cars tend to have a big carbon footprint) or Chinese word for "crisis" and the 2008 Bulgarian energy crisis. Inclusion criteria is also problematic as the media can label one upheaval as a "crisis" while naming a similar upheaval as a "burst bubble" or a "severe downturn" or what have you. OTOH, we do have several potential sub-cats and while I'm not a sociologist there likely is some relationship between say, economic crises and energy crises. So, what to do? Otto4711 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 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:Native American actrees

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete: empty; Category:Native American actors exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Native American actrees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Misspelled title, empty category. Hqb (talk) 19:21, 16 March 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:Radio 4 Thought for the Day Presenters

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 (list now created). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio 4 Thought for the Day Presenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • YIKES. Hey, I really had ya goin' there, didn't I?? You must have thought I had lost my marbles! LOL - Somehow, I copied & inserted the name of the parent category when I set up this CFD section -- even though I had, in fact, properly tagged the correct category. (No doubt Otto will have a field day with this.) Cgingold (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Maybe Otto will not notice. Occuli (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto doesn't care. Delete - performer per performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like pretty thin stuff even for a list. Is presenting the Thought of the Day seen as some sort of honor or coup for the person presenting it? Otto4711 (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I have taken advice, I have now turned this into a list at Thought for the Day. I did wonder whether this was better served as a list than a category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:59, 20 March 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:TV Tic-tac-toe

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. Kbdank71 13:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:TV Tic-tac-toe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow category. Tic-Tac-Dough, three versions of Hollywood Squares, and a pricing game on The Price Is Right. Somehow I don't see this as being a useful category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What future expansion? I'm pretty well versed in game shows, and I know for a fact that we've had no other tic-tac-toe games besides these ones. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:58, 16 March 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.

Characters in German novels

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. the wub "?!" 13:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Characters in German novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Just don't see the need -Just looks like overcat to me. Also include the "Characters in German novels by century" category within it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do see what you mean. The parent contains a number of categories based on nationality; however the category talks about "by novel" when the content are all categories "by nationality" - a real mess bigger than I thought - but certainly not keep. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mess. (It's the nationality of the novel, apparently, not the character.) Category:Characters by novel has been given just one parent, Category:Characters in written fiction by work. All very odd. Occuli (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So that is already catered for by Category:German-language novels not this character based, nationality focused, badly parented mess. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, this should really be Category:German fictional characters or somesuch! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Characters in novels are different then characters in fiction. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Characters in novels are characters in fiction. Otto4711 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As British are humans, but we don't have one large generic category for just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of being snide, read the page you link and see the subcategory "People by place". Thus, you are 100% wrong in addition to being completely incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't snide—it was an actual surprised reaction to your contention, which startled me because of it's obvious incorrectness. We certainly do have "one large generic category" for humans, and that is it. It is not limited to a "people by place" category—that is but one subcategory of it. The big category is a parent category of the "people by place" one, and so in my view the big one is in fact a large generic category that can hold a variety of subcategories, including that one. I don't think the fact that subcategories exist eliminates the bigger category's nature as a large generic category. Of course, it's possible we're interpreting your words in different ways. But rather than assuming others completely understand your point and are therefore being snide, you could assume that either (a) you were wrong, or (b) your meaning was unclear or misunderstood. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that we don't have -one- category for all of it. That was obvious. You link to a section that has many sub categories which prove you wrong. Regardless of whatever intent, it should not have been done for thousands of reasons. Your continuance on the matter only verifies that your original comment was snide. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not obvious, and your meaning was unclear to me. That's why I stated that perhaps you should assume that your meaning was unclear or misunderstood rather than assume snideness at every turn. And, once someone tells you that they weren't being snide, it's also then best to assume they are telling the truth rather than reading into the further comments more and more snideness. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear? Really? "we don't have one large generic category for just that." We - the community, don't - as opposed to "do", have - state of ownership, one - single, large - big, generic - broad in range, category - a type of classification. Is there one broad category and only one? No. It is broken down into hundreds of little categories. It is impossible to be clearly, but your continuation of this only continues to verify the above assessment. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why it's so hard for you to believe that someone could misunderstand what you meant. There is more than one meaning for most of the words you used, especially when used in combination. You needn't be embarrassed about that fact—but it is unnecessary (and probably inappropriate) for you to continue to assume that I must have been being snide, even when you've been corrected on that point several times now. Somewhat ironically in the circumstances, I don't understand the first part of your final sentence. (The part that goes, "it is impossible to be clearly".) Is it possible you made a typo? Or am I just being snide? :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent - if you weren't being snide you wouldn't have continued after I made it clear that you were wrong. So, take the hint and drop it. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will drop the issue—probably as soon as you stop telling me what my attitude and intents were and are. If you can't restrain yourself, I suggest you try to take your own hint and drop it yourself, since I can't reply to silence. Heaven forbid that anyone admit that they can be misunderstood, however. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the fifth unnecessary and incivil response so far. Was your whole reason for being here as such? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. It sounds like someone's trying to be offended. Carry on. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As is saying something should be deleted for being "silly", which is a very arbitrary and subjective remark. Thankfully, closing admin ignore such comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is just Otto4711 shorthand for saying that the category and its parent are mixing "apples and oranges" and / or the value of categorization of character from novels by its nationality is still to be demonstrated. Characters by "their" nationality might be of more interest but not in the parent category of "characters by novel". There are no articles or categories in it that are "characters", "by novel". real mess this! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lancelot in British stories is still a character in British fiction even though he is French, so your rational and the original dies. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - you just didn't understand it. What you say is not an answer to what I said. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that all you want, but until you can contradict my above statement about Lancelot, you have no grounds here. You cannot delete a category because of opinion. You need to have a good reason. There is a need for these categories, which has already been proven. So, state whatever you want, but you haven't done anything to prove anything you've said yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? Huck Finn is definitely an American character. Your statement seems to lack an actual understanding of how fiction works and lacks a true oppose rationale. The closing admin should note that. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when what? The fictional people nationality categories were deleted some time ago, then the American one was re-created. You may be unaware of the incident, but I remember it distinctly. I closed the discussion and deleted them. Otto protested. It was all fun. (However, I suggest you don't try to assess how much a user knows about fiction based on brief comments at CfD. It could be interpreted by some users as being somewhat snide.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nationality of the fictional people matters not. The nationality of the writer where the fictional person comes from does. Holmes is a British character. It doesn't matter if -he- is British. He is a figure from British literature. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter directly to this discussion. My point, however, is that this is even more trivial, in my opinion, than categorizing fictional characters by the character's nationality. The less trivial categories were deleted. Ergo, the more trivial ones should be also. You don't have to agree with the reasoning, but there's no need to impugn others' level of knowledge because of an argument that is selected. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can say it is trivial, but as I pointed out with Holmes, we all know that he is a character that is connected to the UK and is British regardless of his actual nationality. That is a very important determiner and is culturally important. Since you are unable to contradict that, your response means nothing to this discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we be a little more wary of announcing whose comments are and are not relevant to the discussion. Personally, I think all opinions are welcome and important, regardless of their viewpoint, because that's how WP works. Everyone would probably appreciate it if you would acknowledge that, either explicitly, or at least implicitly by not trying to marginalise others' opinions you disagree with. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can state whatever you want, but if you wont stay on topic, that only undermines any thing you are trying to say. Right now, you are continuing to put up empty speech and not actually discussing the issues. Such a thing is completely inappropriate. All arguments you have attempted to make have been contradicted. Claim marginalization all you want, it wont mean that you are correct, nor will it mean that you will get your way. As Julian has stated before, this is a clear case of "I dont like it" and your attitude only verifies that. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said what I think, and I see that you have too (numerous times). I'm not concerned at all with refuting your arguments, mostly because I think they speak weakly for themselves, and the self-contradiction within them more than accomplishes what I otherwise could. At this point, the only comments coming from you that worry me in the slightest are the ones that suggest that (1) you know the intentions of others or (2) that others' opinions are irrelevant or should be ignored. Whether I "will get [my] way" on one particular CfD isn't something I worry too much about, generally. It's quite easy to tell what users are personally invested in a particular category. For this one, it ain't me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is rather obvious that you are. I, for one, haven't had any connection to the category. However, you are crusading against it and the rest. How odd. And here you are, still responding and not refuting. Why? For one so not invested, you have responded probably 10 times more than what would show that. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Crusading", eh? It's possible you aren't familiar with how I comment at CfD, and that variety of categories I comment on. This one would probably rank somewhere out of the top-500 in discussions that I really care about (substantively, that is). I do care more when editors suggest that others' comments are irrelevant though, which is why I persist. Frankly, I don't care about your substantive arguments. I do care about how you treat others. That said, it's possible, maybe likely, that I've mistaken your rhetorical enthusiasm for incivility. If so, I apologise—but would point out that repeatedly stating that others' comments are irrelevant is a bit over the top and usually unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - what clarification would you like? I am personally open to being persuaded - however the variety of argument here and the confusion of debate suggests that the naming of the category, its content and the naming of its parent etc. are confusing at best. The main thing here is a good and substantive rationale for the category type "characters by nationality of novel" idea which doesn't appear to have caught on as there are so few in the categories so far. If, the cat remains (and its companions for other nations) it should at very least have it's parent renamed. Also an earlier observation I made was why should "character by nationality of novel" be of greater interest than the nationality of the character. Why not by "character by nationality of work" which would be a top level for all types of media. As I say at very least the parent is misnomer and is this potentially very large category tree been argued for elsewhere successfully. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A category "not catching on" is not supposed to be deleted. It is supposed to be populated. And character by nationality of work would have hundreds of thousands of pages. We have poems, novels, short stories, etc, as part of fiction. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 19 March 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.

Subcategories of Category:Kalvan series

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 all. the wub "?!" 13:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Kalvan series shouldn't be deleted, but all of its subcategories are fairly redundant and useless -- there was apparently a whole series of stub articles that have now been merged and redirected away. AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:12, 16 March 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:Dermatologic pharmacology

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. the wub "?!" 13:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dermatologic pharmacology to Category:Dermatological preparations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category should be renamed based on extended discussions at WT:PHARM:CAT regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. Please see WP:PHARM:CAT for more details. kilbad (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The new classification scheme has been discussed for more than two months now at WT:PHARM:CAT: it is only just now being implemented. The proposed renaming had consensus support during he discussions. Physchim62 (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Scott Alter 13:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, need consistency among the categories. -J04n (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing is ever simple: I'm wondering whether this rename allows for all of the contents of Category:Acne treatments. As has been pointed out in the renaming discussion for that category, not all of the treatments are actually "preparations". Cgingold (talk) 02:57, 17 March 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:National Hockey League players born in the Southern hemisphere

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. Tiptoety talk 16:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Hockey League players born in the Southern hemisphere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Place of birth is not defining, nor is which hemisphere a person is born in.TM 13:28, 16 March 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:Paranormal writers

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. the wub "?!" 13:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paranormal writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American paranormal writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Fortean writers

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--Aervanath (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fortean writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American fortean writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rationale: Not only are these categories substantially redundant to the Paranormal writers categories, the problem is compounded by the difficulty in specifying who is to be considered a "Fortean writer", and how those writers might be distinguished from their Paranormal cousins. Equally important is the fact that "Fortean" is not a familiar term for most readers. The net result is that maintaining both sets of categories, far from being helpful to readers, merely introduces an element of confusion, imo. This is reminiscent of the problem that was created by the existence of both Category:Anti-war activists and Category:Peace activists, which was resolved by merging the latter into the former, because the similarities were deemed to be so much greater than the differences that it didn't make sense to maintain both. Notified creators with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be very helpful if you could elaborate on how they are "somewhat different" -- and then, please try to address the concerns that I laid out in my rationale. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I should have been less abbreviated. Picking up the "agnostic scepticism" characterisation of the Forteans (see the Charles_Hoy_Fort#The_Forteans section), I'm dubious about whether writers on the Paranormal could be so described? There has also been a breadth of interest in Fortean Times (for example, regarding the moral panics in social work circles around "satanic child abuse" 20 yrs ago) which goes well outside any Paranormal categorisation. So can F be a subset of P? AllyD (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this reply, it helps to focus the discussion. What occurs to me is that, while most so-called "Fortean writers" deal with subjects that come under the "Paranormal" umbrella, and can thus be included in Category:Paranormal writers, there may in fact be a very few who only ever write about topics that clearly fall outside of that heading. Putting that together with the fact that "Fortean" is a specialized term that's not all that widely known -- along with the problem of overlap -- it seems to me that it would be much better to have a List of Fortean writers, rather than a Category. Cgingold (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's not a very well-formed name. I was so focused on the issues I outlined in my rationale that I overlooked that -- which is actually pretty amusing considering that I then went on to have some fun at the expense of Category:Astronomical historians! (see above) So yes, this one could use renaming, too. [see above] Cgingold (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:00, 16 March 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:Visitor attractions

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 Erik9 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Visitor attractions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Visitor attractions by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitary inclusion criteria. Gilliam (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most countries have official lists in fact - there are 6,500 in the UK apparently. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 16 March 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:20th-century Episcopalians

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. Tiptoety talk 16:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:20th-century Episcopalians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Purposeless intersection: 20th-century memebers of the "Episcopal Church in the United States of America" or the "Scottish Episcopal Church" but not of the many other releted "Anglican" churches. Do these people have anything in common that other Anglicans do not?
Note that there are already also the much better Category:20th-century Anglicans and Category:20th-century American Episcopalians.
By the way, while someone else created the "Category:20th-century Anglicans" and thou it is sorta empty at the moment, I hope to use it some and think it can wait until then. Carlaude (talk) 07:53, 16 March 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:Angolan-Portuguese

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 all. the wub "?!" 13:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Angolan-Portuguese to Category:Portuguese people of Angolan descent
Propose renaming Category:Portuguese of Brazilian descent to Category:Portuguese people of Brazilian descent
Propose renaming Category:Cape Verdean-Portuguese people to Category:Portuguese people of Cape Verdean descent
Propose renaming Category:Portuguese of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent to Category:Portuguese people of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent
Propose renaming Category:Portuguese of Guinea-Bissauan descent to Category:Portuguese people of Guinea-Bissauan descent
Propose renaming Category:Portuguese of Irish descent to Category:Portuguese people of Irish descent
Propose renaming Category:Mozambican-Portuguese to Category:Portuguese people of Mozambican descent
Propose renaming Category:Spanish Portuguese people to Category:Portuguese people of Spanish descent
Nominator's rationale: Clarify confusing, neologistic double-barrelled ethnonyms and standardise "Portuguese people" instead of just "Portuguese"). cab (talk) 07:46, 16 March 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:À la recherche du temps perdu (novel)

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 (without prejudice to future recreation). the wub "?!" 13:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:À la recherche du temps perdu (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only two entries. If there is consensus to keep it, please change the title to 1.) remove the unnecessary disambiguation and 2.) reflect the name of the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 16 March 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:Spaniards in the Holocaust

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 23rd. Kbdank71 13:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Spaniards in the Holocaust to Category:The Holocaust in Spain
Nominator's rationale: To match the convention of similar country subcategories, and also to broaden the category's scope to include non-biographical articles. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:12, 16 March 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:Holocaust by country

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 all per nom Erik9 (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Holocaust by country to Category:The Holocaust by country
Propose renaming Category:Holocaust in Norway to Category:The Holocaust in Norway
Propose renaming Category:Holocaust in Poland to Category:The Holocaust in Poland
Propose renaming Category:Holocaust in Romania to Category:The Holocaust in Romania
Propose renaming Category:Holocaust in Transnistria to Category:The Holocaust in Transnistria
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article and category (The Holocaust and Category:The Holocaust) and the majority of similar subcategories in the category tree. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:07, 16 March 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:People by university

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. the wub "?!" 14:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People by university to Category:People by university or college
Nominator's rationale: To match the parent Category:Universities and colleges. This is a test nomination for all [People] by university in [Country] categories; if it passes, I will nominate the remaining categories for renaming. Creator notified using ((subst:cfd-notify)). –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting point -- but I'm not persuaded that it's actually a problem when "college" is used in conjunction with "university", as it is in the super-category. It would be problematic as a stand-alone term, but my sense is that readers will construe the word correctly as long as it's paired with "university". As for "tertiary", that term is rarely used in the US. "Post-secondary" is far more commonly used -- but it's still not as good as "Universities and colleges", imo. Cgingold (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Cgingold on this one; the potential ambiguity of "college" in this case is adequately addressed by pairing it directly with "university". "University (and/or) college" is actually the least problematic option when it comes to international clarity — we truly couldn't just go with Grutness' suggestion above, but would have to use the much more unnecessarily complicated Category:People by tertiary or post-secondary institution and Category:Tertiary and post-secondary institutions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you in fact endorsing this proposal? Cgingold (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly preferable to simply mentioning universities. There is an additional problem with the proposed new name, though - what about Technical institutes and Polytechs? They are also tertiary, but are not universities or colleges. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 19 March 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:Current spaceflights

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on 23rd. Kbdank71 13:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Current spaceflights to Category:Spaceflight
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm proposing this as a merge, but in truth, I believe that this one should be deleted. I'll see where consensus forms. In addition to the issues with using the word current, it also fails WP:POV since the criteria for inclusion is flights that are currently being covered in the media. Not sure how the list of spacewalks fits in, and that may be gone by the time you check. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added ((hiddencat)) to prevent it from appearing on articles. The fact that this is a project category not a content category means that it is exempt from the issues with the word "current" and the POV issues. It is a pity that I did not realise that this was the case sooner. --GW… 22:12, 21 March 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.

Related bands

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. Tiptoety talk 17:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Iron Maiden related bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:L.A. Guns related bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. More categories for "Foo-related bands". This is an inappropriate categorization first because it's vague, but secondly because it's categorizing bands by one (sometimes two) participants' previous participation in another band. We don't try to establish such "band family trees" in categories, and almost invariably the article about the band in question will mention that one its members, so-and-so, was previously a member of Iron Maiden, etc., so there's really no need for such a category. Note also that "Def Leppard related bands" is nominated here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 16 March 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.

Politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per nom, upmerging the defunct diplomatic missions in houston. no consensus to delete the politicians from categories or to add the state to the council members categories. Would recommend if that is desired to renominate those specific categories. In addition, would also recommend in future to break apart nominations such as this to deal with one change per nomination. Kbdank71 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:Berwyn, Illinois politicians to Category:Politicians from Berwyn, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Politicians from Cincinnati to Category:Politicians from Cincinnati, Ohio
Propose renaming: Category:Chicago politicians to Category:Politicians from Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Cook County politicians to Category:Politicians from Cook County, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Los Angeles politicians to Category:Politicians from Los Angeles, California
Propose renaming: Category:Politicians from Pittsburgh to Category:Politicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming: Category:Seattle politicians to Category:Politicians from Seattle, Washington
Propose renaming: Category:Members of the Baltimore City Council to Category:Baltimore City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Members of the Cary Town Council to Category:Cary Town Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Chicago aldermen to Category:Chicago City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Columbus, Ohio city councillors to Category:Columbus City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Cincinnati, Ohio city councillors to Category:Cincinnati City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Dayton, Ohio city commissioners to Category:Dayton City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Detroit city councillors to Category:Detroit City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Members of the Durham City Council to Category:Durham City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Honolulu, Hawaii city councillors to Category:Honolulu City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Members of the Indianapolis City-County Council to Category:Indianapolis City-County Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Las Vegas city councillors to Category:Las Vegas City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Los Angeles city councillors to Category:Los Angeles City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Nashville, Tennessee city councillors to Category:Metropolitan Council members (Nashville, Tennessee)
Propose renaming: Category:New Orleans Councilmembers to Category:New Orleans City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Oakland, California city councillors to Category:Oakland City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Portland, Oregon city commissioners to Category: Portland City Council members (Oregon)
Propose renaming: Category:Richmond, California city councilmembers to Category:Richmond City Council members (California)
Propose renaming: Category:Sacramento, California city councillors to Category:Sacramento City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:San Diego, California city councillors to Category:San Diego City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:San Francisco Board of Supervisors to Category:San Francisco Board of Supervisors members
Propose renaming: Category:San Jose, California city councillors to Category:San Jose City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Seattle city councillors to Category:Seattle City Council members
Propose renaming: Category:Diplomatic missions in Los Angeles to Category:Diplomatic missions in Los Angeles, California
Propose renaming: Category:Defunct diplomatic missions in Houston to Category:Defunct diplomatic missions in Houston, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Diplomatic missions in Houston to Category:Diplomatic missions in Houston, Texas
Propose renaming: Category:Diplomatic missions in Honolulu to Category:Diplomatic missions in Honolulu, Hawaii
Propose renaming: Category:Diplomatic missions in Chicago to Category:Diplomatic missions in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Political conventions in Baltimore to Category:Political conventions in Baltimore, Maryland
Propose renaming: Category:Political conventions in Chicago to Category:Political conventions in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming: Category:Political conventions in Philadelphia to Category:Political conventions in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming: Category:Political conventions in New York to Category:Political conventions in New York City
Nominator's rationale: I'm trying to match "City, State" formatting, but there are a lot of possible choices for formats. My thought here is that names of organizations like "Chicago City Council" don't need state names, but "Chicago" does. Other options definitely welcome. (Political conventions added the next day. New York category done solely to disambiguate from the state.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate: delete the general "politicians from city" and "politicians from county" categories as WP:OCAT; we simply do not need to subcategorize "People from city" by occupation. Members of a specific government body such as the city council, fine, but we absolutely don't need "Politicians from Berwyn, Illinois" at all. Rename city council categories as proposed; I may have created some of them myself, in accordance with the (lack of) naming convention in place at the time, but a consistent convention is a good idea. For the diplomatic missions, it would appear that all of them already conform to the match-to-article rule as currently named, so do not rename.
We do not, however, need separate subcategories for defunct diplomatic missions in a particular city — for one thing, there wasn't even a category for defunct diplomatic missions in the United States as a whole until I created one just now; the Houston city category was instead being filed directly in Category:Defunct diplomatic missions, where its only sibling categories were Category:Defunct diplomatic missions of the Philippines and Category:Defunct diplomatic missions of Switzerland. I'm sure Houston's a nice city, but it's not that special among world cities. So upmerge Category:Defunct diplomatic missions in Houston to Category:Diplomatic missions in Houston and Category:Defunct diplomatic missions in the United States. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 17 March 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