< May 11	May 13 >

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure of the purpose of this category. It implies that the Adminsitration have perpetrated all of these controversies when in reality, they've only done one or two: definitely the AF1 incident; maybe Charles Freeman. The AIG controversy is not an administration controversy, and the rest are just unsuccessful/withdrawn Cabinet nominees. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep - there is a small controversies structure of which this is a part and there is certainly potential for growth. But it needs to be monitored to remove individual biography articles. Otto4711 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto. There's little doubt it will expand in time. The George H.W. Bush administration controversies category has six articles and he was a one-term president with far less potential for recentism. Strikehold (talk) 16:07, 13 May 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. Postdlf (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inappropriate category for a specific user. Tracking of articles edited, if desired, should take place in userspace. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & per WP:OWN. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This user will find a list under "my contributions" in his user area, and he can tag them on his watch list. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And encourage user to keep track of edited articles by watching them. — Σ xplicit 04:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - nominated once previously and kept, but categorizing cases by justices "involving" them could lead to as many as nine such categories on every SCOTUS case, more if this is expanded to include appellate-level judges and district court judges. Significant cases with which Cardozo was "involved" can be listed in his article or in a list article. If retained it needs to be renamed to give the category some semblance of a structure, as "involving" is far too vague for a category name. Otto4711 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; "involving" is too vague on which to categorize. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's well-reasoned explanation. Postdlf (talk) 22:24, 13 May 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Heterochord half-tube zithers to Category:Tube zithers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. One of many over-cats made for the Hornstobel-Sachs classification system. Practically all the tube zithers on WP are heterochord half-tubes, so there's no reason to not just merge them all into Tube zithers. There are several other silly H-S classifications with overcats I'll be tracking down in the next few weeks. Nothing against the system itselfs, but someone years ago made tons of empty or nearly empty categories, and some of the cats only have one or two instruments in the world in their specific classification. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - nominated a couple of these the other day and found a few more today. To reiterate my rationale from the previous nomination: the teams whose games one broadcasts is not defining of the broadcaster. Teams play many other teams so, taken to its logical conclusion, a category would be needed for each team the Pistons played. The category also creates the impression that the people in it are officially associated with or employed by the teams the way that players or coaches are, which I do not believe is the case (although since I am not an expert in the subject I may be wrong). Otto4711 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & precedent: performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are (or were) official broadcasters for some teams on the radio/TV stations that carry them in their home cities. I don't know what current practice is, but at least historically the categories make sense - Stephen

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by media outlet overcategorization, per extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Sky rationale below, or (since it is regional rather than international) upmerge to Category:ITV regional newsreaders and journalists. Occuli (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent; performer by performance OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Sky rationale below, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 16 May 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per extensive precedent, performer by media outlet overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the precedents don't include any other UK TV Channel and there are several siblings in Category:British television journalists. I don't see that there is much difference between 'performer by media outlet' (if we stick to contracted personnel rather than people who make the odd appearance) and say 'baseball player by team'. (I am not aware of any 'guest newsreaders' for instance.) Occuli (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct that there are no UK TV examples. There is for example Sky Sports News presenters, I assume a sibling channel of this one. There are also multiple deletions for networks in Canada and Australia. I don't see at all why this being in the UK has any bearing on the nomination. The only reason the siblings you note were not also nominated is that they don't happen to contain the word "broadcaster" anywhere on the page and so didn't turn up in my search. Otto4711 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UK has just a few national TV providers and it is perfectly feasible to categorise personnel by provider; there are 'transfers' from time to time, just as there are between football teams. (Most of the linked cfds are cursory; I concede that I had missed the Sky Sports one. The one for radio 1 presenters is outrageous, where a unanimous keep somehow becomes a delete.) Occuli (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; performer by performance OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is being a BBC newsreader for say 20 years 'a performance'? 'Performer by performance' is to stop actors being categorised by every film they appeared in and sportspeople by individual games, and does not apply in this case (and in many other cases in which it is invoked). Occuli (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, performer by media outlet is also overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Occuli & as part of wider scheme. British newsreaders rarely change channels between the relatively few stations, and even journalists are pretty sticky. Differences between national systems should be recognised: the US has a huge tree of Category:American television anchors by city, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod. This is a useful and defining category, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by media outlet overcategorization, per extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not because of precedent but because this is a very small campus radio station and presenting on it cannot be defining. Occuli (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent; performer by performance OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - in addition to the extensive precedent against categorizing performers by media outlet, this is a small category with, since it's for a local radio station, unlikely potential for growth. Otto4711 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – minor local radio station, upmerge the single article if not already suitably categorised. Occuli (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent; performer by performance OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 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. Kbdank71 13:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Publicly funded broadcasters to Category:Publicly funded broadcasting companies

Nominator's rationale: Rename - the vast majority of "broadcasters" categories are for individuals, not companies. This should be renamed for clarification and in line with the most common usage. Otto4711 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Government-funded broadcasting companies. Publicly funded is ambiguous; consumers, advertisers, donors, investors, tithers, parishoners are all among the "public" who fund other stations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have two problems with this: (1) BBC is a corporation incorporated by statute, not a company. (2) It is funded by a licence fee, which is technically a tax, but in fact collected by it and largely devoted to paying for its operations. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a similar qualm about Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is also not a company. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per the Arch bridges (all) discussion, these two categories suffer all the same defects as that one did. Otto4711 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all).-choster (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A list article is the way to compile everything from multiple subcategories in one place. Or, the subcategories should be deleted if a determination is made that they are unduly hindering navigation, but that's hardly the case with the divisions by country here. Postdlf (talk) 17:17, 15 May 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 both to nominator-suggested titles. Although there's not a strong consensus in favor of the new names, there's certainly sentiment that they're better than the current ones. Anyone should feel free to nominate these for a further rename if they come up with a better idea.--Aervanath (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Medical disasters to Category:Health disasters and
rename Category:Medical disasters in Canada to Category:Health disasters in Canada.

Nominator's rationale: Medical disasters sounds like something that happens to an individual during surgery. A health disaster is something that affects the wider population which is what the articles in the category are about. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the (only) sub-cat to this nomination. Rename both per nom - "health" is clearly the more appropriate term to use for these categories. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - in the absence of any possible objective standard of what constitutes a "health disaster". Similar to various "crises" categories that were discussed a month or so ago and deleted on the same grounds. Otto4711 (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (with some tidying up needed as the category has started to bloat) - Otto, the disaster categories have been around for many years (since September 2005 in this case). One of the misgivings I have about the way CfD operates is that it can take years for those active at CfD to turn their attention to a particular set of categories. Would it not be better to discuss the overall structure of a particular area of categories in one go, and sort out what should and shouldn't be categorised and how, rather than chipping away piecemeal years after something has been around and used by many readers for over three years? If you are set on deletion for this category, can you suggest where the articles go instead so that people browsing Category:Disasters can find things in logical places? Has anyone ever tried using the grok stats site to get an idea of how much certain categories are used - i.e. by the silent majority? For example, Category:Medical disasters has been viewed 1246 times in January 2009, 1460 times in February 2009 and 1364 times in March 2009. Now, we can't be sure why people clicked on the links, or where they arrived from, but surely that means something? Compare it to the traffic through Category:Disasters (1124 times in January 2009). Here's an interesting one: Category:Pandemics view stats for April 2009 - below 30 views per day for most of the month, then a sharp rise due to the news headlines about the 2009 swine flu outbreak - 319 views today alone. Of course, compared to the views of the article itself, that's peanuts. Three views yesterday (when it was created), and 6130 views today (actually, 319 compared to 6130 is pretty respectable - around 5%, which is probably a better ratio of article to category views than seen for some categories). Conclusion: categories are viewed much less than articles. But still, I hope I haven't gone too far off track. The medical disasters category structure as been around for a long time with no objections, and will likely be popular in the coming days, so whatever name it has, so the main category and its subcategories should, in my view, be kept. Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I haven't been active at CfD for ages, so if a vox populi argument like this is commonly made and has been rejected in the past, forgive me.[reply]

The problem remains that there is no objective criteria for what constitutes a "health disaster" which leads to the hodge-podge of stuff that's currently in the category. It's capturing everything from toxic waste sites which may or may not have had any effect on human health (which leads to questions of original research) to disease outbreaks to the 1982 Tylenol murders. There's no unifying theme here, because of the subjectivity issues. I think these articles can find better homes in other more specific categories, for instance 2006 North American E. coli outbreak in Category:2000s medical outbreaks, rather than the vague and subjective "disasters" structure. I haven't looked at the rest of the disaster category structures but whether they stay or go doesn't necessarily have any bearing on these categories. Otto4711 (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's at times like this that I wish I could point to what the category looked like when I created it. Kind of click a "revert back to the nice tidy category that used to be there". Is it acceptable to clean up categories during a CfD? Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's done in good faith and the category isn't completely emptied, sure. Otto4711 (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all unusual for categories to accumulate unwanted detritus over time, so a bit of judicious pruning would not be objectionable. (I would do it myself, but I don't have the time right now.) Cgingold (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Health emergencies declared by the World Health Organization to make objective what is now subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is some consensus for a new name that is effective and not subjective. At this point, I suggest relisting to see if some kind of consensus can be achieved. I'm not sure that disasters is really the correct name there. I do wonder if these break down into some subcategories. One for malpractice types of events affecting large groups of people. Another for manufacturing caused health issues and another for inappropriate storage or release of chemicals. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, renaming to some suitable term Has anyone bothered to ask the medicine project about correct terminology? No, of course not. We obviously should have one or more categories grouping most of these. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we "obviously" link for instance Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster, about people who became ill from working in a mine, and 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders, about people who died because of product tampering? More fundamentally, what makes a situation a "medical disaster" in the first place? Is a plane crash a "medical disaster"? An earthquake? A porch collapse? Is it anything where people die? I agree that some of the articles should be grouped, but as "epidemics" or "industrial incidents" or "toxic waste sites", which for the most part they are already without this mish-mash catch-all category. Otto4711 (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have categories for all of these, but not for example for Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male. Should this just be cut adrift? Oddments like this, and localized episodes of disease, rather than injuries, should be grouped somehow, along with the sub-categories. No of course plane crashes etc don't belong, nor perhaps the murders. Are there any crash-type accidents like this in the category? I didn't see any. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Medical controversies and/or Category:Medical ethics and/or Category:History of medicine for the Tuskegee article. And how about Category:2000s medical outbreaks for local outbreaks of disease that can certainly be expanded to encompass other decades or years as warranted (the category is currently under Category:Epidemics; don't know if Category:Medical outbreaks would be better). You say "of course" plane crashes and product tampering shouldn't be there, and I happen to agree, but on what objective basis would they be excluded? Otto4711 (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemics and infectious diseases generally are covered, but not localized toxicity, poisoning etc. In fact we have Category:Medical scandals too. I'm hoping one of the doctors will give us a proper term with a definition we can proceed with, as clearly no one commenting so far is a medic, or has a clue. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Localized toxicity would fall somewhere under Category:Pollution, probably Category:Waste disposal incidents. Poisoning cases would fall under Category:Deaths by poisoning (although I am surprised that we do not have Category:Product tampering cases or the like). Otto4711 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very vague, and does not preserve the medical aspect of these disasters, which is encyclopedic, and worth categorizing. Many do not in fact fall under any of the categories mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vague? In what universe? And, um, cite that the supposed "medical aspect" of these "disasters" (and, er, what is the objective definition of "medical disaster" again? Oh that's right, there isn't one) is either "encyclopedic" or "worth categorizing"? This little routine of yours, bringing up a couple of articles that you claim don't have other appropriate categories and then when other categories are found for them bringing up others, is getting very tiresome. There is no requirement that another category be offered up for every article in every discussed category before that category can be deleted. Every article in this category has at least one other category already and you've offered up bugger all that indicates that this category is anything other than an arbitrary collection based on the individual subjective opinion of editors who happen to stumble across it. Otto4711 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Public health emergencies. "Disasters" is too strong, and "Public health" is more specific than just "health" or "medical". -- Avenue (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename These categories organize a strong defining characteristic, but I don't think that "Health disasters" is an improvement over "Medical disasters" or any of the proposed alternatives offered. Alansohn (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; googling "medical disasters" shows that outside of Wikipedia the term is used to refer to disasters caused in a health care context (Great Medical Disasters, "a perfect catalogue of the treatments we're glad we didn't receive", or "Medical Disasters: 8 Simple Tips Guaranteed to Save Your Life in the Operating Room"). I question whether "disaster" is the right word to use in this context anyway, but "health disaster" is an improvement at least over the current name. Postdlf (talk) 15:51, 15 May 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. Since this was deleted in the past, an outcome other then delete really needs to address case for keeping the category. I was not moved by the argument that any category should be allowed to exist. Useful categorization is not quite the same as being defining. This may well be a case for a list so that the dates, the album was in the top slot and the groups were available for sorting which would be, for me, much more useful. So finding nothing that supports overturning the previous decisions, the only thing left is to delete. I'd suggest that those who wanted this kept, work on building a good and useful list that would be a much better navigation tool. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category had previously been deleted back in March as a G4, so when it came up again I G4'd it again. The creator then placed a hangon on it, saying "This category has been previously up for CFD and consensus was to delete. That was nearly three years ago, and I would like to see the category brought up for discussion again. Part of the reasoning was that an album could have reached number one in so many countries, that such an album would be categorized under a countless number of similar categories, so lists would be the preferred method. However, since that discussion, many #1 singles categorized have been created (by country and by Billboard chart) that a song such as "Bleeding Love" is now categorized under 19 different #1 singles categories. Shouldn't there be consistency between the two? Thanks." He also told me that he asked Good Olfactory and Ericorbit about the category and they gave it a thumbs up, so I'm bringing this here for further discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just want to say that I didn't give the category a "thumbs up". My comment can be found here. Essentially, I told the creator that if this were created again I wouldn't immediately speedily delete it as re-created material (as I had done previously), and that I thought that a fresh CfD discussion could be useful. Frankly, I'm not sure what to think about the category, apart from knowing that this was previously deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also didn't say you gave me a "thumbs up". I said you didn't have an objection if I tried recreating the category again. The point is I asked for and received feedback from wikipedians prior to recreating this a second time. My goal is to have some consistency in the categorization of #1 songs and #1 albums. There are "List of" articles, succession boxes, so the categorization of any #1s may not be necessary. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess nom was just summarizing what you said when he said a "thumb's up" was given. Thanks for clarifying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – many cfds refer to a theoretical 'category clutter' in the minds of would-be deleters (examples of which are rarely provided). Here we have Bleeding Love, a real life example of mega-clutter (the last 8 or 9 screenfuls are pure clutter, and that is before we even reach the burgeoning categories - seldom has so much trivia been so carefully sourced in the history of mankind). It obviously doesn't work to have 'performance by country' OCAT. (There was some animal like a mouse that was in a category for every country in which it was found - fauna of XXX perhaps. The poor thing was completely overwhelmed by categories. This is the same except, mercifully, many countries do not have reliable Top 10s.) Occuli (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why can't we have categories that list successful albums? I believe that most categories, no matter how undefining should exist anyway. The point is (for every category) that the reason why they're deleted is because of worries about non-defining, non-notability, overcategorization, etc. I don't know what else to say really, but this category should be kept until the consequences (if any) of this category's creation actually occurs. However, if a category doesn't categorize number-one albums (for example, if a category called Category:Albums that reached the top ten, Category:Albums that weren't certified by the RIAA, or Category:Albums that didn't reach number-one were created), then there'd be a (small) reason to delete it. However, this category lists number-one albums (and i agree with categories that categorize number-one albums, and/or albums certified by the RIAA) so this category should be kept. It is important to categorize number-one songs, albums, or whatevers, isn't it? Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Occuli. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful categorization and navigation, as well as consistency with #1 songs categories. --Wolfer68 (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category description is ethnic comedy is comedy that centers, or heavily relies, upon the ethnicity of its perpetrators. Relying heavily on racial stereotypes, ethnic comedies tread the line between observational comedy and being outright offensive and racist. Quite aside from the POVness of that description, it's also been added to a number of articles about shows which aren't "stereotypical", "offensive" or "racist" in any way, but merely focus on characters who happen to — o how shocking! — have an ethnic background. For example, by virtue of its inclusion in the subcategory Category:Black sitcoms, we're essentially POVing The Cosby Show as being borderline racist — and as anybody who's ever actually seen Little Mosque on the Prairie can tell you, the show is far more about knocking down stereotypes than relying on or confirming them. Delete as POV. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everyone has an ethnic background of some form or another. Do we add We Can Be Heroes for its Australian stereotypes? Last of the Summer Wine because it's based on a stereotype of Yorkshiremen? Or All in the Family as a stereotype of Brooklyn New Yorkers? I think not. And as pointed out above, such "ethnic comedies" as Goodness Gracious Me are designed to break down stereotypes and reduce racism, not the opposite. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:Ethnic humor - Ethnic humor is certainly a legitimate area of encyclopedic study and this category correctly brings together such articles as ethnic joke (which ought to be renamed to "ethnic humor") and Sardarji jokes along with the Jewish humor sub-category. Minstrel show should probably go in there too. The category description seems to be the problem here, not the category itself. So re-write the description and clear out the articles for TV series (or sub-cat them as something like Category:Ethnic humor television programs or the like). Otto4711 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment note that the Ethnic humor article is a redirect to Ethnic jokes. Might the articles have to have the re-direct reversed? Or is something else being discussed here? Hmains (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I believe that "Ethnic jokes" should be renamed to the broader concept "Ethnic humor" Otto4711 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 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:Biographies of multiple people, Category:Biographies of multiple people in ancient Greece and Category:Biographies of multiple people in ancient Rome, as the suggestion that got the most support.--Aervanath (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiple people
Category:Ancient Greek multiple people
Category:Ancient Roman multiple people

At the very least, this needs to be renamed to something more clear.

It also should be pruned of any fictional entries since the intent as noted in the introduction on the page is that this is for biographies of real people.

That said, except as a project category to note that an article is a biogrpahy of more than one person (as typically noted in the article name), I'm not sure that this is useful for navigation.

What would be the purpose?

And noting that any article on a group of individuals could be added. Should that include companies, organisations, and the like? Apparently yes, looking at even just the subcats...

Not sure yet - as nominator. - jc37 02:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, changing "multiple people" to "people sharing a common name". These really amount to a kind of disambiguation pages, detailing the different individuals with a shared name. Alansohn (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure what's really wrong with this category. It collects articles that are biographical accounts of more than one person (e.g. couples). That seems like a useful category to me, and the current name is appropriate. The renaming suggested above wouldn't work, as many of those categorised here don't share a common name. Robofish (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a hidden category Basically these are categories containing articles that are disambiguation pages that (may) need sub-dividing. Whether a more appropriate name can be found is another matter, I'm sure there is. Hats off to the people who populated these cats! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, these are articles that could be disambiguation pages if each of the individuals listed had separate articles. As they don't the shared name is listed along with brief capsule bios of the alternative individuals. If articles were created for each alternative, then these would be rather traditional hndis pages. Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK so let's go with that. If these people are grouped in one article, then at least one of them is notable and that justifies an article. So the text would make up one or more stubs and the remaining information would become a dab page. So why not do that and eliminate the category? Or maybe this is in fact a maintenance category were the articles need splitting. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting doesn't seem appropriate for several of the examples I looked at. For example, very little if anything would be known about groups of martyrs like Narcissus, Argeus, and Marcellinus besides their common martyrdom, and it's more effective to cover them together in one article than have an article for each. So I don't see this as just a maintenance category. -- Avenue (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, Avenue, I agree, these are people united by a single event and I can't think of any benefit listing them in this or similarly named category. If it's not a maintenance category you could add any formal or informal organization, from political parties to businesses, pressure groups, criminal gangs, musical groups etc the list could be endless. Your "biographies" suggestion below is neat and I certainly wouldn't oppose, but most of those I looked at appeared to require disambiguation, hence my suggestion. Looks like every article needs looking at separately in any event which does confirm that something needs to be done with the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category precisely for articles that don't need splitting. It should be part of the definition that any individual articles on members of the "multiple" is a disqualification for belonging here. Johnbod (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete multiple people usually are a group or a family. Categorize appropriately. Why do bands need to be in Category:Multiple people? If it's a one-man-band, it isn't multiple people, and if it's not a one-man-band isn't it obvious that there are multiple people. It's a cat looking for a purpose and doesn't help people find similar articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but removing bands, sports teams & so on. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Biographies of multiple people (as the scope on the category page indicates), and similarly Category:Biographies of multiple people in ancient Greece and Category:Biographies of multiple people in ancient Rome. Further clarification of the scope would be useful too. For example, should this be restricted to articles where the group members are identified as individuals, excluding amorphous organisations or movements? Perhaps "biography" implies this, but more clarity wouldn't hurt. I'm not convinced common groupings like bands are useful to include here either. -- Avenue (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Virtually every article on a group of people, where a band, a criminal gang, a religious sect, or such is in essence a biography of multiple people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, like Roman Catholic Church??? Johnbod (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sect? Rather harsh. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - The question of "defining characteristic" aside for a moment, is there some unambiguous definition (inclusion criteria) for this category which would do as some above have suggested, without this being filled with every type of group in existence? - jc37 12:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Joint biographies? Cgingold (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Joint (disambiguation), this could be ambiguous. (For example, does it include Spike Lee et al.)

That aside (since we can try to figure out some synonyms), do we already have a category scheme for types of biography article presentations? We don't "have" to have such in place, I'm just curious if anyone knows if we do. - jc37 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be the solution, but I really don't see any problem of "ambiguity" as it's inconceivable that anybody would imagine that the term might refer to "biographies" of non-human entities. Cgingold (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem is that the name is ambiguous I don't see any way to fix this from the discussions above. Deleting these should not prevent the creation of better named categories based on a defining characteristic for the individuals in the included articles. I think the needed cleanup described above shows the extent of the problem and argues that deletion is the best way to cleanup the categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- once upon a time (before 2006), these would have been called "summary" or "multi-stub" pages, often with "----" horizontal lines. Foolish editors would shorten them into disambiguation pages (throwing away valuable information), instead of lengthening them into fully fledged articles — especially those who have a hammer and everything looks like a nail at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Just split them into separate stub articles, with the primary as a disambiguation page. We don't really care about disk access anymore.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReworkMeans too many different things. Not a useful category without some further division and explanation.~
Support Avenue or alternatively Rename to multi-person biographies. The two subcategies contain full length biographies of people shaing a name in the ancient world, since nothign mill will in many cases be known of them, there is little point in splitting the articles, and reducing them to standard form dab pages would be destructure. Keep but Rename in some way. I am not sure that some of the other subcategories exeactly fit, but that should be discussed on the category's talk page, not here. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Groups of people- Gilliam (talk) 22:16, 22 May 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Lakes of Scotland to Category:Lochs of Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The justification for this category is linguistic rather than physical, and falls under Category:Landforms of Scotland. The three entries may need moving to Reservoirs of Scotland at some point. A list of lakes in Scotland may be useful somewhere. [I am happy to leave it as Lochs of Scotland but if someone wants to rename that to Lakes of Scotland ....] Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom (Loch is a more general term including sea loch, subcatted under Category:Sea lochs of Scotland). I would be in favour of categorising the reservoirs under reservoirs as well as under loch. At present it seems to be categorising by shared name rather than by any shared property. (There is a list of 4 or so lakes in Scotland under Loch.) Occuli (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but with recommendation that the lakes category become a subcategory of the lochs one or vice versa. About the only significant thing about Lake of the Hirsel is that is is not a loch - it crops up frequently in trivial collections simply because Scottish lakes (as opposed to lochs) are rarities. In any case, "loch" carries a significantly different meaning, as it can include sea arms. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify that. I am not merging 'lakes' or 'lochs' - I am merging 'bodies of freshwater' regardless of what they happen to be called. The lack of usage of lake can be explained (and the articles listed) in the preamble of the category, but not as a seperate category. [Sea Lochs is a red herring - they already have their own category and I see no reason to change that]. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Grutness - Scottish lakes are anomalous, and it is worth having a category to relect that. It is commonly said that the Lake of Menteith is the only one, but there are others. (Of course there are some who insist on referring to firths as "estuaries" and freshwater lochs as "lakes", in the English fashion, but that is a separate matter, one of cultural sensitivity, and tact.)--MacRusgail (talk) 18:20, 22 May 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Firths to Category:Estuaries in Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The main article for the topic is Firth. That clearly states that this is a Scottish term for a number of sea features i.e. it is linguistic rather than physical. The category falls within Category:Landforms of Scotland and needs to be merged for consistency. [At the moment it includes Pentland Firth which is a strait; and an Antarctic one!, which I will fix]. The main article Firth contains a comprehensive list of firths which is all that is needed. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom – it is unsatisfactory to gather together something in New Zealand + various things in Scotland just because their names include 'Firth'. Occuli (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons given above. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support if some care is taken with the merge. For instance, to call Moray Firth an estuary seems quite a stretch to me. The text of the article should cite a source supporting this before it gets put in the estuaries category. -- Avenue (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The main article defines a firth as "a large sea bay, which may be part of an estuary, or just an inlet, or even a strait". Merging something which may be (A, B or C) into just (A) gives an inaccurate outcome (as in user Avenue's example), so the status quo is preferable? AllyD (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already moved the foreign ones out of that category, and also the only strait (Pentland). What is left is estuary-like. The problem with natural features is that they do not always fit neatly into any category e.g. Moray Firth above, which could be a gulf?, bay?. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:25, 18 May 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; door still open to something more specific if desired. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wrestling deaths to Category:Professional wrestling deaths

Nominator's rationale: Rename - because these are Professional wrestling deaths, not Wrestling deaths. Otto4711 (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – other subcats in Category:Deaths in sport have even more explicit names. Occuli (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the preference is for something more explicit then Category:Professional wrestlers who died during matches is fine or whatever wording people want. Otto4711 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I only support the first rename since Owen Hart technically didn't die during the match.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:37, 13 May 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. Note that the category is empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The use of the phrase "premature" is too woolly. And even the cat description says "arguably died prematurely". Darrenhusted (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi No other catagory exists that deals with this subject, just take a look at the men mentioned in the category and tell me that there isn't a pattern there and that some other category deals with this? As for "arguably died prematurely" I don't know, can anyone suggest better wording? Now I'm just gonna be honest here, my english it really isn't the best so the text associated with this category creation of mine could be a little bit off but surely these men belong together in some category with some text written to it lets instead of deleting the category try to make it into something cool aye?

Oppose.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author has made a good case for the category, although the whole concept does remain a bit 'woolly'. Possibly delete is an over-reaction??? Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Wrestling deaths. Redundant – I would say all wrestling deaths are "premature." PasswordUsername (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello guys and thanks for the input. I don't support a merger with Wrestling deaths cause wrestling deaths focuses on deaths inside the ring while these men that I'm categorizing have died both inside and outside of the squared circle, I originally included http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_DiBiase in this category but then I realized that doing so was probably over the line due to the fact that he was born in 1923 and died 45 years old, perhaps dieing at that age for someone born in 1923 isn't that early so I decided against including him in the category while he does however fit perfectly into the Wrestling deaths catagory.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you added someone then removed them, because the criteria is not well defined. That is a case to delete the category, as even you admit that you are unsure of who to include. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete, for many reasons. First, the category is subjective and POV and the inclusionary criteria are uncertain. This is self-evident when the category definition includes the word "arguably". If an age "cut-off" were selected, it would be necessarily arbitrary. Finally, we don't categorize people by age at death or the timing of their death, and in this respect the category is not at all different from this, this, this, this, this, and this, all of which were deleted—any many others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we've already deleted dead wrestler categories at least three times. "Premature" is subjective. Should not be merged to the wrestling deaths category unless all of the people in this category died during a match, which is the purpose of the wrestling deaths category. Otto4711 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely subjective category. Dayewalker (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You guys all make very good points I still would really hate to see this one go seeing that it puts guys like Earthquake, Yokozuna, Bam Bam Bigelow, Chris Benoit, Hawk of Doom and Crush into the same category but who exactly would have expected these young men to die? And their deaths show well the hardships of professional wrestlers,the lengths that they go to in order to please crowds and the toll it takes on them.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the deleters above. (It's surprising that some of them didn't die earlier, eg Bam Bam Bigelow and another one who was 600 lbs.) Occuli (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have it on good authority that if they didn't wrestle they would have all been hit by buses aged 12... Verbal chat 16:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Ok feel free to delete it, I've undone most of the damage, sorry about the trouble aye.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:14, 12 May 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_May_28#Category:Pedal_steel_guitarists--Aervanath (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Pedal steel guitarists to Category:Steel guitarists

Nominator's rationale: Category:Steel guitarists is a fairly small category on its own. I see no reason for pedal steel guitarists to be in their own subcat if the parent is fairly small, as most of the people listed in Category:Steel guitarists are pedal steel players anyway, and plenty more play both lap and steel. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well-defined and well-populated category with a corresponding parent article, and it's not clear that it makes sense to lump them all together in one category covering various styles of playing. Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Steel guitar" covers both lap and pedal. Most of the people in Category:Steel guitarists are pedal players anyway. At the very least, I think it should be re-arranged so that we have a lap steel subcat as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:18, 12 May 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. The rationale based on the naming format of the parent category (and similar categories for actors, etc.) is strong. The fact that the industry uses "adult" rather than "pornographic" is not surprising, but it's not really a good reason to use the euphemism in category names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Adult movie awards to Category:Pornographic film awards

Nominator's rationale: Should we not reflect the master category Category:Pornographic films? All the other films in the master cat use the term "Pornographic film." This is the only one to use "Adult movie" in the category name, though I do see that the Category:Adult industry awards is another master cat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps, though more awards in that category name themselves "Adult" than "Pornographic." Does the style guide say anything about using "film" as a synonym for "movie"? Technically a film is a movie shot on filmstrip, which would exclude analog and digital video. Шизомби (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Category:Movies is simply a redirect to Category:Film (though there are some cats that use movie, such as Category:Movie cameras which I think might need renaming: another discussion). As for the larger issue of whether a motion picture not shot on actual celluloid can be called a film, I'd say digital technology is making that question increasingly moot. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 16 May 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:Film awards for lead actor. While I think that leading might be better, this is what consensus seems to be. What is clear from the discussion is that the current name is wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Film awards for Best Actor to ~~Category:Film awards for actors~~Category:Film awards for lead actor

Nominator's rationale: I'd like to use this as a test case for what, if anything, we decide to do to the Film awards for Best Supporting Actor category, as well as the actresses categories. I propose, not for the first time, to rename to in accordance with WP:NCCAT policy on non-capitalization of regular nouns. Moreover, I think we might do away with the superlative "Best," since not all awards are so-named. This might also allow us to make a renamed ~~Category:Film awards for supporting actors~~Category:Film awards for supporting actor a subcat of this one, allowing, I think, for better organization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Film awards for best actor, which accurately captures that this category is for awards for "best actor" or "leading actor". A parent of Category:Film awards for actors might be an appropriate parent, but not an appropriate rename. Alansohn (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per ~~nom~~ Otto's suggestion below. Not all are for "best" actor. (Notably some are for an "outstanding performance" by an actor. For any of these, the fact that there are usually only one of these awarded per year doesn't magically convert it into a "best" actor award, though colloquially people might speak of it or think of it that way.) This rename would be in line with the other similar ones for film awards we have made recently (here, here, here, and here). I would support the proposed rename for the supporting actor one, too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Film awards for leading actor or Category:Film awards for lead actor - this obviates the "best" problem and differentiates between lead and supporting. Whether the award uses "best" or "outstanding" ISTM that the names tend to differentiate clearly between leading and supporting. This would obviously lead us to rename the supporting category to Category:Film awards for supporting actor. I prefer the singular to the plural because actors are not restricted to leading or supporting roles and pluralizing creates the implication, slight though it may be, that such a restriction exists. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Otto that this is a preferable solution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, as well. I have struck through and revised the proposed renames above. If this passes, perhaps one of you might be able to help me with an "umbrella nom" for the supporting actor and related actresses categories, to save time? My one attempt at such a grouping was not successful. If I can't rely on the automated CfD tab, I'm rather helpless. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 13 May 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.

May 12

Category:Obama Administration controversies

Category:Articles Edited by G.phanisrinivas

Category:Cases involving Justice Cardozo

Category:Heterochord half-tube zithers

More sports broadcasters by team

Category:STV newsreaders and journalists

Category:Sky newsreaders and journalists

Category:Radio Warwick presenters

Category:SYN Presenters

Category:Publicly funded broadcasters

Bridges (all)

Category:Medical disasters

Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums

Category:Ethnic comedy

Category:Multiple people

Category:Lakes of Scotland

Category:Firths

Category:Wrestling deaths

Category:Premature wrestling deaths

Category:Pedal steel guitarists

Category:Adult movie awards

Category:Film awards for Best Actor