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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of Big 12 college football head coaches to Category:Lists of Big 12 Conference football head coaches

Nominator's rationale: All college sport articles and categories have the naming format of: <Conference or School> <sport>. This Category does not follow this established rule and does not display the correct name of the conference its Big 12 Conference not just Big 12. RedRaider04 (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and Big 12 Conference, Category:Big 12 Conference head football coaches (which needs a rename IMO) subcat of Category:College football head coaches ... 'football head coach' rather than 'head football coach'. The category is not tagged. Occuli (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing CFR tag added. postdlf (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2010 (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:Download (band) albums. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Download albums to Category:Download (band)

Nominator's rationale: While I am generally against categories with disambiguation in the middle of them, this is necessary to clarify that these are albums by Download (band), not Category:Internet albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Download (band) albums (which is what the nom meant). The band has had a lot of managers - see Category:Download managers. Occuli (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Multi-User Dungeons to Category:MUDs

Nominator's rationale: Previous proposal to rename was based on matching the name of the main article, MUD, and stalled behind a counter-proposal to rename MUD to Multi-User Dungeon. That proposal was extensively opposed, evidence was presented that MUD is the WP:COMMONNAME of that article's topic, reliable sources were found indicating that "Multi-User Dungeon" cannot be unequivocally said to be the expansion of MUD, etc.; MUD was not renamed. If MUD is not to be renamed, then, this category should, again, be renamed to match it. Additionally, as evidence that the topic of the MUD article is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for MUD-in-all-caps, a case-sensitive Google search for that term with Wikipedia excluded (to avoid biasing by the article itself) produces pages related to said topic for 7 of the first 10 results. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as this would avoid the term "Multi-User Dungeons", which does not accurately represent the content of a significant proportion of MUDs, let alone the other MU* that might be classified beneath it. GreenReaper (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Izno (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spoken albums to Category:Spoken (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: I am generally opposed to the disambiguation in the middle of the category name, but in this case, it is simply too close to Category:Spoken word albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename I don't like it much either, but in this case the categories appear to overlap unless you look in them, so we need some kind of disambiguator. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and if the article contains (band), so should all related categories (for simplicity). Wot, no Category:Spoken songs? (If there were an eponymous category it would obviously be Category:Spoken (band).) Occuli (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2010 (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:Soil (band) albums. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SOiL albums to Category:Soil albums

Nominator's rationale: Proper caps, alternatively, rename to Category:Soil (band) albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Soil (band) albums per Soil (band). Occuli (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose use Category:Soil (band) albums instead, since "soil album" could be a collection of dirt in an album. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2010 (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: procedural keep, following the outcome of this discussion. Should the nominator or any other editor feel that the category be deleted or renamed and/or re-scoped, please nominate the category for deletion or renaming at the current day of the CFD page. — ξ^xplicit 06:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted two years ago as part of a broader discussion of Fictional characters by religion, but the creator of the category asserts it is properly a subcat of Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity. The Jews are an ethnoreligious group, so I removed my CSD tag and have brought the matter here for broader discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What are you proposing exactly? Deletion again? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure whether it should be deleted. I'd like to get other editors' opinions about whether it should be deleted or kept. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Is being a Jew religious? My two best (Jewish) friends would disagree, I am sure. Hence I think that this being a subcat to Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity makes sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename/rescope to Category:Jews and Judaism in fiction. Categories like this one, which apply categorization standards for real people directly to fictional characters, blur the distinction between reality and fiction and, as a result, fail to capture those characteristics which are defining for fictional characters.
  A fictional character is an abstract construct and, therefore, does not have identities in the same way that a real person does. Whatever identity a fictional character 'has' is given to it by its creator and can be changed (deliberately or inadvertently) by its creator. In effect, the character's identity per se is insignificant because it is not real; what is significant is the real-world portrayal of a particular identity by the creator of a work of fiction and the real-world reaction to that portrayal.
  The scope of this category is all fictional characters who are described as being of Jewish descent, regardless of whether the fact of that identity is relevant to the character's real-world cultural significance. I propse that we delete this category and create Category:Jews and Judaism in fiction (as a subcategory of Category:Fiction by topic) for articles which have a significant real-world connection to the topic of 'Jews and Judaism in fiction'. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm the guy who put up this category, originally unaware that it had been previously deleted. I've had a look at a previous dicussion as a consequence of which this category was deleted - the decision was to delete all categories of 'Fictional characters by religion'. I didn't even consider religion, I was thinking of characters by their ethnicity. Indeed I created it as a sub-category of the eminently acceptable (or at least not so far questioned) Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity. If it is of interest, I started it bcause I found the Wandering Jew rather misleadngly categorised under 'Jewish people'. As the Category:Jewish people exists (and includes people who are not Jewish by religion), it is clear that Jewish ethnicity is recognised by Wikipedia. Certainly all of the characters I have included so far, (and many that I haven't - yet) were created by their authors as examples of Jewish ethnicity and I don't think any of them have much to say about the philosophy of Judaism as a religion. The characters involved are Jewish fictional characters in the same way as Sinbad the Sailor is listed under Category:Fictional Arabs, Heathcliff under Category:Fictional Gypsies, or the Mighty Quinn under Category:Fictional Eskimos. --Smerus (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: I would add that Black Falcon's comments apply to all the subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity - and that therefore, if the present category is deleted or renamed on these counts, the same should apply to all the others in this parent category. I do not think this would be appropriate, or in accordance with WP ethos; if the parent category is 'kosher' (as it were), then so should be all of its sub-categories. --Smerus (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How could you create this and remain "unaware that it had been previously deleted"? Prior to creating it, the page would have been bright red and would have listed the 14 times the category had been deleted before. Just wondering how this could be missed? ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Partly because I created it indirectly from adding the category in an article. Partly because I am an idiot, and when I edited my initial comment the header vanished and I couldn't get it back (as you will see, if you can be bothered, I reported on the talk page). And partly because when I read the reason for deletion I obeyed the protocols and put out a hang-on sign while I read the previous debates. And partly because when I read the debates I realised there was a reason for resubmitting which I stated. And this was a reason which, for no fault of my own, seemed reasonable to Malik Shabazz, who opened this discussion. Terribly sorry and all that, but there you go. I don't think my competence, one way or the other, in dealing with this has much to do with this debate. You are of course always welcome to scream at me on my home page. --Smerus (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, no—no screaming necessary. I was just curious and wondering if we needed something more blatant to let users know that they were re-creating material that had been deleted many times in the past. Your explanation makes sense; a lot of little things can add up and you can miss some things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a valid subcat of Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity. Black Falcon's proposal is a good idea for a new cat with a different scope, but I could see, for example, a researcher being interested in all Jewish-descended characters, for different reasons than they'd be interested in characters where Judaism is a major part of their significance. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I see your and Smerus's point about my argument applying to all subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity, and I will probably nominate that category tree for renaming/rescoping in the near future. Perhaps this discussion could serve as a test nomination...

  Might I alternately suggest developing a "Fictional characters by ethno-cultural signifiance" tree? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean creating and maintaining an "Ethnicity in fiction" tree separate from the "Fictional characters by ethnicity" tree? I think that would be an improvement, but it would address only one issue: the lack of a categorization scheme for real-world portrayal of ethnicity via the medium of works of fiction. The other issue—that applying real-world ethnic identities to fictional characters blurs the distinction between reality and fiction and categorizes by a characteristic that is not defining per se—can only be addressed by discontinuing categorization of fictional characters by ethnicity. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I suppose I disagree that that blurring is a problem, or I mislike the idea in general of removing the ability to perform that blurring if it's useful for one's purposes, basically. I think it's worthwhile to add cats that facilitate considering these characters in ways that are more about their significance as fictional constructs, but it bothers me to get rid of the ability to consider them in similar ways to real people. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding your second point, I think that could apply to any category that is discussed at CfD. In theory, any category grouping could be of interest to a researcher, including all of the examples of categories to avoid listed at Wikipedia:Overcategorization, so I am concerned about using that as the sole or primary criterion for keeping a category (not just this one, but any category). Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Conceivably there's a slippery slope, but obviously some slices are more useful than others. I think this one and its relatives are useful enough to keep, in their current scope. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename to Category:Fictional Jewish people per Black Falcon. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep if Category:Jewish people is renamed back to Category:Jews as presently appears WP:SNOW-likely. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If there is no consenus to delete or rename/rescope the category, then should it not be renamed to Category:Fictional Jewish people for consistency with Category:Jewish people? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems like a good idea. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no great problem with this suggestion.--Smerus (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fictional Jewish people - the category seems a valid subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity, but the name should be brought in line with the ethnicity category per Black Falcon's comment. Huon (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional Jewish people or Keep -- This is clearly about ethnicity, at least as much as religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There are only FIVE???!!! Keep/Rename, with BF's proposed Category:Jews and Judaism in fiction (as a subcategory of Category:Fiction by topic) as a parent. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional Jewish characters. Black Falcon, how can you call them "people" if they are "fictional", per your argument above? Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "Fictional" already sufficiently modifies "people" to address that concern, allowing us to preserve the direct analogy to Category:Jewish people. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with chaos. They are fictional people, not fictionally Jewish. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- If fictional Arabs, Celts, 'Gypsies', etc. have their own categories, then I think Jews should too as long as it is based on ethnicity. WölffReik (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know why it's taking so long to close this, but can I suggest to whoever is reponsible that there seems to me to be consensus for renaming and then keeping as Category:Fictional Jewish people? --Smerus (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wait for closure of May 10 discussion to rename parent Category:Jewish people as Category:Jews. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the comment immediately above. These two should probably be internally consistent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 16 May 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alt-country musicians by instrument to Category:Alternative country musicians by instrument

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category and previous CfDs to rename "alt-country" to "alternative country". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Prince (musician) albums and Category:Internet albums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prince (musician) internet releases to Category:Prince (musician) Internet releases

Nominator's rationale: Proper caps. Alternatively, delete and upmerge to Category:Prince (musician) albums and Category:Internet albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I'm not sure why internet should take a capital; and why is it not 'albums' rather than the rather vague 'releases'? 'Delete and upmerge' gets round both these and perhaps Category:Internet albums is not so vast that it needs 'by artist' subcats. Occuli (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My preference would be delete and upmerge, since I think it's more helpful to the average user to list all of Prince's studio albums in the same category, but I don't object to renaming either. Markfury3000 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete as some sort of joke or hoax. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian prophets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale: Delete - Joke category. Does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As unencyclopedic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Lovely. But delete. April Fools is gone... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• For I dipt in to the future, far as human eye could see; Saw the vision of the world, and all the delete that would be. (Apologies to Lord Tennyson) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Probably one of the best categories on wiki. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by age (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedian centenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedian sexagenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedian septuagenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedian octogenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale: Delete all - Past discussions have deleted all similar categories - See here and here - as grouping users by age does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Note I've already speedy deleted two of the subcategories as recreation of deleted content, but the others don't specifically seem to satisfy that criteria. VegaDark (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As unencyclopedic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as examples of WP:OC#TRIVIA. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Monta Vista High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale: Delete - High school alma mater category, which have a unanimous history of deletion as being too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As unencyclopedic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --If this were a substantive category, rather than a user category, it might be renamed "Alumni of Monta Vista High School", but I do not think we need alumni categories foir WP-ians. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2010 (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:Railroads in the Chicago Switching District. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chicagoland railroads to Category:Chicago metropolitan area railroads

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Another possible name is Category:Railway lines in the Chicago metropolitan area. As can be seen in its article, the term Chicagoland has many definitions, depending on the source and on the historical period. This category is unusual; it is the only US railroad category to attempt to capture rail lines by anything other than state, with the exceptions of a few cities, such as Category:Railway lines in Atlanta, Georgia and Category:Railway lines in Omaha, Nebraska. I feel that it relies on WP:Original Research by defining Chicagoland as "roughly bounded by the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway "outer belt"." Since there are already Category:Railway lines in Chicago, Illinois and Category:Illinois railroads, I also would have no objection to merging this category to either of those, or to its outright deletion. Speciate (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as is, The boundaries are VERY clearly set, by the EJ&E track, and the shoreline of Lake Michigan. These 2 borderlines were also the outer border of the Chicago Switching District, which controlled freight car interchange in the area. The "Chicago Metropolitan Area", as used here on Wikipedia, is an unwieldy overgrown beast created by the federal government, including large areas of Indiana, lower Michigan, Wisconsin, and areas of Illinois that only a lunatic gerrymandering government statistician would call Chicagoland. WuhWuzDat 19:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, but who defines Chicagoland by the EJ&E track? Should it be called Category:Railroads in the Chicago Switching District? Do you have a source? True, Chicagoland has a number of crappy definitions, some quite large, but that is what the sources say. This category is pure invention, and I question the need for it by any name. What purpose does it serve? Speciate (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with suggestion to rename to Category:Railroads in the Chicago Switching District. "Chicagoland" has more railroads than almost any other US city, but not all of them actually enter the city limits. The Chicago SouthShore and South Bend Railroad for example, while by almost any definition being a "Chicagoland Railroad", does not actually own any trackage within the city limits (or even with the state of Illinois), as its trackage ends at the Illinois/Indiana state line. This category serves a much needed middle ground between the statewide and Chicago-only categories. WuhWuzDat 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but please make an article on the Chicago Switching District. Speciate (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PBR venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Cruft category tagging every venue that an travelling rodeo circuit was held an event at. About as useful as categorising arenas that have held wrestling matches, monster truck rallies, or Rush concerts. ccwaters (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll need more then being a 'travelling rodeo circuit' to convince me of the need to delete it. Though the sports are different we also have the 'traveling race car circuit' venues in Category:NASCAR tracks. If anything is needed, it is a list for the locations. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, good point. I know nothing about the circuit except for the promos I see during the handful of NHL games I catch on Versus. If its like a racing circuit, which has a set schedule of relatively stable annual events, I have no issue with the category existing (maybe rework it to include only current venues and include the events in the arena articles?). But if it is indeed like my first impression, that its a touring show, than its no different than the examples I supplied and it should be deleted. ccwaters (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep So basically, it boils down to what you think the PBR is, nothing more than a travelling rodeo. IMO that's just sad and overly prejudicial. And I agree that the PBR is growing. It needs to be shown more respect. If you ask me I say leave the category alone, please. Sorry if I sound harsh but I think it's a useful category, especially for any PBR fan that might come here. 96.250.1.76 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it? Is it like say NASCAR or the PGA, where the organization comes back for the venue's yearly competition (Daytona 500, Buick Open)? I'm asking. Wikipedia isn't about respect, its about notability. Is it notable that an arena holds randomly scheduled rodeos? No. Is it notable that an arena holds a rodeo event year after year? Yes. ccwaters (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless it can be demonstrated that the same venues are used every year. If it just jumps around and books various venues throughout the year, then it's not terribly defining for these places, just like it wouldn't be defining for the place to hold—as the nominator says—a concert by a particular act or a WWE event. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Good Ol’factory - the articles I looked at showed quite a lot of "jumping around", with hardly any venue hosting the event every year. The category also suffers from bad sourcing (though that may be a more general problem of the arena articles), with one article I read not even mentioning the PBR and another only an upcoming venue in May 2010. Hosting the PBR hardly seems to be a defining characteristic for an arena. Huon (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Venues by event, given Huon's research. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (if kept) Rename Category:Professional Bull Riders venues. PBR is a meaningless abbreviation to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as mentioned previously, sourcing is non-existent in most articles and use of PBR should be fully named instead. At what point should we make categories for venues that hosted admission charging traveling sideshows? Is this judged by paid attendance or "sport" popularity, either way, I'm sure the PBR homepage is a better spot (and only verifiable one) for a historical venue listing. Btl (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, there is no other place on the internet for a list of PBR venues. This is the only spot. But if we need to turn this into a list, that's better than nothing. And I do agree that "PBR" should've been spelled out. So should it only have the arenas that have been the most consistent over the years (i.e. 5 or more years), such as the Honda Center, Scottrade Center, Idaho Center, Rimrock Auto Arena, etc.? 96.250.1.76 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian-born entertainers in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: 'by place born' (in and of itself) has been established (at WP:Cats for disc.) as non-notable and Canadian entertainers expat/immigrant to the States already covered by sub-cats of Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States by general occupation. Mayumashu (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Place of birth is rarely defining; if we're talking about Canadian nationals who live in the U.S., that's a different story and will be covered by other categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:26, 12 April 2010 (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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 14. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nebraska entertainers to Category:Entertainers from Nebraska

Nominator's rationale: as per standard sub-cat of 'Cat:People by state by occupation' (Category:Actors from Nebraska, Category:Musicians from Maine, etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (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: Keep and repopulate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Authors writing in dialects from England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Repopulate?. This category was originally named Category:Geordie Dialect Authors. After discussion here it was renamed and the coverage extended. Since then the category has been emptied – is that right? And is this the right place to raise it? [It used to contain Dorothy Samuelson-Sandvid and possibly some others] Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Repopulate - there were quite a few of these. Occuli (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate -- Most authors write in standard English, but a few write with an unusual orthography reflecting the dialect used by their subjects. This is certainly a notable characteristic, so that the category is a legitimate one and the person who emptied the category is a vandal. There was, for example, a novel using a broad dialect Glaswegian that won a major prize a few years ago (but perhaps that belongs to a Scots language category). Similarly, the Bible has been trasnlated inot several lcoal dialects. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Columbus, Ohio to Category:Companies based in the Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Based on the introduction the category covers the city and the surrounding area so the proposed name would be more accurate. The question is, is it better to rename as proposed and allow recreation of the city category if needed? Or if we need both, is it better to create the metro area category and cleanup the current category? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question -- If the metropolitan area is larger than the legal extent of the city, how do you intend to provide a definite limit to the scope of the category? Peterkingiron (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Metro areas are usually defined by the counties they encompass, so the OMB/Census Bureau-defined Metropolitan Statistical Area is usually reliable.- choster (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. In the long run I expect most of these companies to get upmerged into city and county categories, and Columbus being a major city should be able to populate its own category. While metro areas are an easy way to comprehend a city and its vicinity, they do not necessarily help fix the subject in space; one "San Francisco Bay Area company" could be a three-hour drive from another, and county borders change less often than metropolitan area definitions.- choster (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)`[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Accuracy should prevail, and most likely will in the long run. Mayumashu (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The metropolitan area is the relevant and useful unit here, not what municipality a corporate headquarters happens to be in. The Wendy's HQ is in Dublin, Ohio but within sight of the Columbus border. postdlf (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sportspeople in New York (state) to Category:Sportspeople in New York

Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing of a contested speedy proposal. The proposed rename unambiguously falls under criterion C2.C, but the CFD/S instructions indicate that a speedy request should not be processed if there are any objections. (I was tempted to IAR, but in the end decided against it since the gain from ignoring the rules is fairly small.)

If there are no new objections within 48 hours (07:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)), this discussion may be closed early as "speedy rename". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy:

• Category:Sportspeople in New York (state) to Category:Sportspeople in New York C2C per Category:Sports in New York. Tassedethe (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

  Keep as the proper disambiguate for the ambiguous New York Mayumashu (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

  The other subcategories of Category:People from New York do not disambiguate in this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per my comment above and per 2010 MAR 26 CFD. Users keep bringing this up at speedy rename, but nobody seems willing to start either a broad nomination or a test nomination of Category:People from New York or Category:New York. Until then, there's no reason to keep one subcategory different. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose use Category:Sportspeople in New York (U.S. state) instead. It would remove ambiguity, and match the naming of Washington and Georgia. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for conformity with other subcategories of Category:People from New York. If someone wants to change the convention, then do a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. If required there can also be "Sportspeople from New York City", as in the People cat-tree. NY is not ambiguaous in the way that Georgia (US/country) and Washington (state/DC) are. The problem to be addressed can easily be handled by a headnote on the category page. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2010 (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 to merge. Herostratus (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Doomsday films to Category:Apocalyptic films

Nominator's rationale: Merge. We should choose one or the other. I would prefer "Apocalyptic films" consistent with other "Apocalypticism" cats. Greg Bard 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Apocalyptic films contains what are by and large films with a religious purpose and is a subcategory of Category:Films about religion, as one would expect given the word's religious function. These factors suggest that the category has a distinct role which would be ill-served by porting in the many films in Category:Doomsday films, so I'd be heading to an "oppose". However... Category:Doomsday films is a bit of a mess: article reference redirecting to List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction (should the parent article for a category be a list?); sub-categories which use the terms "apocalypse" and "post-apocalypse"; parent categorisation under Category:Eschatology (more appropriate for the religious category). So there's a case that something should be done, though not I think this particular merger. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Apocalyptic films do not necessarily have any religious content. Therefore we should either remove or ignore Category:Films about religion. If there is to be further organization of things I would recommend "Cybernetic revolt films" (i.e. "robot apocalypse"), and "zombie apocalypse films." Neither of those would be religious, although they would be apocalyptic.Greg Bard 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Oppose because the word apocalyptic is religion-specific, although it is often used in a non-religious sense. The Library of Congress categorizes doomsday fiction and film in a "non-apocalyptic" fashion - it uses an "end of the world" category, which is probably more accurate semantically. The category could have a disambiguation link at the page top: "for 'end-of-the-world' or 'doomsday' works not concerning religion, see ..." -- Sctechlaw (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Apocalypic" themes in films are not necessarily religious. I think the distinction you make btwn "end-of-the-world" and "apocalyptic" is not very helpful in organizing the Wikipedia. It's pretty silly to have both of these categories. "Doomsday" implies doom, and one could argue that not all fictional ends of the world involve any "doom" at all. Greg Bard 21:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There is no reason that "apocalypse" or "apocalyptic" need necessarily be religious. In fact, I would argue that the contemporary use of the terms are not specifically religious. The existence of the List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction is a clear indication of this---very few of the titles listed therein have any religious theme. In modern parlance, "doomsday" and "apocalypse" are synonyms. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:11, 18 May 2010 (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. It is well established below that this category equivocates unlike things (i.e., OC by shared name); some commenters seem to like that function but have not substantively defended it. Other comments below, as by User:NVO, find germs of possibly valid categories within the undifferentiated morass of this one, but that is more a question of creating very different categories with well-defined, focused criteria than of salvaging this one. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of unrelated subjects with shared naming characteristic. This appears to be grouping articles based on the fact that they contain the word "question" in the article title. Nothing connects these topics but for the fact that they are referred to as some type of "question". There are two categories; the first was created and populated and then redirected to the latter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the rationale that these are tangentially related (see my post on Talk:Question: [1]). If that is a typical reason for deleting categories, then I fall in the delete camp. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree - keep. I stand by my original categorization scheme, with Category:Questions and (at least) two potential subcategories: Category:Questions by type (ex. rhetorical question, loaded question) and Category:Questions by subject (ex. Jewish Question). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – this seems similar to the '-gate' category which was deleted. 'Jewish question' would get in and exactly the same thing would not if it happened to have another name. This is indeed unrelated subjects with shared naming characteristic. Occuli (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the articles grouped here have nothing in common; even among Piotrus' suggested subcategories one is about rhetorics and the other about politics. Huon (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in common? They are different types of questions. How are they unrelated? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. Some articles are indeed articles on types of questions. Others are articles on specific "questions" - and as Occuli noted, whether a certain political problem belongs to the category seems to be based on what it's called, not on any intrinsic properties of the problem itself. Making the category focus on logics and rhetorics as suggested by NVO would work for me, but would result in the removal of about half the articles currently categorized there. Huon (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but tidy up. Having logical exercises (Compound question), legalese constructs (Political question) and real blood (Jewish question) in one bucket is too much. I'd limit the category to logics and rhetorics alone. NVO (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tidy up per NVO (I struck my "delete" !vote above). The logics/rhetorics articles dealing with types of questions certainly can be bundled. The specific "X Question" articles on politics, not so much. Huon (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is to be "tidied up", then its title also needs to be fixed—probably to "Types of questions", judging by what you guys are suggesting. The whole reason there is this misunderstanding about what should be in it (see Talk:Question#Category:Questions) is because of the indiscriminate mish-mash of things that were thrown into it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of its current state, "Keep but tidy up" is probably more realistically accomplished as a "delete and start over". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How so? I think removing articles from it that you think should not be included would be quite easier, the category is not that densely populated yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because whoever closes the discussion will not necessarily have the knowledge of how to properly "tidy up" the category when s/he keeps it or renames it. They probably won't even know how to establish a definition for it. It would be much easier and convenient for a closer to say, "right, we are going to delete this category because it was overbroad. Anyone can now feel free to create a new category under a different name and definition (say, "logical and rhetorical questions" or "types of questions", or something similar) and populate it properly." That way, it will get done properly by someone who knows what they are doing, rather than an administrative closer who is just performing an administrative task and may or may not have any knowledge in the area whatsoever. They also probably won't know what the best possible name for the new category would be, and there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus for a specific new name, but it is pretty clear that the current name/implied definition is overbroad. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, how about you try to clean it up? I believe we have a rough consensus to remove the "real blood" questions from it, for now, keeping the logical/rhetorical/legalese types of questions in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I wouldn't feel competent to do it either. How 'bout we delete it, and it can be closed without prejudice to someone creating it under a different name, and then someone who knows what they are doing can re-create it under a proper name? This is the essence of what I am saying. We don't even have consensus on the correct name. There's no sense making things harder for everyone, including the nominator here (me) and the closer of this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's not useful in its current form. I don't see a lot of scope for useful categories of significant scope; a list, with sub-divisions and explanations, might be more useful. Special:Search/intitle:question will give a list of potential articles to include. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly. There is no other category performing the same role. I wish people would stop suggesting deleting things which have obvious use. Wikidea 13:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should an encyclopedia bother with the role of grouping together every phrase that happens to use the word "question" in it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 31 May 2010 (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: complicated, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 27#Wikipedia books. — ξ^xplicit 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia:Other Books to Category:Wikipedia:User page Books (nominated for merging to Category:Wikipedia books (user books) below)

Nominator's rationale: Per prior consensus that "other" and "miscellany" categories are not useful and should be merged to their parents. (WikiProject Wikipedia-Books has been notified.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge, don't touch a thing for now. The "other" category is for books that defy classification, or for those which do not fit in any existing category. You have "Books on Foo" and "Books on Bar", but sometimes you have books that do not currently fit existing categories, or which defy classification. It's in these cases that you use "Other Books". Wikipedia:User page Books is a deprecated category (the valid one is "Wikipedia book (user books)"). It's original scope was to contain all user books, and was originally added by the book-creator. Now this is handled through the ((saved book)) template, but the book-creator hasn't yet been updated by the Wikipedia devs. When it's updated, then the category can be deleted (feel free to do daily AWB runs to empty the category however). Merging anything into a category that should eventually be deleted is nonsense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If a book defies categorization into any book by topic category, then what is the benefit of categorizing it as 'other' as opposed to simply not categorizing it? It will, after all, still be categorized by whether it is a user book or a community book.

  As for "merging ... into a category that should eventually be deleted" ... the contents of Category:Wikipedia:Other Books will be merged to Category:Wikipedia books (user books), and the former can be converted into a category redirect (if that is done, a bot will empty the category on a daily basis). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The benefit is that it lumps the oddballs and the loners into a single category. This way, rather than look through a list of several hundred / several thousand books, you can check the "other" category, and check for missing categories, create them, etc... As for creating a category redirect for the user books, it is pointless and would be in fact be detrimental. Category:Wikipedia books (user books) is populated through the ((saved book)) template, not through hard-coded text. "Merging" is also pointless/redundant, since all the book of Category:Wikipedia:User page Books are already in Category:Wikipedia books (user books). And this is a situation that cannot permanently be cleaned up or fixed until the Wikipedia devs update the book-creator code. As I said, let's leave things as they are for now, and when the code is updated, Category:Wikipedia:User page Books can be speedy-deleted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete: I don't see how any of these could "defy classification", and so I agree with nom. --Izno (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as nom. If they defy classification they should be in the parent, but I suspect that classification should be possible. They have to go somewhere in the Dewey decimal system used in libraries. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, possible but it doesn't mean that the appropriate category exists. As for the upmerge, there is no parent, so it's not even possible. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  While the desirability of upmerging varies depending on one's perspective, the possibility is there. They could be upmerged to Category:Wikipedia books or, since all of the books are user books, to the appropriate category for user books. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I've checked some things out and it turns out Category:Wikipedia:User page Books itself isn't automatically added by the book-creator. This means you can sent it to category hell, and it won't cause any problems. It's subcategories should be made subcategories of Category:Wikipedia books (community books), and be renamed according to the CfD below. The books which are directly in Category:Wikipedia:User page Books should just have the category removed, since the ((saved book)) template already categorizes them in Category:Wikipedia books (community books). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 27#Wikipedia books. Please do not close the April 27 discussion of this category as a duplicate of this discussion unless there is clear consensus (here or there) for a particular course of action. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:21, 29 April 2010 (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: complicated, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 27#Wikipedia books. — ξ^xplicit 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia:Books for Testing Purposes to Category:Wikipedia books (test books)

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Wikipedia books, Wikipedia books (community books) and Wikipedia books (user books). (WikiProject Wikipedia-Books has been notified.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Category:Wikipedia test books is also an option if there is consensus in the discussion below (#Wikipedia books) to rename to titles which do not contain parenthetical disambiguators. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait I say let's see how the mass-rename goes first. Then we can make an educated decision. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's probably a good idea. I admit that I posted this particular nomination a bit prematurely, and I would ask that the discussion be kept open at least until the main nomination (below) is closed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason this can't be deleted? Is there some benefit to grouping test books that eludes me? Why would someone specifically go looking for "test" books? VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's more of a way to tell people to not look at these books. As for benefits, it can be useful for bug testing. I plan to incorporate a |test= into the ((saved book)) template at some point in the future. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 27#Wikipedia books. Please do not close the April 27 discussion of this category as a duplicate of this discussion unless there is clear consensus (here or there) for a particular course of action. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It would be helpful to direct users who are trying out books to know where to create them, e.g. in the userspace or in a test category, so whatever is decided upon, let users know what to do. For example, although still a bit of a newbie, I've created two books by starting them in my userspace and then saved the final version to the general Books category. I had trouble figuring out how to delete the test versions when I finished them. So some clearer directions at the outset, and at the save point too would be helpful. Mea culpa if I missed some glaringly simple how to that was right before my eyes. -- Sctechlaw (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2010 (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: complicated, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 27#Wikipedia books. — ξ^xplicit 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up nomination to the recent renaming (still in progress, actually) of Category:Wikipedia:Books to Category:Wikipedia books.

There are two natural criteria by which to categorize Wikipedia books: the topic of the book and whether it is a community book or user book. The 'Wikipedia books' category tree currently implements this split, but it does so inefficiently. So, I propose the following categorization scheme for Wikipedia books:

• Category:Wikipedia books (top-level category)

• Category:Wikipedia books (community books) (for tracking purposes, all community books will continue to be directly placed here via ((saved book)))

• Category:Wikipedia books (community books) on Topic 1
• Category:Wikipedia books (community books) on Topic 2
• ...

• Category:Wikipedia books (user books) (for tracking purposes, all community books will continue to be directly placed here via ((saved book)))

• Category:Wikipedia books (user books) on Topic 1
• Category:Wikipedia books (user books) on Topic 2
• ...

• Category:Wikipedia books by topic (optional categorization level)

• Category:Wikipedia books on Topic 1

• Category:Wikipedia books (community books) on Topic 1
• Category:Wikipedia books (user books) on Topic 1

• Category:Wikipedia books on Topic 2

• Category:Wikipedia books (community books) on Topic 2
• Category:Wikipedia books (user books) on Topic 2

• ...

• ...
• ...

Implementing this category structure will require a certain amount of manual recategorization (which I can do if there is support for the proposal) and the proposed category name changes. The changes will:

1. Maintain the clear distinction between community books and user books and clarify the distinction between Wikipedia books (all Wikipedia books) and community books (books in the Book namespace)—the current practice of categorizing community books by topic using Wikipedia:Books on {Topic} categories blurs that distinction;
2. Remove the redundant split between Category:Wikipedia:User page Books and Category:Wikipedia books (user books); and
3. Facilitate navigation between different types of book by topic and between different topics by type of book. Example: Under the current system, a user trying to navigate from the category for user books on biology to the category for community books on biology must pass through a total of 6 intermediate layers of categorization. Under the proposed system, the same user must pass through only 1 intermediate category.

Note: WikiProject Wikipedia-Books has been notified. Tagging will be completed before 00:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the parentheses (they restate information). Perhaps we could sneak in a change to the naming: Category:Wikipedia books (community books) on Topic 1 to Category:Wikipedia community books on topic 1 (should be lower case topic?) and Category:Wikipedia books (user books) on Topic 1 to Category:Wikipedia user books on topic 1. Does that seem a reasonable change? --Izno (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to the format Category:Wikipedia {type} books, where {type} can equal "community" or "user". If there is consensus in this nomination to rename to non-parenthetical titles, I can nominate Category:Wikipedia books (community books) and Category:Wikipedia books (user books) for renaming to Category:Wikipedia community books and Category:Wikipedia user books, respectively, in a follow-up nomination.

Yes, Topic should be lower-case (and it is in the nomination list, except for proper nouns). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just skip the "Wikipedia" part, and use "Community books on foo" "User books on foo". The "Wikipedia" part is just there to not get mixed up with Category:Books. There wouldn't be any confusion in a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia books. That would be my prefered option. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While neither User books nor User books on foo is ambiguous, Community books and Community books on foo are—there are at least a few online communities which produce books (e.g., Wikibooks). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a few offline communiteis write books too, but neither online or offline books are referred to as "community books". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually, no, but it is used sometimes. For example: "Welcome to the Git Community Book. This book has been built by dozens of people in the Git community..."[2] The difference between "community books" and "community's books" (or "books of the community") is too nuanced, in my opinion, to justify dropping the "Wikipedia".

Also, there is potential for confusion with the concept of a geographic community (commonly referred to as a "community"), where examples of "community book group", "community book project", "community book program", and the like abound. I realize that the exact phrase is generally not used in these contexts, but such groups, projects, and programs often maintain lists of specific books, and it is another potential source of ambiguity. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books on communities would be categorized in "Books on communities" and not in "Community books". Whatever unlikely confusion we can think of can be clarified in the category's page if need be, but we should kept the category names short. The category tree would be

• Wikipedia books

• Community books

• Community books on foo
• Community books on bar

• User books

• User books on foo
• User books on bar

The only time these categories would be encoutered is when you're on a book-related page. No confusion is possible. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of the three options proposed so far, I like Izno's idea the best, but Black Falcon's naming scheme would also be an improvement over the current scheme. I think it is important for these to have "Wikipedia" in the name, however, so I would disagree with Headbomb's proposal. VegaDark (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, not my favourite option, but I'm tired of this CfD and it's not really that big a deal anyway. So whatever, let's go with the long names. Aka

• Wikipedia books

• Wikipedia community books

• Wikipedia community books on foo
• Wikipedia community books on bar

• Wikipedia user books

• Wikipedia user books on foo
• Wikipedia user books on bar

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 27#Wikipedia books. Please do not close the April 27 discussion of these categories as a duplicate of this discussion unless there is clear consensus (here or there) for a particular course of action, especially since the April 27 discussion involves a new proposal. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reuters Group plc to Category:Reuters

Nominator's rationale: To match the main article, Reuters NW (Talk) 03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Reuters per nom. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Reuters per nom. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:23, 15 April 2010 (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:Zachary Taylor family. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Taylor family to Category:TO BE DETERMINED

Nominator's rationale: the present name is ambiguous - what Taylor family? It is meant for relatives of the American President Zachary Taylor, btw. Mayumashu (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Zachary Taylor family. Most of Category:American families as named are very unsatisfactory. (Most of Category:English families are also unsatisfactory but some have (English aristocracy) appended, which seems a reasonable idea.) Occuli (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Zachary Taylor family. For many families the surname is sufficient to identify the family as it is the dominant family with that surname. Hence with most families with categories it is sufficient to merely use the surname. In some cases, such as this, the surname is a common one and the category title requires some clarification. In this case the category is based round an individual and so the change in name is obvious. Cjc13 (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2010 (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; doesn't look like a "breakthrough" is imminent in making this useful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users with new unsourced Biographies of Living People under review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename or Delete - First and foremost this uses the improper "users" instead of "Wikipedians" prefix, so this at minimum needs a rename. Also may need a rename on the capitalization aspect. However, I also wouldn't oppose deletion since I'm not sure of the purpose of grouping these users together, and I also feel the category would become useless unless there is some process of removing users from the category after the page is no longer under review (it appears this category is automatically added to users' talk pages when a notice is placed there). VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom unless someone identifies a clear, useful purpose for this category. The title is somewhat misleading, by the way: it suggests that there is some systematic review (in the manner of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations) of the recent BLP contributions of the users in this category. In reality, this is a category for users who have been notified that an article about a living person which they created was tagged for deletion under the newly-approved WP:BLPPROD process. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please see this discussion. A purpose of this category is to allow us to see how BLP prods are received by users, and see how BLP prodded articles evolve. This is important because the process is new, and we need to consider those aspects. I've suggested we delete the category after some time, and I think users in the discussion there would agree. There may be another way to do this, if so then please make suggestions and we can delete it as maintenance. As for the closure of the MFD, I suggest if no such alternative is found before closure, delete in two weeks. Cenarium (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2010 (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 as nominated; limit to alumni. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BUETian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology per standard naming conventions. Note the category is also for "faculty or staff", which wouldn't fit in the proposed rename target, but we have no other categories for faculty and staff of a university, and even if we did, the current name would still be inappropriate. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, Suggest Category:Wikipedians from Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology. This would be vague enough to cover both alumni and faculty, but do we need such categoroies at all? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI: the Wikipedians by alma mater tree has been nominated for deletion at least twice, once in June 2007 ('keep') and again in October 2007 ('delete', overturned at deletion review). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is basically a category for people having anything to do with the school. I don't see how this category helps the encyclopedia. It might help with one article, but does it help the encyclopedia in general? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology and rescope to include only alumni. Both of the users who are currently in the category seem to be alumni of BUET, so we can still rename at this point without introducing any inaccuracies. I think Vegaswikian's question about whether this category "help[s] the encyclopedia in general" is a valid one, but it is a question that applies to many subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and probably needs to be asked at a higher-level discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:33, 20 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adherents to the British-Irish voluntary code of conduct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Wikipedian adherents to the British-Irish voluntary code of conduct to signify this is a user category, or delete as grouping such users together does not have an obvious use of benefiting the project. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Having read Wikipedia:WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration/Voluntary Code of Conduct, I believe that adherence to the VCoC deserves commendation. However, it does not appear to me that this category facilitates encyclopedic collaboration between users. It is, in effect, a category for users who declared in the context of British-Irish content disputes that they will adhere to the principles expressed in the following pages: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. In many ways, it is a narrower version of deleted categories, such as Cat:Wikipedians against personal attacks and Cat:Wikipedians who support NPOV (see here for a complete listing), which grouped users by support for a guideline/policy or opposition to violation of a guideline/policy.
  The deciding factor for me is the fact that a list of signatories to the VCoC exists on the project page (see Wikipedia:WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration/Voluntary Code of Conduct#Signed). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (as creator) I agree with Black Falcon's reasoning and have removed the cat from the user box assocated with the code of conduct. --RA (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Editors mentioned in The World and Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename or Delete - At minimum needs a rename to signify this is a wikipedian category, but I would argue for deletion as this serves no collaborative benefit to the project that I can see. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as a user category which does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between editors. Note that deletion will not cause a loss of data, since a more complete list of editors mentioned in The World and Wikipedia is available at User:Andrew Dalby/The World and Wikipedia/Editors whose work is mentioned in the book. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree w/ Black Falcon. Category is completely redundant to User:Andrew Dalby/The World and Wikipedia/Editors whose work is mentioned in the book. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2010 (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 into Category:Wikipedians looking for help. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users requesting assistance with projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Wikipedians requesting assistance with projects per standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be a useful category in theory, but I noticed two potential problems. First, it is difficult to know whether the userbox which populates this category is being used in the manner described on the category page. Second, if membership in this category is indeed intended to be temporary (presumably, one should remove oneself from the category once one hsa received the requested assistance), then the response time seems to be quite long.
  Perhaps merge to Category:Wikipedians looking for help? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians looking for help per Black Falcon. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User BASIC-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Native" level programming language category, which has a unanimous precedent for deletion as being impossible/joke categories. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: it is impossible for a human editor to have native-level knowledge of a programming language. Editors who have expert- or professional-level knowledge of BASIC are welcome to place themselves in the appropriate level-4 or level-5 categories. We should not do this for them, however, since there is a good chance that many of the pages in this category are there as a joke, rather than due to a serious assessment of one's knowledge of BASIC. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:41, 7 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User MathML-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Native" level programming language category, which has a unanimous precedent for deletion as being impossible/joke categories. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: it is impossible for a human editor to have native-level knowledge of a markup language. Editors who have expert- or professional-level knowledge of MathML are welcome to place themselves in the appropriate level-4 or level-5 categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:39, 7 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User XUL-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Native" level programming language category, which has a unanimous precedent for deletion as being impossible/joke categories. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: it is impossible for a human editor to have native-level knowledge of a user interface markup language. Editors who have expert- or professional-level knowledge of XUL are welcome to place themselves in the appropriate level-4 or level-5 categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:37, 7 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User latex-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Native" level programming language category, which has a unanimous precedent for deletion as being impossible/joke categories. Note: This category was previously deleted "Per UCFD", however I checked the day the deleting admin listed, and while there was a mass nom of native-level programming language categories, this was not listed among them, so I would not consider this speedyable as recreation. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: it is impossible for a human editor to have native-level knowledge of a document markup language. Editors who have expert- or professional-level knowledge of LaTeX are welcome to place themselves in the appropriate level-4 or level-5 categories. We should not do this for them, however, since there is a good chance that many of the pages in this category are there as a joke, rather than due to a serious assessment of one's knowledge of LaTeX. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:33, 7 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User vhdl-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Native" level programming language category, which has a unanimous precedent for deletion as being impossible/joke categories. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: it is impossible for a human editor to have native-level knowledge of a hardware description language. Editors who have expert- or professional-level knowledge of VHDL are welcome to place themselves in the appropriate level-4 or level-5 categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:32, 7 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Azerbaijan members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:WikiProject Azerbaijan participants - Duplicate category, target has many more users in it. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - obvious duplicates. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Malta members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:WikiProject Malta participants - Duplicate category, slight preference for "participants", although as long as they are merged it doesn't really matter. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - obvious duplicates. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2010 (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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian great-great-grandparents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedian great-grandparents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedian grandparents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedian parents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - That's great, but grouping these users in a category doesn't benefit the encyclopedia whatsoever. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Creating groupings of users who had or have children by birth or adoption (who, in turn, also had or have children, and so on...) does not aid in facilitating encyclopedic coordination and collaboration between users. There are many ways to convey this information, including simple text and userboxes, which are perfectly acceptable, but user categories should not function merely as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a user category that is of no interest to users (after half a year of existence) is unnecessary. I will be happy to change my opinion if more users sign up (it should be an impressive more!). NVO (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Wikipedian categories exist to facilitate collaboration, but these categories are no use for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all -- having children is too common to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2010 (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.