< December 2	December 4 >

December 3

Category:Books by Hilary Mantel

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. Kbdank71 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Books by Hilary Mantel to Category:Novels by Hilary Mantel

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The contents are all novels. Tim! (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's true of the current content, but Mantel has also written a highly-regarded autobiography ("Giving up the ghost") and continues to contribute essays to the London Review of Books among other magazines, which one can reasonably expect to be collected in due course, so the categorised articles are is likely to expand in future. AllyD (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current category can be re-created if her non-fiction books have articles created about them. Tim! (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; then they will be in the novel tree. The autiobio is less likely to get its own article as that would largely duplicate the bio article. Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; then they will be in the novel tree. Exactly. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:44, 15 December 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.

Category:Jews who emigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 17:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Once more. Three-point intersection. Very narrow. Very oddly inclusionist. Does not seem address what makes "Jews emigrating to United Kingdom" as opposed to simply "emigrating" significant. Pretty much just all over WP:OCAT Bulldog123 10:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So we would merge to Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism, per User:Good Ol’factory. IZAK (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on second thoughts, simply because it was specifically Jews who were targeted by Nazi Germany's racist Nuremberg Laws forcing them to flee genocide in the Holocaust directed at them. So this group of Jewish refugees from Nazism are WP:NOTABLE and should be left at this time. IZAK (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see how this fact could be relevant to the "German Jews" category below, but how is it relevant to escape (from an undefined location) to a particular country (the UK)? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very historically meaningful category. Jheald (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals included in the category. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (technically, upmerge to Category:Immigrants to the United Kingdom, Category:Jewish refugees and Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism) as a quadruple-intersection of who (Jews), what (who emigrated), where (to the United Kingdom) and why (to escape Nazism). In the context of Jews escaping Nazism, I see nothing to indicate that escaping to the UK (as opposed to the US or elsewhere) was particularly significant. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the context of not just UK Jewry, but British culture generally, these 'Continental Britons' made a massive, quite disproportionate impact [1][2], particularly [3]. They are a significantly important group, of interest in its own right. Jheald (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - One other point that is maybe worth making is that this category is way underpopulated compared to the number of subjects with WP bios that should be included. Just looking at the 17 currently listed is a shadow of the full number and the full contribution of those that should be there. Jheald (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for providing those links. That is certainly is relevant information, in my opinion. Is 'Continental Briton' an established term for Nazi-era Jewish immigrants to the UK from the Continent (i.e., would Category:Continental Britons make sense)? Also, does it apply to all Jewish immigrants to the UK during that period or just German-Jewish ones? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Continental Britons" was the name of a book, and then a hit exhibition at the Jewish Museum in London. The phrase would be recognised by those who knew of the exhibition, but not in more general discussion. The better title is the title the category currently has, which is more self-explanatory. As for Germans, we probably mostly are talking about Germans, and some Austrians -- because the writing was on the wall for so much longer; but there were also some kindertransport trains from Czechoslovakia and Poland; and Jews who escaped from eg Hungary as well (though things were better there until quite late on into the war). I think it probably wouldn't be helpful to further sub-categorise -- at least not from a UK-centric point of view; though maybe from a "Jews of country X and what happened to them" point of view. For some further names that could be added to the category, see eg Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom (probably also incomplete), plus lists like List of British Jewish scientists etc could be trawled; plus some could be refined from Category:Jewish refugees; and still we would miss some. Jheald (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, that clarifies things quite a bit, and I no longer think that deletion is the right option. In lieu of keeping, however, would renaming/upmerging to Category:People who emigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism or to Category:Jewish immigrants to the United Kingdom and Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism. In effect, my question is: Is "Nazi-era Jewish immigrants to the United Kingdom" a sufficiently distinct subgroup of "Nazi-era immigrants to the United Kingdom" or "Jewish immigrants to the United Kingdom"? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        For the second question I would say yes. Some distinctive different groups of Jewish immigrants that you might want to see distinguished if you were browsing categories might be (1) the earliest C17 immigrants, often Sephardi from Amsterdam, high net worth bankers and brokers; (2) C18 immigrants, from further afield, eg Sephardim from Italy such as Benjamin D'Israeli and the grandfather of Moses Montefiore, but also some Ashkenazim eg from Germany; (3) immigrants from the Russian empire (including bits of present-day Poland and Ukraine) circa 1880-1905; and (4) Jews escaping fascism in the 1930s, typically from Germany, later from more of Europe. Group (3) mostly had it very hard, starting from a very low status; I don't know how many of them will have bios that will have made WP. Groups (1, 2 and 3) maybe best broken by date; but Group (4) definitely do stand apart, in terms of distinctiveness, status, and sudden cultural contribution. As to your other question, specifically Jewish, rather than other emigrés from fascism, it might be worth turning that round, and asking: are emigrés from fascism who were not Jewish an interesting group to collect and to browse.
        
        Finally, it's mainly worth considering what are the main issues that lead to worry about overcategorisation, and do they apply. As I understand it, they are twofold: firstly that individual articles accumulate too many categories. I think in this case that is weak, because (as Alansohn has noted) this was a defining event in these individual's lives; and, also, we're not going to save a category in the article by categorising them as Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism, rather than Category:Jews who emigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism. In fact, if they are also categorised as Category:Jewish immigrants to the United Kingdom that in fact adds to the number of categories each article is having to carry. Where there are meaningful distinctions that naturally divide larger categories up into articles that have more precise affinities, I think they *are* useful. The second key object to overcategorisation, as I understand it, is that it requires people to have to look in too many places to find all the comparable articles in which they are interested. I think in this case that argument is limited, because this is a group that is interesting in its own right, and even if one were interested in a larger group of which it was part (eg: all Jewish immigrants to the UK; or all Jewish emigrants from fascism; or all emigrants from fascism to the UK, not necessarily Jewish), then there is only quite a limited number of further categories that one would need to search. But the bottom line here, I think, is that this is not just an intersection for the sake of an intersection; rather it is a grouping that actually has some real meaning. Jheald (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Those are good points (and a useful overview of the history Jewish immigration to the UK). :) I'm convinced now that this is a distinct topic of cultural interest and, essentially, defining for the individuals who are in the category. A decision about categorizing this characteristic in some other way (e.g., by time period, by country of origin, or by upmerging to Category:Jewish immigrants to the United Kingdom and Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism) can be made later, I think, perhaps when this type of categorization has had more time to develop. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Outright deletion is not an option given that no one has put forth any argument as to why Jews emigrating [somewhere] to escape Nazism should not exist as a category structure. So if there is something particularly wrong with this category, its contents would need to be upmerged to, at the very least, Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism. Presuming that this parent has sufficient numbers, subdividing it by the country to which they emigrated makes sense, and it also makes sense as a subcategory of people who emigrated to a particular place as an unquestionably significant historical cause for emigration of Jews. So complaining in the abstract about triple-intersections and what not seems to miss the point in this instance rather than offer a sensible critique. postdlf (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator here is not "missing the point." I don't think it's wise to start this trend of "BLANK people emigrating to BLANK because of BLANK" -- even if it does have a historical context. Category:Irish people emigrating to the United States because of the Irish Potato Famine has historical context too. It's opening up a can of worms. Bulldog123 11:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with treating this category as sui generis, but I also don't presume that no other significant historical events could be the basis for categories regarding why people emigrated somewhere else, if there are enough qualifying articles and if the historical cause of emigration is notable and pretty clear cut. postdlf (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jheald's comments and explanations above. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category could possibly be widened to Category:People of Jewish descent who emigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism to cover those of Jewish descent who did not actually themselves profess Judaism; eg: Karl Geiringer, George Lane (British Army officer), Friedrich Paneth, Steve Shirley ... Jheald (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially in light of Jheald's explanations above. Davshul (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cat now has 119 entries, with some further articles in the related (new) sub-cat, Category:Kindertransport refugees. This could probably be increased further, if anyone feels like trawling through our "List of British Jews in field xxx" articles. Slightly fewer Germans and perhaps more Austrians than maybe I first expected, plus of course Czechs, Hungarians, Poles, etc... Jheald (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 17:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another strangely defined, very narrow, and yet very inclusionist three-point intersection category. Doesn't really address why a "German Jew" fleeing the Nazis is any different from "any other Jew fleeing the Nazis" ... or even more broadly "any other person fleeing the Nazis." Bulldog123 10:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a quadruple intersection (at least: the intro adds 'who became naturalised American citizens'). I agree that it is too specific but there should be various upmerges rather than delete. Occuli (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge is an option, I suppose - though i'm pretty much all the individuals who are verifiably "German" as well as "Jewish" already have categories denoting that. Bulldog123 19:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism, per User:Good Ol’factory. IZAK (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on second thoughts, simply because it was specifically Jews who were targeted by Nazi Germany's racist Nuremberg Laws forcing them to flee genocide in the Holocaust directed at them. So this group of Jewish refugees from Nazism are WP:NOTABLE and should be left at this time. IZAK (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism, per User:Good Ol’factory. --Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historically meaningful, and category is well populated. Useful. Jheald (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals included in the category. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to one of two options:

Option A: Category:Germans Jews who emigrated to escape Nazism, Category:German immigrants to the United States Category:American people of German-Jewish descent and Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States
Option B: Category:Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism, Category:German immigrants to the United States, Category:German refugees and Category:American people of German-Jewish descent

~~In the context of emigrating to escape Nazism, the part that is significant/defining is being a German Jew, not (I think) the destination to which one escaped.~~ This category is currently a quadruple-, quintuple-, or sextuple-intersection—of who₁ (German nationality), who₂ (Jewish ethnicity/religion), what (who emigrated), where (to the United States), why (to escape Nazism) and possibly another what (who became naturalized US citizens)—and it would benefit from being broadened. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Comment revised at 02:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC) following discussion for a Category:Jews who emigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism.[reply]

Keep or Upmerge to Option B. Although I see no objections to keeping this category, it may be preferable to upmerge the Option B suggested above by Black Falcon - namely, Category:Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism, as this will enable the inclusion of, say, Austrian and Czech Jews who also emigrated to the US to escape Nazism, following German annexation. Davshul (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of German-Jewish descent

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 17:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Three-point-intersection category. Pretty clear example of overcategorization - narrow intersection with a very "open" criteria for inclusion. Has everyone from Monica Lewinsky to Albert Einstein. Really adds nothing that two separate categories wouldn't do. "German Jewish" by itself is also ambiguously defined - as a German Jew, here, is being defined as anyone being born in a territory that was once part of Germany. Bulldog123 10:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this has just been discussed (18 Nov 2010). Occuli (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is the same thing as keeping? I'm purporting to delete all these cats - starting with this one - because it manufactures national-ethnic or ethnic-ethnic relations where there are none. Monica Lewinsky having an ancestor who - at one point - lived in a territory that was none as Germany, does not ostensibly make her part-German Jew. Definitely not in the same criteria as Albert Einstein. Furthermore, we already have enough various ethnic categories polluting all these articles. One less combo can only help. Bulldog123 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any cfd (whatever the nom) has 'delete' (or upmerge) as a potential outcome. So a fairly unanimous rename is also a fairly unanimous keep. (Monica Lewinsky is evidently of German descent and deletion would lose this fact.) Occuli (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, then I rescind this nomination. I had not realized that. Bulldog123 11:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This category, and its sister catagories, were discussed at a full Cfd within the last month. Davshul (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's part of a larger grouping, that goes back to WP's very roots. This category belongs to a logical and well-structured hierarchy of WP:NOTABLE parent and grandparent categories, namely: Category:American people of German-Jewish descent --> Category:American Jews of Germanic European descent --> Category:American Jews by national origin & Category:American Jews of European descent --> Category:American Jews --> Category:American people by ethnic or national origin & Category:American people by religion & Category:American people of Jewish descent & Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States & Category:Jews by country --> Category:Jews & Category:Jews and Judaism by country & Category:People by religion and nationality --> Category:Jews and Judaism & Category:People by ethnicity & Category:People by religion. Therefore it is totally illogical and outright disruptive to start ripping out random categories that are in this huge hierarchy of categories UNLESS there are larger issues and questions that would get addressed. Any intent to move forth with deletionism MUST adhere to common sense and respect WP's well-structured categories. IZAK (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we should keep this one. For one its a hot topic that gets a lot of press and attention still and for the reasone mentioned by the others above. --Kumioko (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with nom's belief that this is a narrow triple intersection. In reality, American Jews often identify themselves as having come from Russian Jews, Lithuanian Jews, German Jews, etc (and rarely has having come from Russians, Lithuanians, etc). Thus it's really more like a double intersection. The vagaries of what "German Jews" etc mean over time can be dealt with by articles like History of the Jews in Germany. Looking at Category:Jewish history by country shows there are many such articles, so the notion of "<country X> Jews" is reasonably defined. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Izak & Occuli. Jheald (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals included in the category. Issues with the inclusion of particular articles should be addressed at the talk page of the articles in question. Alansohn (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Non-notable intersection, and useless category. What purpose does it serve? --Therexbanner (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wasted Time R. I agree that this category intersects two (or 2.5?), not three, characteristics: nationality (American) and descent (German-Jewish). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that German Jewish is not the same thing German. However, you must understand that that's not the standard that's being used for X-American cats and lists. Category:Americans of Lithuanian descent is pretty much full of Lithuanian Jewish Americans not Lithuanian Americans. It's one of those problems the census and people's general ignorance of geography provides. If we're going to start using this type of standard, we'd need to change that trend. It's not the same thing to be a Lithuanian American and a Lithuanian Jewish American. In most cases, Jews of Lithuanian descent were either Russian, Polish, or Yiddish speakers... have about as much connection to Lithuanians as Armenians in Turkey had to Turks. It's not an accurate description of an individuals cultural, linguistic, and ethnic background. Would you agree that by suggesting this is a double-intersection and not triple, the majority of individuals under this cat would have to be removed from "German American" categories - given German American is an ethnic term not a national term? Bulldog123 11:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kongregate users

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete - "This is a category of users who play games and stuff at Kongregate". Does not foster encyclopedic collaboration to group users in a category who play games on a particular website. Additionally, improperly uses the "users" naming convention. VegaDark (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhmm, there are many non-encyclopedic categories for userboxes. Category:Wikipedians interested in maps, for example. Maybe we could change the name of the category, but delete it when it's a userbox category? JaumeBG 09:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being associated with a userbox has absolutely no bearing on if a category should be kept or deleted, as you can add or remove any category from any userbox. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to your argument of Category:Wikipedians interested in maps existing. Also, there is a much stronger argument for collaboration for that existing than a category for people who like to play games on a particular website. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then delete it. JaumeBG 03:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:USERCAT. Doesn't facilitate collaboration. Jafeluv (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users involved in The Great Background Drive

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Rename or Delete - Improperly uses the "users" naming convention, not to mention the actual project is the backlog project, not the background project, which the creator apparently failed to notice. Needs at minimum a rename, but considering how broad the scope of this project is, I question the collaboration benefits a grouping by way of user category can actually be, so wouldn't rule out deletion. Additionally, this project is of a temporary nature - "Our mission is to clear out Wikipedia's backlogs during the 2010 fundraising period", not sure it is particularly helpful to create categories for such short-lived projects. VegaDark (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to renaming to Category:Wikipedians in the Great Backlog Drive 2010 (subcategory of Category:Great Backlog Drive 2010 and Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration) while the drive and fundraising campaign is ongoing, but this is not viable as a permanent category. Since the collaboration is temporary, the category eventually will be deleted as a defunct-project user category. Attempting to repurpose it into a more permanent project would make the category too broad: users working on backlogs. So, delete unless the project would like to retain it for the duration of the campaign. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador

The result of the discussion was: delete Listification of this category is not feasible since there is only one user. Kbdank71 17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete - Too small of a population to justify/sustain a user category. Past consensus (see here and here) has deleted categories for cities of a population with less than 50k; this city has about 26k. Generally the suggested action to take is to create an associated county category that would presumably cover enough of a population/area to justify a category, but after a quick look at the city page it appears as if Canada doesn't utilize a county system, so not sure what an appropriate substitute would be other than Category:Wikipedians in Newfoundland and Labrador. VegaDark (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that all such categories (Category:Wikipedians in Newfoundland and Labrador) should be listified. Using a list, individuals can add brief comments, such as which corner they are from. Associations recorded by list, such as this one, work just fine as a list. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like perfectly reasonable idea to me. VegaDark (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support this idea in theory, but past experience showed that such lists tended to gather names without comments and quickly became forgotten and outdated. Due to this, they were all deleted in 2007. It started with Wikipedia:User categorisation and ended with nominations like this one. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The common problem I see with all of those lists, common to these user categories, is that they attempt comprehensiveness. Users who wish to associate by location (eg meetups) or expertise would do better to sign onto a list existing for that purpose. Trying to organise the rest of the community by location or expertise is something quite different, probably hopeless, and I think a bad idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the case of user categories, I think this particular issue is exacerbated by unseen or after-the-fact categorization by userbox: i.e., someone adds a userbox to her/his user page without noticing the user category or someone transcludes a userbox to her/his user page and another editor then adds category code to the userbox. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. I think it would be good if more people tried doing things with categories, but automatic unseen or after-the-fact categorization by userboxes is not helping anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Deere

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. After the article move discussion, the article for the company is now at John Deere and the article for the person is at John Deere (inventor). So after this discussion this category matches the article name of the company. If anyone wants to start a new discussion to propose Category:John Deere (company), that could be done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:John Deere to Category:Deere & Company

Nominator's rationale: This is clearly about the company (Deere & Company), not the man (John Deere). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update I support the main article and the category having the same name, whatever that ends up being. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The company is universally known as John Deere in the marketplace and general population, with the name and color being assiociated with "John Deere", not "Deere & Company". (I hadn't even known it was formally Deere & Co. until just now, in fact...) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This is not how the cat is actually being used. Not counting the 2 articles about the company and the man, there are 17 articles in this cat and subcat with the phrase "John Deere" and 0 with the phrase "Deere & Company". (Disclosures, I probably created 2 or 3 of those articles.) Also, the company currently does business as (DBA) John Deere as noted in the company article. And, as recently as 1966, John Deere was the legal name based on the Graham v. John Deere Co. article.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match the parent article. If John Deere is the common name for the company, its article should be moved first and then we can discuss naming the category accordingly. Jafeluv (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming Article: The company article should be renamed per WP:COMMONNAME. Usually making a change mid-discussion is seen as undermining the discussion but I think it's silly to 1) rename the cat, 2) rename the article, 3) then switch the cat name back. Any objections to me just doing #2? RevelationDirect (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can put this CFD on hold to wait for the outcome of an article move request if someone makes one. The place for that is Talk:Deere & Company. Jafeluv (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the article is renamed (to which I have no objection), it could not be renamed to John Deere (the article about the person). Instead, it would need to be something like John Deere (company), so there is still a need to rename the category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Rename to Category:John Deere (company) and rename the associated article to John Deere (company). 65.94.45.167 (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: The cat is based around the company and, with a rename, the person and the company would need to have a parenthetical clarification "(company)" or "(person)". Since the cat will continue to contain both articles, does it need the parenthetical clarification?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to Category:Deere & Company, to match head article Deere & Company. If anyone wants to propose renaming the head article, then open a discussion at WP:RM ... but unless and until such a proposal succeeds, the category should follow the existing name of the article on the company. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Requested Move of article: Any input on the requested move of the Deere & Company would be welcome.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:John Deere (company) if/when the head article is renamed. --Kbdank71 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to Category:Deere & Company, to match head article Deere & Company. Deere & Company likely is trying to prevent their John Deere trademark going the way of Genericized trademark by calling itself Deere & Company and reserving their John Deere trademark for products. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gulf of Mexico Watershed

The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Gulf of Mexico Watershed to Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming Category:Gulf of Mexico Watershed to Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico or Category:Drainage basins feeding the Gulf of Mexico

Propose Renaming Category:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico to Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico or Category:Drainage basins feeding the Gulf of Mexico

Nominator's rationale: ~~Delete~~. The main article, Gulf of Mexico, says nothing about this watershed so it is clearly not defined. I'll let the experts jump in, but the included category might properly be a watershed, but not this. As I understand this area, if we wanted a category like this, it should be named something like Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If not deleted, support Vegaswikian's suggested rename, or prefer Category:Drainage basins feeding the Gulf of Mexico. A watershed is found in the hills and mountains, not in the ocean. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to "...basins..." The problem here is that the category uses a US meaning of "watershed" which means "drainage basin". This is confusing because, as SmokeyJoe indicates, another meaning is "drainage divide" which occurs on mountains and hills, so I agree with a name change to "basin". How about just "Basins of the Gulf of Mexico"? That also matches existing categories e.g. "Rhine basin" or "Continental basins of the North Sea". --Bermicourt (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Category:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico is the way to go. Basin is ambiguous, using something like Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico or Category:Drainage basins feeding the Gulf of Mexico removes the ambiguity. For a lot of American readers, basin is going to be an issue. Using drainage basin makes the intent of the category much clearer. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since Category:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico exists, ~~it should be part of this discussion and~~ that points out another problem with the existing category. So I'll modify the proposal to be a rename. The Category:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico is a structural basin and not a drainage basin so they are not the same and this points out problems with that category name which should probably be renamed once we decide on dealing with the drainage basins. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming to Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico, agree that Category:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico is confusing as well, currently the definition there says it's for structural basins, but everything that's in there is a drainage basin. Kmusser (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So when this closes, the articles probably should be moved and Category:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico deleted as a part of the close. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]