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. As consensus shows here, this category is trivial and does nothing other than categorize performers by performance. — ξ^xplicit 01:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of performer by performance. Just like we don't categorize actors by film appeared in, we don't generally categorize models by publication appeared in. It can hardly be said to be defining when it includes the likes of Beyoncé Knowles, Lindsey Vonn, and Serena Williams. Note: This category has been deleted before, and as such this is a re-creation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Prune For the overwhelming majority of these models, their appearance in SI is their primary defining characteristic. The persistent argument that a questionable entry or two justifies deletion of the entire category is never worth considering. Any borderline cases can be most effectively addressed by discussion at the article's talk page, rather than trying to toss the scantily clad babes out with the bath water. Alansohn (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I would go that far to say "overwhelming majority". Only a few of the articles included even include a mention of the SISI in the lede, even for those who are primarily models. The majority do not. And the number of persons in the category who are primarily athletes, not models, is not limited to one or two, as suggested. At last check it's about a quarter of the entries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let the cleanup begin. Problem solved. Alansohn (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you saying you performed some clean up? I guess not, because nothing's changed. All this is essentially the same problem as a standard performer by performance. Yes, appearance in one particular film or TV series can be defining for a limited number of actors. But we still don't categorize by it. Same deal here—yes, appearance in the SISI may be defining for a limited number of models. But because it is generally not, we don't categorize by it. I guess I'm not seeing any explanations of why this one magazine should be treated differently. (Playboy and Penthouse appearances have categories too; to my knowledge, these have never been discussed at CFD.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have broad precedent for including such appearance, and your example of the Playboy and Penthouse categories is quite relevant. As to your three examples, Beyoncé Knowles appeared on the cover of the SISI and Serena Williams has a sourced mention in her article. The cat was removed for Lindsey Vonn, for whom there is no mention as a defining characteristic. Anything else, or are we done with the cleanup? Alansohn (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are still a number of non-model athletes in the category, but I don't think it's necessary to remove them immediately. I'm not convinced "sourced mention" = "defining" in terms of categories. There has always been a distinction drawn by most users between what is verifiable and what is defining. What is the broad precedent? Are there any cases you know of for persons by magazine appearance which have been discussed at CFD? The Playboy one isn't a great example, because like this category, the one time they were discussed they were deleted, and the Playboy Playmates one has never been discussed. The other ones I am aware of for models by appearance that have been discussed: CoverGirls and Victoria's Secret models were deleted. Playboy models, Vivid Girls, Busty.pl models, and Playboy Cyber Girls were deleted. Playgirl models was deleted. Abercrombie and Fitch models was deleted. Barker's Beauties was deleted. SI swimsuit models was deleted. Gay-for-pay models was deleted. Pirelli Calendar models was deleted. Page Three girls was kept. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appearing in an SI swimsuit issue is a defining moment in a model's career. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the one who created the Category a few days ago, I felt it was needed due to all the celebrities and athletes that have appeared in it over the last decade. Maple Leaf (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete By all means listify this if it is worth keeping, but as with any other performer by performance category, if we go down the route of categorising models by the publications they have appeared in, the result will be horrendous category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models, but no overall list that I can find. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And ((SISwimsuitCoverModels)). Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are templates that have all the models for each year: ((1964-1969SISwimsuit)), ((1970-1979SISwimsuit)), ((1980-1989SISwimsuit)), ((1990-1999SISwimsuit)), ((2000-2009SISwimsuit)), ((2010-2019SISwimsuit)). 04:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and weed out the non-professional models. For athletes, cheerleaders, players' wives, etc., appearing in the magazine is more of a sidenote to their notability, whereas for many (if not most) models who appear in the issue, it's a defining characteristic. Most models who appear in the mag are in it numerous times over the course of many years, and with SI running such large online content launches and the extent of the promotional campaigns, being an SI model goes well beyond a simple appearance in a magazine. These models become associated with the issue and are frequently defined as SI models when the mainstream press mentions them; appearing in the issue is very much a status symbol.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete -- This is not a matter of dramatic performanace (the usual context for performacne by performer categories - which are always deleted), but it comes to much the same thing. If the models are notable, their appearance of the cover will be a NN aspect of their career, and thus not worthy of having a category for. If they are notable for nothing else, they are clearly NN, and should not even have an article, but appearance in a list article would be harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I'm getting the wrong idea from your vote, but are you trying to claim being on the SISE cover is a non-notable achievement for a model?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • dramatic performanace ??? These are not actors, these are models. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my reading, no one has claimed that this a dramatic performance category. Users have drawn analogies between the two, because they are treated as comparable situations by the applicable guideline. The guideline for "performers by performance" states: "Avoid categorizing performers by their performances. Examples of 'performers' include (but are not limited to) actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As pointed out by Alansohn, cleanup is needed. However that makes a strong case that the inclusion criteria is subjective. I believe that the existing templates provide adequate navigation without the issues of subjective criteria for inclusion in a category. Also this category is for people who have appeared in a particular issue which would appear to be a performers by performance category which should be avoided. Also the current inclusion criteria has issues with being arbitrary. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OCAT as model by gig (i.e., "performer by performance"). While SI is no doubt a significant gig, those who model in it will typically also have modeled in many other significant magazines and for other significant companies that are equally notable, even if SI may be among those with the most mainstream media presence. We've seen in the past what happens when we categorize models by every such job; I think Cindy Crawford had over 30 categories a few years ago before the models by gig categories were deleted. Further, that this category applies to so many for whom it is non-defining of their career (athletes and other celebrities who have occasionally modeled in it) is another good reason to delete it, rather than pruning it under the pretense that the category is really named Category:Models who are known for appearing in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 28 February 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: speedily deleted as re-created material; see here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiracial music groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. People of different races playing music together is neither new nor unusual. It was rare in some specific situations, such as in South Africa under apartheid and in the era of racial segregation in the USA, but the fact of being mixed-race seems to be unrelated to the notability of most groups which could fit in this category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- any multi-racial category is a problem: where does one stop? There must be 1000s of groups with people of more than one nationality in them. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have a bit of sympathy as this did provide problems for musicians in various settings, from various jazz groups through to Love in the USA in the 60s, but as a category it would expand in all manner of non-defining ways (Orange Juice, maybe even Rolling Stones?). AllyD (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Worth noting that time-based categories such as Category:1960s multiracial music groups have also been created. AllyD (talk) 22:54, 14 February 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. — ξ^xplicit 01:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translators of Kalidasa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as a form of performers by performance category. I can find no other sub-category of Category:Translators which categorises translators by the material which they have translated. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree However, (like awards categories) the solution should be listify in Kālidāsa (NB accents) then delete, rather than a plain delete. The category may also need an upmerge to Category:Translators. I have not investigated this in detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mainly as the nom is a gross & unwarranted extension of "performers by performance", and we have 10 sub-cats of Category:Bible translators, so the other argument falls over too. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge to Category:Translators from Sanskrit and Category:Sanskrit–English translators, as appropriate. I don't believe being a translator of Kālidāsa is as defining as being a translator of the Bible. I generally agree that we shouldn't categorize translators by the work or author that was translated. The Bible, the Koran, and maybe some other works may be appropriate exceptions, though I personally would be OK with eliminating them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Johnbod. It's not a "performer by performance" category by any means. We also have Category:Qur'an translators and Category:Translators of Ramayana, in addition to the Bible translators category mentioned, so precedent surely exists. The naming could be made more consistent, but I don't think deletion is warranted here. Jafeluv (talk) 21:42, 27 February 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: listify and delete. — ξ^xplicit 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moosehead Award recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: 'Delete and listify per WP:OC#Award_winners: "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The policy seems clear and reasonable; I'm happy with the decision to delete. The recipients can be listed under the main article for the award. -- Guybrush (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify then delete -- currnetly there is no list in the main article, which is where the list ought to be. Lists have the advantage that they can be chronological. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 14 February 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of SN College Kollam to Category:Sree Narayana College alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform to the "foo alumni" convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in India, and to expand the abbreviated form of the name of Sree Narayana College. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand abbreviation somehow. No view on how. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match full title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 17 February 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. --Xdamr^talk 15:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Characters depicted in Shakespeare's plays to Category:People depicted in Shakespeare's plays

Nominator's rationale: Rename, possibly delete. All the articles listed here are (AFAICS) biographies of real people who have been fictionalised, rather than fictional characters. The propose rename makes this clear.
However, I think that we should at least consider deleting this category, because it sets a very bad precedent to start categorising real people by their fictional portrayals. I accept that the plays of Shakespeare are by far the best-known plays in English, and I can accept the logic of a counter-argument that this is not a slippery slope, but a secure pedestal head-and-shoulders above everything else. Many of the characters in this list (Mark Antony, Brutus, Macbeth) are undoubtedly best known through their fictionalisation in Shakespeare's works ... but that same argument could be used to justify the inclusion in a fictionalised-characters-category of many other people. I'll remain neutral on deletion for now, and see what ideas arise in discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nb your comments last time, Bhg. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think that in general I have over the last few years become more concerned about the way in which categories such as this do in practice tend to set a precedent, however much I hope they wouldn't. This often seems to happen in good faith when an editor sees what looks to them like a similar category, without being aware of the discussions which led to it being seen as an exception. Looking at this category again after more than 2½ years, I don't think I would still take the view that Shakespearean prediction depiction is quite so defining for most of these characters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a rename (im new to CFD, may not be that well versed) i think the name "Historical figures depicted in Shakespeare's plays" might be less ambiguous. i think it doesnt need deletion. most of the people who will be depicted fictionally will have few such depictions unless they are historical figures, by which time this is a highly notable fact about them, that they are portrayed so many times. this probably wont result in innumerable trivial categories. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This has been discussed before and deleted before. I don't think we should start to categorize people by their appearance in a work of fiction. I do realise that if we were going to do it, this would be the place to do it, but I don't think we should do it. It's easier to just maintain the principle that we don't do it rather than trying to explain why Shakespeare's plays are subject to an exception but The Divine Comedy or Paradise Lost are not. Shakespeare's plays are often regarded as the best plays in English, but Paradise Lost is often regarded as the pinnacle of English poetry. It's a fairly short slope from there to Biblical figures portrayed in Jesus Christ Superstar. Seriously. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename Most of these figures are little known outside of the Bard's work. The dreaded slippery slope is a poor excuse for deletion, no matter how often it's trotted out as a rationalization. Alansohn (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "Most of these figures are little known outside of the Bard's work." Really? Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, seven kings of England, one king of France, the Duke of Clarence, Margaret of Anjou, Baron Hastings, the Countess of Salisbury ? There's far more in the world written about the real lives of these people than there is about Shakespeare's portrayals of them. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the person who created the category. I agree that Persons is better than Characters and was already contemplating amending. I am new to editing wikipedia; it seemed a good idea at the time for such a category. I am not quite sure how to sign this off but anyway I am in your hands: # Trahelliven —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trahelliven (talk • contribs) 08:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move - while having Shakespeare write about you is highly notable, it is not defining. We would still care about Caesar or Richard III even if old Will had never picked up a quill. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 11:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Question. Kevlar, your !vote is to keep the category at its present name, but your comment seems to favour deletion. Can you clarify? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, to clarify: I would not be opposed to a category for the characters of Shakespeare whether fictional (e.g. Romeo (character)) or fictionalized people (e.g. Richard III (character)) but not about historical persons who happen to have been written about by Shakespeare (e.g. Richard III of England). Is that more clear? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BrownHairedGirl and Kevlar67. Category:Shakespearean characters serves as the category for fictional characters in Shakespeare's plays, so this one can simply be deleted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments above, having changed my mind since my "keep" in 2007, largely thanks to Good Ol’factory's point above about how many of the characters are well-known outside of Shakespeare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename If all of these "characters" are actual people - and they appear to be just that, it might be more accurate to refer to them as "people" rather than as "characters". Macai (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is true, but why should real people be categorized by depiction in works of fiction? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:32, 28 February 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 all and rename Category:Lebanese Nationalists to Category:Lebanese nationalists; rename Category:Lebanese Leftists to Category:Lebanese left-wing activists; rename Category:Lebanese Anti-Syrian political activists to Category:Lebanese Anti-Syrian activists. — ξ^xplicit 04:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

• Category:Lebanese Nationalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Lebanese Leftists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Lebanese Anti-Syrian political activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#OPINION. We don't categorise people by their opinions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This isnt a opinion but political belief read the article Anti-Syrian it has nothing to do with race. In that case why are people catergorized by religion isnt this an opinion? It's not their opinions but political stances. here the following catergories that are based on opinion Category:Holocaust deniers Category:British anti-communists ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I suspect these categories ought to be reorganised by political party, or such like, though Lebanese politics is complicated by religious divisions. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All These are the defining characteristics of these individuals and a rather clear aid to navigation. Category:Activists is a rather robust structure organized by race, religion, gender and national origin and we seem to have no trouble identifying these individuals and their opinions. Contrary to the misleading claim in the nomination, we do categorize people by their opinions. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite. "Activism" entails not only possession of an opinion, but a consistent pattern of public action on the basis of that opinion. The whole of Category:Activists categorizes people by activity. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the unique complexity of Lebanese politics, I think that these categories ought to be considered separately. For the time being, however, I believe that they should be renamed and standardized, so that they can be considered in their proper context. So, with absolutely no prejudice against renominating any one of the renamed categories or the parent categories for deletion or listifying:

  Rename Category:Lebanese Nationalists to Category:Lebanese nationalists, as a subcategory of Category:Lebanese nationalism, which itself could be a subcategory of Category:Nationalism by country or region;

  Rename Category:Lebanese Leftists to Category:Lebanese left-wing activists, as a subcategory of Category:Lebanese activists and Category:Left-wing activists by nationality, and prune any non-activists from the category; and

  Rename Category:Lebanese Anti-Syrian political activists to Category:Lebanese Anti-Syrian activists, as a subcategory of Category:Lebanese activists.

  -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per ♥Yasmina♥. Renames are a good idea. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All All articles were created by fictional historical events that are being constructed around opinion rather than fact.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All, Dont mind Rename either

Leftists in Lebanon do exists and the people listed are well known Leftists. George there is nothing fictional about Lebanese Nationalism it exists and many Lebanese people are Lebanese nationalists especially christians.if there is a category for Arab nationalists or Syrian nationalists Why not one for Lebanese Nationalists? Anti-Syrian as a label is a well coined term for whether it be writers,journalists,politicians who are against the involvement of the Syrian regime in Lebanon or influence comming from Syria. Many of the people listed (Gebran Tueni,Bachir Gemayel,Dany Chamoun, etc) have been killed just for believing in that or advocating it, and May Chidiac lost her limbs for the same reason so yes the category has substance to exist.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 16:34, 20 February 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) 01:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jodie Kidd to Category:Images of Jodie Kidd

Nominator's rationale: Rename, because all it contains is two images, and per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS there is no need for an eponymous category for Jodie Kidd. Could we make this a speedy criterion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This contains 2 or the three images used in the article. They are unlikely to be wanted elsewhere, making this a pointless category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to deletion, for which Peterkingiron makes a good case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Does this person really occupy such a rarified stratum of übernotability that she needs her own special "images of..." category because Category:Images of British people isn't enough? I suspect not, so put me down for the delete side. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 17 February 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 all. — ξ^xplicit 20:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by region in Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:People from Capital Region of Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:People from Central Denmark Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:People from North Denmark Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:People from Region Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:People from Region of Southern Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These categories are used as anachronisms and I cannot find a single person placed correctly in one of them so I'm proposing deletion. The regions came into existence in 2007 but nevertheless used exclusively to categorize people born long before that, even people from the Middle Ages (such as Margaret I of Denmark). 77.215.191.91 (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. The primary function of categories such as this is to group more specific sub-categories, and individual articles should usually be dispersed to the those more specific categories where they exist. I don't see the anachronism as a problem in these case: I just read the category name to include and acknowledgement of the implied anachronism. We could, for example, rename Category:Category:People from Capital Region of Denmark to Category:Category:People from the area defined since 2007 the Capital Region of Denmark, but I don't see how that verbosity helps the reader.
  Things get more complex where a current region uses the same name as a different older one or implies an anachronistic national identity, but AFAIK that doesn't apply here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I presume there is a relevant project. I think it is for it to work out how to split Category:People from Denmark. In UK, we had a major local government reorganisation in 1974. The Counties are usually little changed, but new districts were created as their subdivisions. If Foo-ville is in Boo-district of Kent (a county) and People from Kent becomes too large, the people from Foo-ville are moved to an appropriate district category (Boo-district) according to where the place they lived (or were born) in now is, even though Boo-district was not created until 1974. Similarly we treat graduates of a merged or renamed college as alumni of its successor. I do not know what sub-divisions Denmark had before 2007; if there were more and predecessors have been combined to make the new regions, it would be sensible to retain the old categories, with the new regional ones primarily as parent categories. These category schemes are replete with anachronism, but that is the way WP has worked it out; otherwise if two colleges merge, there have to be three alumni categories - one for each predecessor and one for the merged college. Nevertheless, Category:People from Region Zealand should perhaps be renamed Category:People from Region Zealand, Denmark to prevent confusion with Zeeland, Netherlands: the article is Zealand (Denmark). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 February 2010
• 'Note I see that WT:DENMARK has been notified here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all standard way of handling these, as Peterkingiron says. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all These regions are not as important to people in Denmark as states are to Americans. This is meaningless to Deens, who often enough would have to scratch their head to remember which region they are from. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All despite the issues raised, these categories serve as an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 23 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commonwealth Games medal counts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Looks like the former contents of this category were boldly merged around 2006 e.g. [1] and this category now only has a single all time medal table in it. Tim! (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- It is hardly ever likely to have much more than one article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 14 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Summer Olympics medal counts to Category:Summer Olympics medal tables

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with Category:Winter Olympics medal tables, Category:Summer Paralympics medal tables and Category:Winter Paralympics medal tables. Tim! (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- for consistency. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match other corresponding categories. Alansohn (talk) 01:15, 15 February 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Churches in London by locality to Category:Churches in London by borough

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category is actually split by borough rather than locality, rename to match the likes of Category:Districts of London by borough and Category:History of London by borough. MRSC (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per convention of Category:London. WP:LONDON is a project which takes an unusually thorough approach to ensuring that the categories relating to London follow a consistent and logical structure, and one of the principles which they have applied successfully is to use boroughs as the smallest area division in the category. This works well, because the boroughs have clearly-defined boundaries, whereas localities such as Dulwich or Canonbury or Kentish Town do not ... and the renaming of this category fits the convention of Category:Categories by London borough (a category which could do with expansion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. All items look to be like boroughs. "Localities" are generally ill-defined so that it is a matter of POV whether an article belongs or not. However, I suspect it may be possible to define Dulwich by a historic boundary. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you ask an estate agent, you'll find that it includes most of Peckham .... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to more clearly describe the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 01:15, 15 February 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.