< January 6 January 8 >

January 7

Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition

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: administrative close. This nomination has unfortunately been tainted by canvassing—so much so that it is currently beyond the point of it being legitimately representative of much, apart from the opinion of those who were canvassed with a biased message. For those who did, please don't canvass in this manner again. This nomination, discussion, and close now stand for nothing: a fresh renomination can be started at any time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#Award_winners. There is already a list at Leeds International Pianoforte Competition, and no sign of any evidence that this is a particularly significant prize. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the notice ([1] and [2])? I have no way to know if they think the same way i do, how could I know? I only know that the persons contacted are interested in classical music. I invited them to give their opinion (whatever it is) AND to develope a new guideline to categories related to music competition, and haven't invite them to opine one way or another.--Karljoos (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment below, your messages were NOT neutral. This was blatant vote-stacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the messages were pretty neutrally worded, and were a good faith attempt by the category creator to alert people with expertise in the subject area to this discussion, which is a good thing. It would have been more appropriate to leave a single message at the relevant project(s), e.g. WikiProject Classical music, but I very much doubt that the response here would have been any different. As for my !vote, I'll remain Neutral, but this is certainly a major competition, and there's a good argument that these are equivalent in the classical music world to major sports competitions. It would be a good idea for the the relevant projects to address the lack of referencing and brevity of the articles about the competitions themselves. Voceditenore (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Additional comment On the whole, I think it would be beneficial for nominators to (neutrally) notify relevant projects of the discussion as soon as it's opened. I always do that in AfDs, e.g. [3]. I've seen too many decisions based on !votes from editors who haven't a clue about the subject matter. Voceditenore (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. A neutral message does not say that categories are "being targetted", and it does not ask people to support a change in the guidelines. That's blatantly partisan.
    I have no objection to a neutral notification of wikiprojects, and frequently do just that myself ... but selecting a group of favoured editors to receive a private, partisan message is straightforward votestacking. (see WP:CANVASS) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Hmmm. Re-reading the message carefully (I got one too), you're right, it isn't all that neutral. It's a pity he did this via individual messgages rather than notifying a project as a whole. It certainly muddies the waters. If I were the closing admin, I'd be inclined to disregard the "keeps" from editors who have been individually canvassed, especially if they are not routine contributors to CfD discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Karljoos. Notability and relevance of this competition are beyond doubt. Moreover, it's useful information for Wikipedia readers interested in classical music. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historically significant prize.THD3 (talk) 14:30, 12 January 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.

Cricketers by century

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 CfD 2010-01-19. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, for much the same reasons as the rugby footballers nomination below. There are still largely unpopulated categories which seem to be one the latest descendants of Category:People by occupation and century. Whatever the merits of these categories in other parts of the category tree, it's a bad idea with cricket, for a number of reasons:
  1. cricket players are already categorised by team, which groups players who had some connection with each other
  2. if fully populated, these categories will be huge; too huge to be useful for navigation
  3. splitting them further either requires creating a huge collection of triple or quadruple intersections such "20th century bowlers from India". That will be a maintenance nightmare
  4. Even if split as above, many of the categories will still be too big to be useful. One solution is to split them by decades creating for example "1960s bowlers from Pakistan" ... but sportspeople's careers don't fit neatly into decades, so most players would end up in two or more by-decades categories, creating category clutter
I can't see any way of making these categories work, and it seems best to delete them now before someone goes to a lot of work populating them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 7 January 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.

Canadian soccer team categories

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:
Propose renaming the following:
  • Category:Canadian soccer clubs in the MLS to Category:Canadian teams in Major League Soccer (original nomination)
  • Category:Canadian soccer teams in the American Professional Soccer League to Category:Canadian teams in the American Professional Soccer League (added as umbrella nom)
  • Category:Canadian soccer teams in the North American Soccer League to Category:Canadian teams in the North American Soccer League (added as umbrella nom)
  • Category:Canadian soccer teams in the United Soccer Leagues to Category:Canadian teams in the United Soccer Leagues (added as umbrella nom)
Nominator's rationale for MLS: Rename. (1) Expand abbreviation. (2) Match parents of Category:Major League Soccer teams and Category:Canadian soccer teams by league. — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale for other categories: Rename to remove redundant "soccer". Per Mayumashu's comment on original nom, I'm open to other suggested names that avoid the duplicate "soccer". — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:37, 7 January 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.

Polytechnic University of Madrid

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator to Category:Technical University of Madrid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was renamed in September 2009 (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 23). However, the rationale used to make such a renaming was wrong. The issue here is that, although the literal translation of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid is Polytechnic University of Madrid, they choose to do it as Technical University of Madrid (see copyrigh notice in here, at the bottom), possibly because in English, a "polytechnics" may refer to "a secondary education school focused in vocational training" (see Polytechnics) --Ecemaml (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not rename: Its current name is closer to the name of the university in Spanish is "Universidad Politécnica de Madrid".--Karljoos (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The English version of the uni's website says Technical University. I support rename. --Karljoos (talk) 19:45, 8 January 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.

Brazilian states

Paraná (state)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating this category and its subcategories in a consistent way. There are other meanings of the word Paraná. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 7 January 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.
Acre (state)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose standardizing this category and its subcategories to match main article Acre (state). There are other meanings of the word Acre. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 7 January 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.
Rio de Janeiro (state)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest standardizing the names for this category and its subcategories to match the main article Rio de Janeiro (state). There are already some subcategories that use this format; these are the odd ones out. All categories refer t to the state, not the city. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 7 January 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.
São Paulo (state)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest standardising this category and subcategories to match main article São Paulo (state). Right now they are a mix-mash of naming formats. All categories refer to the state, not the city. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 7 January 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.

Rugby footballers by century

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Still largely unpopulated categories which seem to be one the latest descendants of Category:People by occupation and century. Whatever the merits of these categories in other parts of the category tree, it's a bad idea with rugby, for a number of reasons:
  1. rugby players are already categorised by team, which groups players who had some connection with each other
  2. if fully populated, these categories will be huge; too huge to be useful for navigation
  3. splitting them further either requires creating a huge collection of triple or quadruple intersections such "20th century rugby union forwards from Fiji". That will be a maintenace nightmare
  4. Even if split as above, many of the categories will still be too big to be useful. One solution is to split them by decades creating for example "1960s rugby union forwards from Fiji" ... but sportspeople's careers don't fit neatly into decades, so most players would end up in two or more by-decades categories, creating category clutter
I can't see any way of making these categories work, and it seems best to delete them now before someone goes to a lot of work populating them. Note that the male categories are already the subject of a separate nomination below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 7 January 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:Operalia

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: it isn't over until the Fat Lady sings, or the skinny, speccy, balding, big-eared Scot types as, the case may be. OCAT seems fairly clear. There's limited enthusiasm for keeping the category and it's already in a list. So we'll delete it for now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Operalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Operalia prize-winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for the Operalia competition for young opera singers. Currently contains the head article, it's founder, and a sub-category of prize-winners which fails WP:OC#Award-winners. There is already a full list of prize-winners in the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Operalia prize-winners:: I don't think WP:OC#AWard-winners applies here, as winners of competitions (for example Category:Miss America winners or Category:Wimbledon champions) are not the same as winners of awards such as Nobel Prize etc.--Karljoos (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I (for one) was not canvassed. --Kleinzach 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the following prize winner biographies: Kate Aldrich, Ainhoa Arteta, Brian Asawa, Isabel Bayrakdarian, Joseph Calleja, José Cura, Elizabeth Futral, Ana María Martínez, Inva Mula, Erwin Schrott, Nina Stemme, Rolando Villazón. These are all major international singers, in some cases among the top singers in their category that are appearing now. --Kleinzach 05:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen the 'Category:Comma, The Definite Article' type before. A bit strange? How about simply rename to Category:Operalia prize-winners to Category:Operalia competition winners? --Kleinzach 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(You haven't stumbled across Category:Charles, Prince of Wales lately?) My suggestion was just based on the title of the main article. It may be incorrect itself, but normally the eponymous category follows the name of the main article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definite article is 'The', not 'Prince'. --Kleinzach 10:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we tend to use those in English, unlike in many languages. (I'm constantly changing categories that say "in Czech Republic" to "in the Czech Republic". Annoying.) I'd still say match it to the article, even if it's "odd". If the name needs to be changed, it can be done at the article page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 16 January 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:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State

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 Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State to Category:Settlements in Amazonas (Brazilian state). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State (Brazil) Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas (Brazilian state)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguation is needed since there is also Amazonas (Venezuelan state). (I would actually prefer Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas (Brazilian state) in order to match Amazonas (Brazilian state), but all the categories of settlements by Brazilian state seem to use "Cities, towns and villages in FOO State", when the names of the states don't really include the word "State" in them. This could be followed up later if necessary.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:02, 7 January 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:Stuck in the Sound

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stuck in the Sound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: 'Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Eponymous category for the French indie rock band Stuck in the Sound. There's only one article on any of their music, which doesn't need its own albums category, and the the two articles (band & album) are already adequately interlinked. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 7 January 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:Fish nervous system

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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fish nervous system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't know much about biology, but this doesn't sound like sort of language used by biologists. I will notify the relevant wikiproject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be forever -- right now I'm working on improving nervous system beyond Start class; that should give you an idea of the state of our neuroscience articles. I guess the question is whether to put things in a proper category from the start, or to have to recategorize things after article space is fleshed out. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to interfere with an ongoing CfD, but if this is settled, I'll at least add the things I mentioned. I think it should parent under "Fish anatomy" rather than "Fish", though, if that makes sense. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that sounds sorted. I'll withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 7 January 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:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition

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: administrative close. This nomination has unfortunately been tainted by canvassing—so much so that it is currently beyond the point of it being legitimately representative of much, apart from the opinion of those who were canvassed with a biased message. For those who did, please don't canvass in this manner again. This nomination, discussion, and close now stand for nothing: a fresh renomination can be started at any time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Prize-winners of the Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Un-needed eponymous category for a music competition, which contains only the head article Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition and the prize-winners category, which itself should be deleted per WP:OC#Award_winners. The main article already includes a list of winners. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that it is not incidental to a classical musician's career. It is now a days probably the only way for a young soloist to make a name and get concert engagements.--Karljoos (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is nonsense, Bhg! Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the notice ([4] and [5])? I have no way to know if they think the same way i do, how could I know? I only know that the persons contacted are interested in classical music. I invited them to give their opinion (whatever it is) AND to develope a new guideline to categories related to music competitions, and haven't invite them to opine one way or another.--Karljoos (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed read the messages. Per my comment below, your messages were NOT neutral: they complained that categories were being "targetted", and by asking for their help to develop a new guideline, you clearly indicated your view that the existing guideline is wrong. This was blatant vote-stacking, per WP:CANVAS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the most noteworthy piano competitions, having been active for some 60 years.THD3 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 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:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition

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: administrative close. Although this nomination doesn't seem to have been in fact tainted as much by canvassing as some of the related discussions on this page, I feel that it too should be administratively closed like the others, since extensive canvassing has taken place regarding it. For those who did, please don't canvass in this manner again. This nomination, discussion, and close now stand for nothing: a fresh renomination can be started at any time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#Award-winners. Categories are needed only for he most significant awards, and this does not appear to be one of them. There is already a list at List of Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition prize-winners.
The parent category Category:Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition contains only two articles (the competition plus the list), so it can be deleted per WP:OC#SMALL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the notice ([6] and [7])? I have no way to know if they think the same way i do, how could I know? I only know that the persons contacted are interested in classical music. I invited them to give their opinion (whatever it is) AND to develope a new guideline to categories related to music competition, and haven't invite them to opine one way or another.--Karljoos (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed read the notice. Per my comment elsewhere on this page, your messages were NOT neutral: they complained that categories were being "targetted", and by asking for their help to develop a new guideline, you clearly indicated your view that the existing guideline is wrong. This was blatant vote-stacking, per WP:CANVAS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Karljoos and DGG. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a rather low-level competition which has failed to produce many truly noteworthy winners.THD3 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 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:Streets in Esfahan

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/merge (over redirect). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Streets in Esfahan to Category:Streets in Isfahan
Nominator's rationale: Per head article Isfahan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 7 January 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:Films about suburbia

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 clean up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films about suburbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Firstly, suburbia is hardly a defining a characteristic of films over the last few decades. The category's intro says that it is for "films that pertain to suburbia to at least some degree", which is so broad that it could include any film with a few scenes set in suburbia. Any more precise definition would fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, and as I mentioned above, I'm completely willing to rework the phrasing "films that pertain to suburbia to at least some degree" and indeed agree it's too broad (it's a new category, and that was just the initial effort at characterizing it). "Pertaining largely to the suburbs" and "incorporating significant thematic elements relating to suburbia" (I think the second would be better) were mentioned above as possible alternative formulations for the text that would describe the scope of the category. Actually I would have changed it by now, but figured it was worthwhile to let this discussion continue so that people could respond to the above suggestions or propose their own alternative language. The point though is that it would be fairly easy to limit the scope of the category simply by altering the description on the category page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes deletion discussions get long, ya know? I've been the "poor bugger of an admin" to close them on more than one occasion so I think my wiki-karma is in decent shape here. Your comment does indeed come off as dismissive, and I don't think the 7 posts you've made to this one discussion are in any danger of being "smothered." As a CFD regular, you might consider being less worried about one long discussion and more worried about a possibly unfriendly atmosphere for CfD outsiders, which has now been my experience on two separate occasions, and which probably does a lot more to discourage participation here than someone arguing passionately in favor of retaining a clearly useful category (no one has argued otherwise). Obviously I would not even be here (much less be so verbose) if I did not think this category added value to the encyclopedia, and I would not have said so much had you not continued to ask questions and point to concerns you feel I did not address. I take it you'll not reply to the substance of my last comment (you might have done that and saved the above for my talk page since it adds nothing to the discussion here), but feel free to move our overlong chat to the CfD log talk page and replace it with a link, as I know that's a routine way to handle lengthy asides on AfDs and presumably here as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes they do. Usually not because of just one editor's comments, though, which was my point. Since you've chosen to take offence rather than acknowledge that it may be a legitimate concern, I guess all we can do is see if anyone else is inclined to comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 13 January 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.

Alumni by university or college in Ireland

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 rename per WP:CFD/S#Speedy_criteria C2.4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming 2 sub-categories of Category:Alumni by university or college in Ireland, as listed below:
Nominator's rationale: - To match the other sub-cats with the standard Alumni of [Institution Name] formulation. Snappy (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 19:23, 7 January 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:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition

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: administrative close. Although this nomination doesn't seem to have been in fact tainted as much by canvassing as some of the related discussions on this page, I feel that it too should be administratively closed like the others, since extensive canvassing has taken place regarding it. For those who did, please don't canvass in this manner again. This nomination, discussion, and close now stand for nothing: a fresh renomination can be started at any time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Besançon International Music Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete the prize-winners per WP:OC#Award_winners and the convention that lists are adequate for all except the most notable awards. Thee is already a list at International Besançon Competition for Young Conductors. With that category gone, the parent Category:Besançon International Music Festival contains only two articles, both alreadyy interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see any need to delete this category. It gives good access to a complete list of winners--Karljoos (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply but there's already a full list at International Besançon Competition for Young Conductors, and that article will presumably be linked from each article on a prize-winner. What extra does the category do? It's just a bare list of names, which gives less info than the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Karljoos. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:34, 12 January 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:Zeebo games

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Zeebo games to Category:Zeebo-only games
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Xbox 360-only games and Category:PlayStation 3-only games –xenotalk 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:35, 7 January 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:Male rugby footballers

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/delete as proposed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose
  • Category:Male rugby footballers by century to Category:Rugby footballers by century
  • Category:Male rugby union players by century to Category:Rugby union players by century
  • Category:Male rugby union forwards by century to Category:Rugby union forwards by century
  • Category:20th-century male rugby footballers to Category:20th-century rugby footballers
  • Category:20th-century male rugby football forwards to Category:20th-century rugby football forwards
  • Category:20th-century male rugby union forwards to Category:20th-century rugby union forwards
  • Category:20th-century male rugby union players to Category:20th-century rugby union players
  • Category:21st-century male rugby union forwards to Category:21st-century rugby union forwards
  • Category:21st-century male rugby football forwards to Category:21st-century rugby football forwards
  • Category:21st-century male rugby union players to Category:21st-century rugby union players
Nominator's rationale. As the articles Rugby union and Women's rugby union make clear, rugby union has historically been overwhelmingly a male game, and despite the growth in women's rugby over the last few decades, it remains so. That means that there is a good case for creating Category:Female rugby union players, even though it currently contains only 4 articles. Per WP:Cat/gender, a female category does not need to be balanced directly against a male category where the vast majority of people in the group are male. All these male categories do is complicate the category tree, with no benefit to readers. In this case, these categories have not been heavily populated: so far as I can see, these 8 categories currently contain only 3 or 4 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once these are done, I suggest deleting the rugby-players-by-century categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By-century categories now nominated above: see Rugby footballers by century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 7 January 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.

Historic constituencies in Ireland

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) 23:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). Along with Category:Historic constituencies in County Galway, these were actually the only sub-categories of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) until I created the rest of the categories a few hours ago. Although the "convention" is one that I have just created, it seems best to standardise the names. All these categories wee created by me, except Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 7 January 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:Parliament of Ireland constituencies in County Kilkenny

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 per amended nomination. The creator has performed everything already; I'll just delete the empty Category:Parliament of Ireland constituencies in County Kilkenny. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Parliament of Ireland constituencies in County Kilkenny to Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny Category:Historic constituencies in County Kilkenny and Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of Ireland (to 1800)
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need to split either category. There were only about 150 constituencies of the Parliament of Ireland, so they all fit neatly on one page. Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny will only contain only 13 articles after the merger, so there is no need for it to be split. All Irish constituencies are interlinked by per-county navigation templates, so navigation is already well-provided for. Standard disambiguators are applied to constituencies for each of the three parliaments in Irish history (the pre-1800 Parliament of Ireland, the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801-1922, and Dáil Éireann since 1919), so anyone reading the category lists in the historic-constituencies-by-county constituencies can see which parliament each constituency article relates to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 7 January 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