< June 8	June 10 >

June 9

NEW NOMINATIONS

Perhaps the name would better be changed into fossils of Egypt.

Category:Phillips, Craig and Dean

Category:Phillips, Craig and Dean - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ricky Vela

Category:Ricky Vela - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category. (Ample precedent here...) Pichpich (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nothing here other than the 'songs written by' subcat. Occuli (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AFL amputees

Category:AFL amputees - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete and possibly convert into a list. There are a number of problems here. First, it's not really a defining characteristic. Second, there is no subcategorization of Category:Amputees. Third, an amputee is someone who had a limb amputated not, as is the case here, someone who lost a finger or part of a finger. Pichpich (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartier

Category:Cartier - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization for a single page (whose importance is itself questionable). If kept, it should at the very least be renamed as "Cartier SA" or "Jewellery by Cartier SA". Pichpich (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or populate. Category:Cartier SA might have some potential, as might Category:Jewellery by Cartier SA, subcat of Category:Jewellery (I think the manufacturer is a defining characteristic of a piece of jewellery, although there are not as yet any other manufacturer subcats). Occuli (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eurovision Song Contest composers

Category:Eurovision Song Contest composers Template:Lc1

Propose renaming Category:Eurovision Song Contest composers to Category:Eurovision Song Contest winning songwriters. Composers refers only to music, not lyrics. The term songwriter includes both music and lyrics (and arrangement). all people who ever wrote for the ESC are far too many, it is better to list only the winners for a start. the songwriters are the actual winners of the ESC, by the way, not the performers, the songwriters get the prize. it is a songwriter contest. so it is currently correct to list all winning songwriters as "winners" also. If you find a better title like "Eurovision Song Contest winner songwriters", please propose, I am not a native speaker.E-Kartoffel (talk) (E-Kartoffel (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Issue of Christian IX of Denmark

Category:Issue of Christian IX of Denmark - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. per WP:OC#SMALL. All members of the category are already in the parent category Category:House of Glücksburg (Denmark) and are already linked at Christian IX of Denmark in both the infobox and by the template Template:House of Glücksburg (Denmark, 1903-1947 Coat of arms). There are links between the siblings within each of the articles. DrKiernan (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern rock groups

Propose merging Category:Southern rock groups to Category:Southern rock musical groups

Nominator's rationale: These essentially treat the exact same topic. "music groups" is more standard. Munci (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Date of birth unknown

Category:Date of birth unknown - Template:Lc1

Category:Date of death unknown - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Following a discussion in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_14#Categories_related_to_birth_and_death and some other to the past, I suggest that we delete Date of birth/death unknown categories.

To recall: Unknown means no record of birth/death exists. Not unknown to us in WP but unknown to everyone.

It's almost impossible to verify to which cases the Dates are unknown
It's most likely that the Year is unknown too so the "Year of birth/death unknown" applies to these cases
There is a big confusion with "... missing" categories. Check current members of the category. My bot, Yobot, has been correcting these cases for more than a year. I didn't find any example that this category was used correctly.
If the dates are unknown this can be made clear in the body text.

PS Please limit the discussion to these categories only. I am planning to do some more similar nominations AFTER this discussion closes. Magioladitis (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – clearly 'Date of birth unknown' is not a defining characteristic of a person and there is little point in gathering together such disparate people unless there is some administrative/maintenance advantage. Also Category:Date of birth unknown does include a lot of talk pages ... is there anything to be said for retaining the cat but restricting it to talk pages? Occuli (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOB unknown was placed in the talk pages till consensus changed some days ago. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes - it always helps the read the linked cfd in the nom before opining ... they have become hidden categories on articles. I can't myself see any point in keeping these 2, so delete is fine by me. Occuli (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The usefulness in these two categories lies in that the articles in them are siphoned away from COB/COD missing, which are maintenance categories identifying issues to be addressed whereas for articles in these two categories the issue has been adequately investigated with negative result and it is believed that further investigations would be futile. If we delete these two categories, the articles in them would have to be re-categorized into the COB/COD missing categories nullifying the past find that attempts to retrieve the missing information has been deemed futile. __meco (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have 10 examples of articles that fit in this category? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are by my count 553 articles in these categories currently. Couldn't you pick ten of them yourself randomly? __meco (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I checked at least 100 of them and a) they should be in year of birth/death unknown or b) no evidence that the date is really unknown. I am not convinced that there is no birth certificate for baseball players of the 30s. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of what I mean. I just picked 1 article at random. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an excellent example since he was born in 1947. Given age and date of death, the birth year is known. Or for that matter, any date and age in their lifetime, he was 57 on February 24, 2004. Since he served in the military, his birth date is known and documented. What is correct in this case is that the specific date of his birth has not been uncovered. Another problem with this is how it is applied. Is Jesus listed in this category?

I am maintaining these categories for more than a year and these things are more than common -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, document better, add to WP:PERENNIAL along with all other related categories, and possibly rename. Keep for every reason given in every similar debate in the past. This and the other categories in this series are perennial deletion nominations (and should be listed at WP:PERENNIAL). Re-nominating them again and again without evidence that consensus has changed does not change consensus, per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CCC and WP:FORUMSHOP. Also, the deletion nomination's logic is faulty: All of the date and year categories of this sort share the same non-problem that if the date is unknown (in this sense, or in the sense of knowable but not specified here yet - different categories) then the year is often unknown and if the year is unknown the date is unknown by definition. The already-established way to handle this (i.e., please do your homework) is to use the year version if the year is unknown, and not use the date version unless the year is known but the full date it not. Further, the fact that some editors miscategorize date-missing articles as date-unknown simply means that these individuals should be apprised of the difference when they make this mistake, and that the difference should be better documented, not that one of the categories should be deleted; that's throwing the baby out with the bath water. A rename could be a possibility ("Category:Date of x unknown to historians" maybe?). And, of course, there are a great many notables for whom full dates, years and places of birth and death are sourceably unknown, mostly figures from the Renaissance to antiquity, "third-world" individuals, and people who have gone missing and whose bodies have never been found. Yes, of course baseball players from the 1930s have birth certificates somewhere; their presence in the wrong category is simply PEBKAC. Meco, above, adequately explains what the difference between the "missing" and "unknown" categories is, and why both exist. So, I've just addressed why this is a pointless nomination. In closing, I'm tempted to suggest speedy keep here because this nomination is a rehash of numerous previous discussions. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors to Texas

Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors to Texas to Category:Ambassadors to the Republic of Texas

Propose renaming Category:United States ambassadors to Texas to Category:United States ambassadors to the Republic of Texas

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Of course, these were ambassadors to the Republic of Texas, not to Texas. A rename will match these to their parents Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas and Category:Republic of Texas. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Councillors in Kettering

Category:Councillors in Kettering - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Local councillors are inherently non-notable. This category currently has three members. Two are up for AFD (which one might possibly survive). The third member is now an MP. I would not oppose upmerge to Category:Councillors in the East Midlands if others prefer. This is the only current subcategory of that one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]