< March 6	March 8 >

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 08:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UFOs to Category:Unidentified flying objects

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article, Unidentified flying objects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good to me - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this category is being used for alleged alien spacecraft, and not for unidentified flying objects, it should be called Category:Alleged extraterrestrial alien spacecraft or Category:Conjectural extraterrestrial alien spacecraft sightings. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's incorrect; see foo fighter, fastwalkers, etc. It's a false distinction anyway that you're trying to make, because it's alleged for many of the included articles that "alien spacecraft" is the best explanation, but obviously that's not inconsistent with them being unidentified flying objects. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unidentified submerged object is not a flying object. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As that article makes clear, it's considered a UFO subtopic, and sometimes they are claimed to be flying as well. At any rate, Category:UFOs is obviously used as a parent for the whole subject matter, not just to group specific types of UFO phenomenon. And as I noted above, nor are UFOs limited to the extraterrestrial hypothesis, however central that is to the subject. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, Alansohn, and guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - spelling out full words is desireable. LadyofShalott 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge:

• Category:Paternal Jews to Category:People of Jewish descent
• Category:Maternal Jews to Category:People of Jewish descent

--Xdamr^talk 19:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm nominating this in tandem with "Maternal Jews." These terms for categorizations are not commonplace nor widely used. It would appear these categories were created as another remnant of the long pervasive obsessive overcategorization of people trend, particularly Jewish people who would not normally be listed as Jewish because they do not fit the standard religious or ethnic definition. A simple google test will show that "Paternal Jews" and "Maternal Jews" is not a categorizable or for that matter important and article-worthy division. For example: [1]Bulldog123 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems like much more of a headache than it's worth to keep. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oi veh, this could be the start of bringing the whole Who is a Jew? argument into the category system. That whole subject is so complicated that we could have a massive category tree dealing with all the different ways of defining Jewishness, all of which would provide scope for big disagreements between the different viewpoints. So these two category should go, but best I think to upmerge them both to Category:Jews a new Category:People of Jewish descent.
  מזל טוב! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: upmerge target changed per my comment below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Yes, I'm pretty sure this is a way to introduce a Who is a jew? argument to the category, and I don't think this is the way to do it, creating vast poorly named (imo) category trees. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other editors below make some good points. Upmerging Paternal Jews would mean that we in Wikipedia are deciding who is a jew, which is obviously not in the cards. So Maternal Jews only could be upmerged, imo. As for the Paternal category, I lean towards deleting but would be open to retaining in some form, as Peter opens the door to, below, if there are enough articles where the paternal "jewishness" is defining. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeez, I'm running out of strike out, here. BrownHairedGirl is right: let's just have a People of Jewish descent category for anyone who's not strictly speaking fully Jewish. People of Foo descent is a commonly used category structure, let's adopt it here, too. Also, please note that the "People of Jewish decent" cited below contains a decent/descent typo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ooopps! I just copied Debresser's text, and so replicated that typo. Now fixed mine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it was very decent of me to point that out. And I'm Jewish. So I was one step away from being in that category, dammit. Shoulda kept my mouth shut. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- According to the Orthodox, Jewishness is conferred by the mother. Thus the children of a Jewish man, who marries out, are not Jewish unless the mother is converted, and only if it is by an Orthodox rabbi. There has recently been a racial discrimination case in London relating to a Jewish school that refused entry to a religious (not non-orthodox) Jewish boy on the grounds that he was NOT a Jew. This leaves the Jewish children of a liberal or reformed Jewish father and convert mother in a "stateless" condition. This could be the subject of a category (albeit a rather narrow one) or "paternal Jews". With this reservation, merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably not directly relevant to this discussion, but the case was R(E) v Governing Body of JFS, and the UK Supreme Court found that the schools' policy amounted to racial discrimination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator and to avoid the headache Justin (koavf) mentioned. We can not upmerge, since so-called "paternal Jews" are not Jews. I had a look, and was surprised there is no alternative, like Category:People of Jewish decent. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, Debresser, the assertion that "paternal Jews" are not Jews is one of the core points of the Who is a Jew dispute, isn't it? I really don't like any such a sweeping decision being made at CFD, because it is effectively a policy decision against reform judaism. It would be much better to merge both categories into a new Category:People of Jewish descent, and leave editors to consider how individual articles should be recategorised. (There is already a Category:People of Jewish descent by religion, in which some of these articles will probably find a place). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, if there were a Category:People of Jewish decent, I'd consider that as an aternative for Category:Paternal Jews, while Category:Maternal Jews could just be merged into Category:Jews. But it is precisely in order to avoid this whole discussion that I propose to agree with Justin (koavf) and delete both. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Debresser and the broader part of Peterkingiron's comment. (Irrelevant bynote - I would fit this category.) Orderinchaos 17:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BrownHairedGirl's suggestion, upmerge to Category:People of Jewish descent. I have been trying for years to maintain this suggested category page and its potential subcats (by nationality), as Jewishness is both a religious and ethnic phenomenon (can't spell this word), yet one that is clearly defined as being passed on maternally). There are bios for people who are known to be of Jewish descent but whose religious or spiritual viewpoint is not publically known or even defined and this category is perfectly suitable for such people Mayumashu (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BrownHairedGirl. CfD cannot, and should not take a side on the issue about what lineage is required to be considered a Jew. Foo of X descent sidesteps that issue wonderfully. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Alas BrownHairedGirl's proposal won't do, as it opens up the questions of people's gparents, ggparents, etc. and all sorts of timewasting arguments, unless you can limit 'descent' to parents. If you don't make a limit then a vast number of people will be included irrelevantly in this category (e.g. David Cameron, Boris Johnson.......)(Declaration of interest: I qualify under both categories  :-}).--Smerus (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. There is already a Category:People by ethnic or national descent, with a humungous number of well-populated sub-categories through several layers. Smerus's objection to creating a Category:People of Jewish descent could be applied equally to the whole of Category:Category:People by ethnic or national descent and Smerus has so far offered no reason for treating Jewish descent any differently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 16 March 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. --Xdamr^talk 23:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Musical duets because I think duet is the standard term. Georgia guy (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as named. A duo is a group of two. A duet is a song performed by two. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The two terms mean different things. Maurreen (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. Duos play duets.--Smerus (talk) 16:31, 16 March 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 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virginia Sports Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation 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." The exceptional award categories which are kept relate to highly-significant awards such as the Nobel prizes.
A list already exists at Virginia Sports Hall of Fame and Museum, and previous discussions have deleted categories for local sports Halls of Fame, including Alabama Sports Hall of Fame, West Texas Hall of Fame, Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame, Philadelphia Baseball_Wall of Fame, Greater Buffalo Sports Hall of Fame, Cal Poly Sport Hall of Fame and Italian American Sports Hall of Fame. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nom. Given the precedent, definitely OC Mayumashu (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is a long history of deleting these relatively minor Halls of Fame inductee categories in favor of lists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 10 March 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 & Delete --Xdamr^talk 00:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to list Category:Number-one albums in Finland to article List of number-one albums in Finland

Nominator's rationale: Listify. I can find no other category of individual albums which reached number one in a particular country, and a quick look at this category shows why: it includes Hard Candy (Madonna album), which debuted at #1 in 37 countries, despite being the lowest lowest selling studio album of her career. If this album was categorised by every country in which it reached #1, it would drown in category clutter, and the same applies to many other albums by internationally-successful artists. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify There's ~195 countries, each of which could (presumably) have their own record charts. Not a sustainable system. Honestly, I think there's a good deal of clutter involved in Category:Number-one singles that could be listified as well, but I'm a self-professed idiot when it comes to music after around 1900! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:02, 14 March 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 all. The question of the legitimacy of Category:Medieval Republic of Macedonia is beyond the scope of this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Christian martyrs of the Medieval era to Category:Christian martyrs of the Middle Ages
• Propose renaming Category:Civil wars of the Medieval era to Category:Civil wars of the Middle Ages
• Propose renaming Category:Warfare of the Medieval era to Category:Warfare of the Middle Ages
• Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Medieval era to Category:Battles of the Middle Ages
• Propose renaming Category:Naval battles of the Medieval era to Category:Naval battles of the Middle Ages
• Propose renaming Category:Military equipment of the Medieval era to Category:Military equipment of the Middle Ages
• Propose renaming Category:Military units and formations of the Medieval era to Category:Military units and formations of the Middle Ages
• Propose renaming Category:Medieval-era Republic of Macedonia to Category:Medieval Republic of Macedonia

Nominator's rationale: The term used here, "Medieval era" (with a capital no less) is really an unnecessary variant of the far more conventional term "Middle Ages", which also stands at the head of all categories relating to the Middle Ages. Besides, one could argue that except in colloquial usage, "era" is a little less neutral, whereas "Middle Ages" is now too firmly entrenched in scholarly usage to overflow with qualitative notions about historical periodisation. As for the adjectival use in the last category listed here, why not just "medieval"? Note that the original proposal, made on 21 February, was for Speedy renaming and applied only to the first category. On the advice of User:Good Olfactory, I've (re)listed the full proposal for a full CfR here. Cavila (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom, except for the Macedonian category. Category:Medieval Republic of Macedonias looks wrong as a merge target; was it supposed to be Category:Medieval Republic of Macedonia? (i.e. with no "s" at the end). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, fixed! : ) Cavila (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, I thought it was probably a typo, but since there are two Macedonias in the 21st-century, I thought it best to check. Have now struck out my objection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Permission to open a can of worms? Did Macedonia exist as a republic in the Middle Ages? I've not looked beyond our own articles, but I can't find anything that indicates Macedonia had such a system of governance in that time frame. Support the rename for the rest, and am generally happy to be ignored. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eek: I just looked and can't see anything on that either, so I think that Bradjamesbrown is right (as often happens!). The category appears to be as much of an anachronism as would be Category:Medieval United Sates of America or Category:21st-century Holy Roman Empire. However, Balkan history and politics tends to come with a lot of sensitivities attached, so I suggest that rather than deleting Category:Medieval-era Republic of Macedonia here it should be the subject of a separate discussion with adequate notifications to relevant wikiprojects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I'm not proposing deleting it here, that would be too far out of left field at this late date in the discussion. However, I think it's worth having the discussion eventually if Category:Medieval Macedonia by region imposes the modern map on five-century+ old history. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

• Category:Models by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:20th-century models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:21st-century models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:21st-century adult models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. The Wikipedia article model (person) says almost nothing on the history of the business, but so far as I can tell from a hour's googling, fashion shows only really began in the early 20th-century (see the Slate-mag article How the Runway Took Off: A brief history of the fashion show), and didn't become a big, internationalised business until after WWII. Even if we take the earlier date, we are looking at at most 110 years of fashion modelling, and it makes no sense to split those 110 years into two 100-year blocks.
I see no need to upmerge these 4 categories, because they contain only five articles in total, all of which are already adequately categorised both by type of modeling and by nationality, with the usual range of intersections.
Note: I am aware that before fashion modelling, people (esp women) used to model for painters and others in the fine arts. It was unusual for such people to be notable in their own right, but as with other occupations, it may be appropriate to create 19th-century and earlier categories for such people. I did try using catscan to search for models born in the 19th-century, but it seems to be broken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifications: Category creators notified [2], [3]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Those who modeled for painters are in the Category:Artists' models structures, which wasn't even connected to the Category:Models structure (instead just parented by Category:Visual arts occupations) until I added it today to Category:Models by type of modeling. There are only divisions by nationality at present. Some of those included don't appear to have been professional or recurring models, but rather incidental ones (e.g., Nan Wood Graham only posed for her brother's "American Gothic"), so it would be rather silly to additionally group them in such general, non-art categories as "20th century models." postdlf (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom, per mcuh recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my long-standing support of deletion of per-century categories. Debresser (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is little sense dividing a 100-year-old profession into century bites. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 10 March 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 manually, and confirm that all articles remain in the deep content of the proposed merge target. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

• Category:20th-century sports officials to Category:Sports officials
• Category:20th-century sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople
• Category:20th-century sportswomen to Category:Sportswomen
• Category:20th-century sportsmen to Category:Sportsmen
• Category:21st-century sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople
• Category:21st-century sportswomen to Category:Sportswomen
• Category:21st-century sportsmen to Category:Sportsmen

Nominator's rationale: Merge all, or alternatively delete all. After a long series of CFD discussions over the last few weeks, these are the last remaining categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, apart from the Category:20th-century football (soccer) players listed below and the Category:21st-century gamblers listed at CfD March 3. All the same reasons for deletion apply, so I won't rehearse them here: there is a clear consensus that by-century categorisies of sportspeople are not appropriate beyond the 19th-century.
Note that I have listed all the categories for merger, which require some clean up afterwards. All but one of the articles which I have checked so far are already categorised in a suitable category of the merge target, so editors may prefer to delete the categories to avoid a cleanup afterwards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople, as part of the Category:20th-century people by occupation and Category:21st-century people by occupation schema, at least until all cats for occupations by 20th and 21st are deleted Mayumashu (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Mayumashu, did you notice that Category:21st-century sportspeople and Category:20th-century sportswomen are two of the categories listed for deletion here? Do you want them upmerged to themselves?
    In any case, there is a clear consensus through dozens of previous discussions not to categorise 20th- and 21st-century sportspeople by century. This is just the final tidyup of the stragglers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious but to be clear then, I'd like to see Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople) kept and the others listed here upmerged to them. Again, I'd like to see this happen until Category:20th-century people by occupation and Category:21st-century people by occupation are in fact deleted, should they be Mayumashu (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what you are trying to achieve here, or why you want that. After about two dozen CFDs closed as delete (with no keeps), it's crystal-clear that there that there is no consenus for keeping any by-sport sub-categories of those two. What earthly use is a category of a random splattering of a few 20th-century sportspeople from assorted sports? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It completes the schema for 20th and Category:21st-century people by occupation. What good is a schema that is only partially filled in? I'm only saying, again, upmerge until the parent supracategory pages are decided upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 March 2010

Completeness is not an end in itself. The purpose of categories is to facilitate navigation, but these categories do not help navigation, and you haven't even tried to make a case that they do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered navigation to a greater end than completeness, but I'm reconsidering now. Mayumashu (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nom, per much recent precedent. Since men and women compete separately in most sports, male and femal categories are needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my long-standing support of deletion of per-century categories. Debresser (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think these facilitate navigation. i agree that there only possible justification would be completeness, but we've already deleted a number of these now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There have been sportspeople for many centuries. Merge sportsmen and sportswomen into Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople (or just keep the sportsmen and sportswomen by centuries) per Mayumashu. Merge away sports officials. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 08:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Of course there have been sportspeople for many centuries .. but what exactly is the purpose of a catch-all category of all sportspeople from the 20th century, when its possible sub-categories have all been deleted by consensus? If populated, it would be humungous, consisting of a huge mishmash of everything from an Irish hurler in 1905 to Mongolian basketball-player born 90 years later? What's the navigational purpose of grouping these things together? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

---

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 the category. While the question of merging into Category:Football (soccer) players wasn't brought up, I see no reason not to do this; it's consistent with recent CfD consensus; this category was part of that category tree; and that category isn't up for deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century football (soccer) players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After a long series of CFDs deleting sub-categories of Category:Sportspeople by century, this is the only remaining one for players of a particular sport, and I think that all the same arguments apply. Note that the parent Category:Football (soccer) players by century was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 31#Football_.28soccer.29_people_by_century, but although this category was tagged for that discussion, it was not included in the listing and so was not deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:20th-century sportspeople (even if just for now) Mayumashu (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Mayumashu, did you notice that Category:21st-century sportspeople and Category:20th-century sportswomen are two of the categories listed for deletion here in the discussion immediately above this one?
    In any case, there is a clear consensus through dozens of previous discussions not to categorise 20th- and 21st-century sportspeople by century, and this is just the final tidyup of the stragglers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and much recnet precedent. Men and women do not play football together professionally. Upmerging to sportspeople is improper, since it removes the link to their sport. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my long-standing support of deletion of per-century categories. Debresser (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This does not facilitate navigation. If properly filled, it would contain thousands upon thousands of articles, with little gain for having it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 10 March 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. While small it is a part of an established series and is the logical way to reduce the size of Category:People from New South Wales. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Cowra, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Cowra, New South Wales is a small country town, and is unlikely to produce so many notable people that it deserves its own category. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep - there is Category:People by town in Australia although Category:People by town has not in general been developed. There are quite a number of people linking to Cowra, a town of 8000 or so ... if not kept it should be upmerged to Category:People from New South Wales. Occuli (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the extremely broad structure of people by place. Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• upmerge to Category:People from New South Wales. For now the category is too small - maybe at some later stage when it can justify its existence it can then be re-split out if need be. Orderinchaos 17:53, 9 March 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 04:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayors and Lord Mayors of Strathfield, Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Strathfield municipality is one of hundreds of municipalities in Australia, most of its mayors will never ever reach WP:POLITICIAN. secondly, Lord Mayor does not apply to Strathfield only Parramatta and City of Sydney in Sydney. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It should be noted Strathfield is simply a small municipality well within metropolitan Sydney, which has about 40 of the things. A quick look around shows no other place except City of Sydney has such a category (and that entity can well justify it). LibStar: there's also Wollongong and Newcastle, I believe, although both are outside Sydney. Orderinchaos 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wollongong and Newcastle are not part of Sydney. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Television stations in Birmingham, West Midlands. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TV stations in Birmingham to Category:Television stations in Birmingham, England

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Television stations, Category:Television stations by city, and Category:Birmingham, England —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Koavf has an open cfd nom advocating the removal of 'England' from eg Category:Broadcasting in Birmingham, England. I opposed that one and I support this one (both the addition of 'England' and the expansion of TV). Occuli (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (With regret) Support: Birmingham, Alabama is also a large city, so that confusion is inevitable. However the decision here should conform to that in the other current CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That CfD is inevitably going to close against my proposal (it probably should be closed per WP:SNOW), so I will submit the few Birmingham categories without England as well to impose some conformity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Birmingham, England is not the WP:COMMONNAME and we have the main article at the title Birmingham. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree, but we're in the minority. In the meantime, all of these categories may as well have the same type of name (i.e. either "X in Birmingham" or "X in Birmingham, England".) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. "Birmingham" is an ambiguous term, referring amongst other things to two large cities, so some disambiguator is required (I have no preference between "England" and "West Midlands"). This is particularly important for categories, which appear on articles without any explanation, and are added by editors who may never have seen the category page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom / Occuli. It is one of my more reluctant ones, but as I said in another place, my own city has the same problem in similar circumstances. Orderinchaos 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency with Category:Birmingham, England and its subcategories. If it is ever changed, I imagine all the categories would be changed. There is no sense having some one way and some the other. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename England doesn't have many TV stations, while the US has lots. This would more logically be about the US city, not the one in England. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. The parent categories were renamed to Birmingham, West Midlands, so starting at the top you have Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 15 March 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 Category:TV shows filmed in North Carolina to Category:Television shows filmed in North Carolina. --Xdamr^talk 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TV shows filmed in North Carolina to Category:Television shows filmed in North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:Television shows set in North Carolina —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Could have been speedied, i think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems to be a one-of-a-kind category, in that I don't see any other categories for television shows filmed in other states or any kind of broad structure of television shows by filming location. The setting of a TV show is one thing, but where it was filmed might have little bearing on the content. For example, Dawson's Creek was filmed in NC but set in MA. So perhaps deletion might be the best result? We do have a well-developed structure for Category:Films by shooting location, but I don't know that the same thing would be useful for television shows. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 10 March 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:

• Category:Taiwanese TV commercial actors
• Category:TV commercial actors

--Xdamr^talk 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Taiwanese TV commercial actors to Category:Taiwanese television commercial actors

Propose renaming Category:TV commercial actors to Category:Television commercial actors

Nominator's rationale: Per parent categories, Category:Television actors and Category:Television commercials —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, My concern is that this characteristic is not defining for most of these individuals. Given that, this category will be a maintenance nightmare. If kept, rename. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if kept, but leaning towards delete. There are few enough actors in these two categories, so we definitely don't need to split them by nationality. Even if the main category is kept, the Taiwanese one should be merged into it. In the meantime, I have added Category:TV commercial actors to Category:Advertising people
  As to whether this is a defining attribute, I dunno. Several of these articles don't belong in the categories, and it seems to me to be defining for only a very few: Jan Miner, Isaiah Mustafa, possibly Paul Blackthorne, Ardon Bess, Amey Pandya. That's two-and-three-halves out of 11, although I would add Maureen Lipman for her role as Beattie.
  So that's three articles for which this is the defining characteristic ... and that makes me lean towards deletion. I think the substantive case for deletion is that most commercial actors are anonymous: they don't get on-screen credits or star billing as in a movie, because in most cases the idea is that the product is dominant. So we have a lot of notable characters in Category:Advertising characters, but in most cases the actors remain obscure: even cult characters such as Papa & Nicole are played by non-notable actors. The most common exception to that is the celebrity endorsement, but in that case a) they are not acting, and b) the ad is definitely not a defining characteristic (the celeb is are there only because they are notable for something else). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 7 March 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 Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol to Category:Television programmes shot in Bristol. --Xdamr^talk 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol to Category:Television programmes and films shot in Bristol

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:British television programmes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Television programmes shot in Bristol (i.e. without the films), and create a separate category for the two films. I nominated this category for deletion at CfD 2009 December 28, where there was no support for deletion, but the idea of renaming to exclude films was suggested by Bradjamesbrown. I think that's a good idea, so I suggest taking this opportunity to do it, because the current hybrid category has led to two films being included in the television category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow. Either I'm getting old, or too many discussions have come and gone, because I didn't even remember that CfD. However, I've got to say, I still agree with myself ;) I'm indifferent to the system of TV shows by production city, but the films still need to be split out. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 15. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TV series with episodes in the public domain to Category:Television series with episodes in the public domain

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:Television series. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 7 March 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 20:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TV archaeologists to Category:Television archaeologists

Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Category:Television. Alternately, delete as arbitrary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as arbitrary. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as arbitrary; appears to be a dumping ground for any archaeologist who appeared on television, whether as a producer of their own shows or just as a talking head on the news. That its parent category is Category:Television doesn't give me much hope that there is a valid category lurking in there somewhere. postdlf (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as arbitrary. I was expecting to find, say, Daniel Jackson in this category, and was somewhat surprised to find real people. Seems to be a TV version of performer by performance, in a broad sense. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:35, 14 March 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 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TV channels with British versions to Category:Television channels with British versions

Nominator's rationale: Per main article—television, not TV—and parent category: Television channels in the United Kingdom. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator if kept ... but I wonder if it is really a good idea to start categorising TV channels in this way? The channels in this category appear to be those aired in multiple countries, but I'm not sure whether it includes any non-UK-based channels shown in the UK, or only those modified for UK audiences. If it's the former, then it's a recipe for massive category-clutter; but even if it is restricted to channels modified for the UK, I can still see this leading to a lot of clutter on articles. Does anyone know enough about this to say whether any of these channels have multiple national variants? (e.g. one for the UK, one for Germany, one for France). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm seeing a whole lot of clutter, and no clear distinction between this category and Category:Foreign television channels broadcasting in the United Kingdom I;m wondering if it might not be better to throw them together where the standard for inclusion would be much more easily determined. I could also get behind deletion or renaming, per the brunette above me. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the discussion above. Not clear that this is needed and the discussion above seems to be supporting deletion over a rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 15 March 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 20:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:TSN shows to Category:The Sports Network shows

Propose renaming Category:TSN to Category:The Sports Network

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, The Sports Network —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Getting rid of ambiguous acronyms ought to be a speedy criteria. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:37, 14 March 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 & Delete. --Xdamr^talk 00:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:TED Prize winners to article List of TED Prize winners

Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic for categorization, but would make a nice list. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify as TED Prize then delete. This is the normal solution to awards categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify per Peterkingiron. Orderinchaos 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral leaning towards keep We do of course have many categories for winners of major national and international awards. I'm not yet convinced the TED conference prizes don't meet that stature. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. Tradition has been to listify all but a few awards categories that come up for discussion, and I support that approach. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 10 March 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 20:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SHG to Category:Second-harmonic generation

Nominator's rationale: Per what appears to be the main article (Second-harmonic generation, which I sorted as main myself.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to expand a very obscure acronym. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 10 March 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SI base units to Category:International System of Units base units

Propose renaming Category:SI derived units to Category:International System of Units derived units

Propose renaming Category:SI prefixes to Category:International System of Units prefixes

Propose renaming Category:SI units to Category:International System of Units

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, International System of Units. Note that Category:SI units does not categorize any of the units themselves, but articles about the International System of Units. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Common usage is "SI units", with 572,000 ghits for "SI units" against 399,000 ghits for "International System of Units". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Long form is non-intuitive - SI is the common name. (Shouldn't the main article be at "Système International" anyway?) Orderinchaos 17:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's probably a WP:EN issue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, but it's the proper name of something rather than simply French words. Orderinchaos 01:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'd say this is a clear example where, in an English encyclopedia, we have to use the acronym. Since the acronym defines a term that isn't in English, the English equivalent does not define the acronym. "SI unit" is the term these are known as.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:01, 10 March 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) 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SAIC vehicles to Category:Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation vehicles

Propose renaming Category:SAIC to Category:Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nom. SAIC is not (yet) well-known outside of China, except perhaps to those who followed the decline and death of Rover Group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SONICFLOOd albums to Category:Sonicflood albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Sonicflood. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 7 March 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. --Xdamr^talk 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HGTV shows to Category:Home & Garden Television shows

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• unsure as Category:Home & Garden Television shows sounds like a generic category referring to home and garden shows in television. Maybe Category:Shows on Home & Garden Television would be an unambiguos solution. PanchoS (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the phraseology "Home & Garden Television" is nowhere to be found on either www.scrippsnetworks.com or hgtv.com , it seems that the article is due for renaming, not the category.- choster (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually "Home & Garden Television" is on the HGTV site, but it took me a while to find it. Maybe a question is how do we deal with brands? Clearly HGTV is a brand but "Home & Garden Television" is not? Are brands allowed to have a category under the brand name even if it does not match the lead article and if it is the primary use? If brands are OK, then clearly this would not need renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with any guideline which requires the use of an official name, only that the name be the most familiar and most unambiguous. A majority of company-related articles do not use the full name; we have Wal-Mart, not Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; ARCO, not The Atlantic Richfield Company; TIAA-CREF, not Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities Fund.- choster (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • True. Note that Wal-Mart needs to be split into Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. since the two are different. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 06:05, 7 March 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:RAND Corporation to Category:RAND

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, RAND. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Rand" is a surname, some people capitialize every letter in surnames. The current name is a common way to refer to RAND, and has the advantage of not being highly ambiguous. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looking at the logo embedded in the parent article: File:Rand-logo.PNG it is referring to itself as RAND Corporation. So too in the title line on their own website "RAND Corporation provides..."; so if anything needs changed it is reversing the parent article and its redirect? AllyD (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Mainly because "Rand" is ambiguous. Also, it is commonly call "the RAND corporation." Maurreen (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It calls itself the "RAND Corporation", it's commonly named the "RAND Corporation", and "RAND" is ambiguous. I'll open a WP:RM discussion on the head article, but even if it stays at "RAND", that's too ambiguous a name for the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See move discussion at Talk:RAND#Requested_move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename article to match category: that is where the defect lies, not in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 8 March 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 Category:PASD MEPs serving 2009-2014 to Category:PASD MEPs. --Xdamr^talk 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PASD MEPs serving 2009-2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization with an arbitrary title (possibly WP:CRYSTAL, if it is implying that the members will serve until 2014). There is only one article in this and it is not a part of some larger scheme as far as I can tell. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats MEPs. This is a "current" category, which we do not allow, but as we do not seem to have a category for members of this European party group, it needs to be renamed to remove the period: there is no satisfactory merge target: see main article Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. However, perhaps the main category Category:Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats will serve for now. Since this is a Euro party-group, there will be no national politicians in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to either Category:Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats MEPs or Category:PASD MEPs (the latter per convention of Category:Members of current European Parliament party groups, in which I have placed the categ under discussion). Note that MEP categories need a wider cleanup, because party group have changed names several times, and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats is a rebranding of the former Socialist Group in the Parliament ... but that's a big job and is outside the scope of this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 8 March 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 Category:Sailboat names to Category:Individual sailing vessels. This has been a confusing discussion to navigate, which I think indicates a degree of confusion in categorisation of this area. I would suggest that interested editors might consider taking this issue in hand and developing a more practical, workable, and intuitive scheme. --Xdamr^talk 19:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Sailboat names to Category:Sailboats

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be about sailboats, not their names. There was an unresolved discussion in 2005 (during which Category:Sailboats was created) and apparently there may be some disagreement about what kinds of vessels should go into this category, but nobody seems to agree that the "names" is necessary, any more than we put articles about people into Category:People names or articles about songs into Category:Song names. If there's still any dispute about the type of vessel, I hope we can all at least agree that "Sailboats" is a better title than "Sailboat names." Propaniac (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Yachts by name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, HMS Victory is a yacht? Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support 'yachts by name'. HMS Victory would go in 'warships by name' or similar appropriate category. Boatman (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to do the sorting? Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Yachts by name. Category:Sailboats is the top level category and Category:Sailboat names / Category:Yachts by name index individual yachts via their names. Sail boats have numerous attributes:- name, class, construction, type, use etc etc. We should not bundle everything into one large category. We need to keep separate categories so that the reader can quickly home in on the info they require. Boatman (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed that Category:Sailboats was the correct category because it looked like most of the items in that category were specific vessels, the same kind of article currently in Category:Sailboat names. The same seems to be true of Category:Yachts and Category:Yachts by name. Am I understanding correctly that all those articles about specific vessels currently in Category:Sailboats and Category:Yachts are not supposed to be in that category? Propaniac (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A very good point! There are indeed overlaps in some of these categories. I will take some time out and see what we have re categories and make some suggestions for consideration. Boatman (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If these pairs of categories are not simply duplicates of each other (that is to say, if there is an actual difference between Category:Foo and Category:Foo by name), I have no objection to renaming the nominated category Category:Sailboats by name or merging to Category:Yachts by name. My original nomination was based on the perception that Category:Sailboats and Category:Sailboat names were serving the same purpose. Propaniac (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or delete Please understand that "sailboat" is a US-only term that to UK and I imagine other English-speaking ears rather implies something 15 feet long. This category aims to include all articles on individual sail-powered vessels including commercial freighters and warships. Rename to Category:Sailing ships or vessels or something similar, if the category is in fact useful - which it may be. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then nominate Category:Yachts by name for deletion. All ships are listed by name so why to we need a category by name? Is this intended to be a super category that includes all sailboats or all yachts? This seems like it may well be OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The category is badly named and has a daft bit of introductory text, but it is clearly intended to categorise individual sailing boats rather than general articles about sailing boats or about types of sailing boats. If this category is deleted, then the articles in it will no longer categorised under Category:Sailboats. If it is upmerged, then we retain no distinction between articles on individual sailboats such as Gipsy Moth IV and types of boat such as J-class yacht, Fish class sloop. The naming and structure of these categories is currently a big mess, but the solution lies in sorting the articles into more appropriate categories, rather than just pressing the delete button. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Sailing vessels and place under Category:Sailing, Category:Watercraft and Category:Wind-powered vehicles. Move Category:Sailing ships and Category:Sailboats under this one. That seems to express the correct hierarchical relationship between these categories. This category is not about names, but it is about sailing vessels, regardless of size or function. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• PROPOSAL I confess to starting some of this confusion a while back due to lack of a category to index names of sailing vessels. Category:Sailing was intended to capture all categories and topics related to vessels which float and are propelled by the wind. There are numerous categories types of sailing vessels according to purpose. At a high level there are sailing vessels for use in commerce/trade, defense/navy, pleasure/cruising/racing etc. Because there was no category to capture names the Category:Sailboat names was borne. It was a generic name to capture the names of all vessels irrespective of type - it could equally well have been given the name "Sailing vessel names" or similar. Because of the rapid growth of articles relating to specific vessels we now have mix of 17th century navy battleships, state of the art 21st century racing boats, clipper ships etc etc in the Category:Sailboat names. My PROPOSAL is within Category:Sailing there are new categories which replace Category:Sailboat names. The new categories are Category:Names of yachts, Category: Names of naval sailing vessels and Category: Names of commercial sailing vessels. There are other 'name' categories which will be required but these will become obvious as we progress. If we Rename Category:Sailboat names to Category:Names of yachts I will put effort into re-categorizing the articles as appropriate and I am sure others would assist. Appreciate comments from all re this proposal. Boatman (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The problem here is that the "names" part of the category name is redundant; as User:Propaniac noted above, we don't categorize people as "Names of people", but as Category:People, we don't categorize cities as "Names of cities" but as Category:Cities. We do indeed have a category for the Names of people (Category:Human names), and this category holds articles about the origins and meanings of people's names. A category named "Names of sailing vessels" should contain articles about the names of sailing vessels, not the vessels themselves; but I don't think we have any articles like that (at least not for specifically sailing vessels. We do, of course have many many general articles on ship names under Category:Ship names). --Rlandmann (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Agree with Rlandmann that the category is a misnomer. But does anyone agree with my observation above that the contents of this category are useful distinction from the articles on types of boat found in the parent category? How about a rename to Category:Individual sailboats or Category:Individual sailing vessels? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer -- fair point. However, that would actually be the reverse of the ship category, where individual ships are placed in the various subcategories of Category:Ships and articles on types of ships are placed in Category:Ship types. I also note that Category:Boats doesn't distinguish, and has individual boats grouped together with types of boats (of course, relatively few individual boats are notable, unlike individual ships and individual sailing vessels). --Rlandmann (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Split -- The current category is too broad. The parent would be Category:Sailing vessels, with subcategories including Category:Sailing boats by name; Category:Sailing ships by name; Category:Sailing vessels by type (which currently exists and is linked from the category under discussion). I oppose "yachts" for a main category as not all sailing boats are necessarily of this type. We may get conflict at the boundary between boat and ship, but as some one said above HMS Victory, one of the greatest warships of her time was NOT a boat. "Yachts by name" might be a subcategory, or mergable to Category:Sailing boats by name, but I leave that to another time. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- those proposed names also have "by name" in them, and therefore suffer from the same problem as the existing category. We already have Category:Sailboats and Category:Sailing ships. I agree that Category:Sailing vessels by type would be a nice addition to the set. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Individual sailboats, etc. This is fairly standard usage for this cat type. Also note-- a ship can have a Wikipedia article, but no name, per se, such as a ship found in an archaeology dig. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 08:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been going on a long time, I will repeat that "sailboat" is an American term, which suggests a dinghy or small yacht to UK English ears, and should be avoided as misleading. "Sailing vessels" is neutral. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Individual sailing vessels", "Individual sailing ships", "Individual tall ships", etc. are all fine with me. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:Transnational sports competitions to Category:International sports competitions. --Xdamr^talk 19:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Transnational sports competitions to Category:International sports competitions

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These small categories seem synonymous to me (although they've both taken up different roles). International seems the most likely and normal naming out of the two. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional oppose. I haven't yet checked fully what the categories actually contain, but the plain-English usage of the words offers a clear distinction: International competitions are those between national teams, and are a subset of Transnational competitions. Transnational events include competitors from different countries, and those may not be selected on a national basis. One example which comes to mind is the Fastnet race, where yachts qualify on an individual basis, and do not represent their country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If that is correct then I suppose this is more of a mass migration issue. Certainly pretty much everything in Category:Transnational African sports competitions is something that should be in the non-existent Category:International African sports competitions. Same goes for Asia. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • International competitions are those between teams of two nations. Maybe this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, but before this discussion I was not aware of transnational competitions. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • DISAGREE. The singles tournaments at Wimbledon are international competitions and no teams are involved. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume you mean that international competitions are just ones between nations or national teams – Not just specifically two i.e. "Nation A" vs "Nation B"? The Olympics being a key example of the former? the Formula One season is perhaps an obvious example of a transnational competition i.e individuals competing for company teams. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 12:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • DISAGREE. In the Olympics, only some events involve competition between national teams. The vast majority of events involve competition between individuals. That makes them no less international. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: DISAGREE. Transnational competitions can be between teams too. And International competitions can be between individuals as well as between teams. For example, the Davis Cup is between teams, Wimbledon is between individuals as well as teams, the Olympics is between both individuals as well as teams. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It only takes two athletes from two different countries to make a competition an international competition. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Even if I am right about the distinction, it appears to be too subtle and contentious a distinction to make for effective categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 15 March 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.