< August 9	August 11 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:American people of Cuban-Jewish descent
• Nominator's rationale This category has been empty about a week. I am not sure it has ever had contents that would agree with all its parent cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Other than Frank Lopez from Scarface, I don't know that there are any people to put in here. There is a naming problem: What is meant by American? Could be people from the US, or anywhere in North, Central, or South America, or it could conceivably be Native Americans (though highly unlikely). The History of the Jews in Cuba article states that after 1958 there were only about 1500 Jews left in the country, and of the four Cuba-related people listed in the SA's to that article, only one is definitely Cuban by birth: Jose Miller, who was European by descent, but he was born and died in Cuba. Ricardo Wolf was German by birth, was a Cuban citizen at some point, but emigrated to and died in Israel. Shmuel Szteinhendler, who is "considered to be" (but is not actually) Chief Rabbi of Cuba, lives in Chile, but is likely European by descent. The one actual Chief Rabbi of Cuba here in WP, Meyer Rosenbaum, was definitely European by descent; he was part of an Eastern European Hasidic dynasty, bit not a Hasidic rabbi. MSJapan (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion by Cfd. If this category is empty it should be deleted under the speedy process for empty categories - to delete the category here will materially complicate the reactivating of the category if a suitable article is subsequently found or created. If the category is not empty, it should not be deleted and any discussion as to the suitability of specific articles for listing in the category should be discussed in the Discussion page of the article in question. Davshul (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment MSJapan makes a very good point that it is unclear there is really such a thing as Cuban-Jewish ancestry. That there were Jews in Cuba in large numbers for maybe 20 years prior to the revolution is not disputed, that that is enough to constitute an ancestry is another question entirely. The main reason for nominating it here instead of speedying is because I manually emptied the one article because it clearly did not belong, and so it seemed that speedying would draw the accusation of trying to do an end run.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2011 (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: Spedy rename C2D. The one comment appears to be a typo in support of the nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:InsideOut Music albums to Category:Inside Out Music albums

Nominator's rationale: (also applies to the four subcategories). This is the actual name of the label according to [1]. I've already moved the article, the categories just need to be moved to the more accurate name. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with insufficient licensing permissions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Was populated by ((CCPermissionNeeded)), which was deleted here. Seems this category was forgotten when the template was deleted. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't use this template, apropos, this category, any more.Curb Chain (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2011 (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 07:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sheikh people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete There's no article for either the Sheikh people or the Sheikh family. Nothing of the sort is even mentioned on Sheikh (disambiguation) so I can't see the rationale for having this category. Pichpich (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason I think it should be keep because I am still working on it, and it will contain the people belongs to Sheikh. What do you think about it?--—Assassin'S Creed ^(talk) 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't understand what this is supposed to be categorizing, and doubt that when filled it will be an encyclopedic categorization. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We can remake it when you have more entries.Curb Chain (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't really categorise people by their caste, as that would result in a load of random categories. The ethnic group categories are sufficient. The article you created can be categorised simply into Category:Punjabi people. Mar4d (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is an article on this, titled Shaikhs in South Asia. That article should probably be moved to Sheikh people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm misreading the article (and sheikh) but there's no such thing as a "sheik people". The term is used in a number of ambiguous ways and even as an honorary title, it's not bestowed on someone through a clearly recognized authority. I don't see how this can lead to meaningful categorization. Pichpich (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2011 (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 without prejudice to recreating in 2013. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rocambolesque Bordonths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete (I'll bite my tongue and avoid saying what I really think of the Wikipedia service awards.) That being not said, I don't think we need a category which, by its own admission, will only start making a modicum of sense in January 2013. Pichpich (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – this seems to be for "Wikipedia users active for about 12 or more years, a.k.a. Rocambolesque Bordonths". Are there or have there been categories "Wikipedia users active for about 10 or more years"? It seems to fall foul of WP:OC#ARBITRARY (and WP:JARGON). Occuli (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those 'awards' also have a minimum number of edits. So it is multiple criteria. A simple check like Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Looshpah Userbox will pick up many, if not most or all, of the users who wish to acknowledge their activity. I'm using an old example since there should not be any real editor links to the template for the one listed above. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, O Illustrious Looshpah! I had not been aware of these glorious accolades. These should surely be renamed from Category:Illustrious Looshpahs to Category:Wikipedian Illustrious Looshpahs per Wikipedia:Illustrious Looshpah (to make it clear that this is Wikipedia jargon as opposed to some society of Old Tossers, or Bonesmen, or whatever). Occuli (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea, a rename for the categories probably makes sense. One additional comment. I don't believe that anyone checks the validity of these claims. Maybe a bot should be commissioned to do this. When I was checking the example above, I found an anon address using the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not this category be redirected to Category:Service award templates. In that way, I would recreate it in 2013. A\/\₉3r-(0la 20:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. The templates have been modified so that they only categorize when placed on a user page (and unfortunately also on a user subpage). So as of now, the only article in there is a redirect. So this can probably be safely deleted until someone actually includes it on their page. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 2. I have made a request that would provide a way to automatically populate this category by adding a subcategory for editors that have the required number of edits but lack the service time for these awards. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is at a minimum 2 years premature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Does this category need to be cleaned up or just deleted? I'd argue the latter, as the way in which the category subjects are associated, affiliated, referred to or designated differ so wildly, from agricultural goddesses to college alumni to metaphors about something. What's more, every "x of y" category deals with an association of some kind. I believe that this is a case of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, and that just because a category has "association" or an approximate term in the cat name, this doesn't make for a useful or logical main tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mostly per nom. The category groups unrelated things together and moreover, the category title doesn't tell the reader anything about what it contains. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above, and not the correct use of categoryCurb Chain (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Depictions of war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: An old category using "depictions," which we (now?) seem to reserve for depictions of people only. The war/media/works category tree is already rife with every possible permutation of how war or wars might be searched for, and I believe this adds yet another unnecessary duplicate scheme. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Shawn in MontrealCurb Chain (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2011 (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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NASCAR races at Music City Motorplex to Category:NASCAR races at Fairgrounds Speedway

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This move is to keep the category current along with the name of the speedway. GVnayR (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. A\/\₉3r-(0la 21:01, 10 August 2011 (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 with others on 8/18.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-> Category:Canadian jurists, analogy. --Dendrolo (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2011 (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:Dentition types. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:-dont to Category:Teeth (or rename to Category:Dentition types)

Nominator's rationale: Merge (or possible rename). Appears to just be categorizing teeth-related words that end in "-dont". However, it is grouping related articles, each one being about different types of animals that are classed by teeth structure, so maybe it just needs a rename. Maybe Category:Dentition types? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename possibly to Category:Animals by dentition type?Curb Chain (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It categorizes articles about the dentition types; it doesn't categorize animals. (There is no category Category:Heterodonts, and so forth, just articles that go by those names.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then I'd support (Rename to )Category:Dentition types.Curb Chain (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online dictionaries and encyclopedias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is for two different types of entities, each with its own category - Category:Online dictionaries and Category:Online encyclopedias. No reason why a dictionary should be in the Category:Encyclopedias category tree, nor why an encyclopedia should be in the Category:Dictionaries by type category tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We have Category:Encylopedias and Category:Dictionaries by type. No need for this parent categoryCurb Chain (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an unusual intersect. Also unclear why it does not also include online almanacs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:American people of Spanish-Jewish descent
• Nominator's rationale. This category is currently empty. The most recently removed person was in there as a result of statements in the article on that person that on inspection of the sources were found to not be supported. There are lots of Sephardic Jews, even some in Category:American Sephardic Jews. In theory this means their ancestors came from Spain, in practice it only means they are part of the culture of Jews whose ancestors left Spain/Portugal over 500 years ago, and sometimes it is used more prodly to differenciate all Jews in Muslims countries about 100 years ago from all Jews in Christian countries at the same time. Classifying people by where there ancestors were living 500 years ago seems overclassification. The Sephardic Jews cats work just fine, there is no need for this cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Black British musicians
• Nominators rationale This category is a direct violation of wikipedia policy to not categorize people by race, and as a violation of this policy it should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violates policyCurb Chain (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Where is this "policy" spoken of? I don't think there is such a policy, otherwise Category:African American people would be suspect, which it isn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_orientationCurb Chain (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would delete Category:African American people, but I don't think there is support for thisCurb Chain (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. First, that's not a policy, it's a guideline. Second, it doesn't prohibit categorization by race, as suggested above; it says that non-notable combinations of ethnicity with something else should be avoided unless the combination is "itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". So the question becomes whether "Black British musicians" is a distinct and unique cultural topic, not a straight-up this-violates-policy argument. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it violates Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Ethnicity_and_race. Johnpacklambert I think meant "policy" as in "protocol", which was the meaning I thought he intended.Curb Chain (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also arguable whether it violates that guideline, since "Black British" can be viewed as an ethnicity. He did in fact say "wikipedia policy", so it's natural to interpret that as meaning "Wikipedia policy". In any case, I think in WP it's helpful to not say "policy" unless one means "WP policy" so we can all be talking from the same page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropologically, Black is not an ethnicity.Curb Chain (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let me just say something here. Taking Anthropology 101 does not make you the expert on anthology. I took several classes in drug rehabilitation when I was in collage and don't flaunt this around and believe I know all there is to know about addiction. Black people, at least in the United States, I don't know about Britain, have their own culture, have created music that comes solely from their background, have their own history, etc. If you understood black history, this crap about anthropology wouldn't make a hell of a difference. This is logic in the real world. They have actually made an effort and worked together to create a culture. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacks. Do you have a source that says "Black" people made a culture?Curb Chain (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep. There's an entire category tree for Category:Black British people. One category from the tree should not be cherry picked out for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment: That is no longer true; the category hierarchy has just been broken by selective deletion of Category:British people of Black African descent -- see CFD August 5. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Good Ol’factory --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Good Ol’factory. Category:African American musicians would seem an apt comparison. Occuli (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. EGRS is what prohibits us from creating categories on irrelevant intersections like (the examples) "Gay linguists" or "African American economists," not on documented topics that are also part of established category trees. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it could still be a trivial intersection. The experience I've had is that if there are sources for intersections, categories are appropriate, but if not, then that's not appropriate. For example, being gay does not make you a notable linguist, nor does it make you a better linguist. Thus, this is a trivial intersection. So no, I don't think Category:Gay linguists should be made, but I do think Category:African American musicians and Category:Black british musicians are trivial.Curb Chain (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is a discussion about Black British musicians, this shows how ignorant you are of American culture. It's incredibly notable to be an African American musician in American culture. Black musicians in America have founded several different music genres: jazz, rock n'roll, blues, and hip hop. All of these generated in the United States by black musicians. It's important to black history and culture. And all of these have been mainstreamed by white culture in the United States. I mean, come on here! If you are going to comment on American topics at least be educated about the issues. As far as Black British musicians go, I don't really know the culture in Britain, so I can't say, but I know that African Americans in the US would probably be interested. And how people will use categories needs to be taken into consideration as well as how relevant they are. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for those statements?Curb Chain (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia is not a beauracracy, so beaucratic pedantic quibbling over the different between policy, precedent, guidelines and protocals should not happen. The issue is that theere is some-osrt of something that is sort of like policy that supports my view, not what exactly we should call it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are constantly citing policies in these sort of discussions! I mean really. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All such problems would easily be resolved if the nominator would link to the policy/guideline/precedent/protocol that is being referenced. It's true it doesn't really matter what we call it but everyone needs to know what we are talking about to ensure that it's not just one editor's subjective preferences or "sense of things", especially when the nominating statement contains such a definitive statement that something has been explicitly violated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Its notable to be an African American musician in American culture? What, because the vast majority of singer-song-writers are African-American. To me the fact that we should not categorize by race goes against that, but since the "do not categorize by race" guideline gives African American as an ethnicity, we move around that. However black is a race/color designiation, it is not an ethnic designation. I think the procedural close on the grounds that this is part of a larger tree is the stupidest thing ever. The ethnic classification rules clearly state that each intersection of ethnicity and occupation has to be justified for that specific intersection of that ethnicity, with that occupation, so if this is an ethnicity it can not be treated as part of a larger tree because ethnic categories should be justified with that specific occupation. If it is a race, as it seems to shout it is, than there is no reason to keep this because other guidelines are being violated elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are someone who does not do research on black history. You don't care about black history. In American, yes, it's notable to be an African American musician. And the "term" African American is reserved for black people because it was chosen by them to identify with. When a person chooses their own label, that is what you use. That's the whole point of positive labeling. The reason that Wikipedia suggests not to categorize by race is so that hateful people won't create categories like "white" whatever, because they do not understand the privilege that white people have over people of color in some countries. This is really getting off topic so I won't continue with this conversation, but you really need to start understanding other cultures and stop getting into these race conversations if you don't get it in the first place. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making personal attacks. You've made a personal attack against me, and now you've made a personal attack against Johnpacklambert. How is it notable to be an "African American" musician in America? I've only seen those who have had media exposure to be "notable". The term "African American" was not chosen by them, it was used by Malcom X and individuals adopted the term, for whatever reason(s).Curb Chain (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Andy_Abraham: he's the first entry I clicked on when I entered the category, and the only mention of the word "black" is the category that has been appended to him. He lacks sources. I question if this category is being used by editors who originally research this "ethnicity". I question how many more unsourced additions are in this category.Curb Chain (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, User:Henriettapussycat, don't attack other users. You can disagree with what they think without assuming you know about their background knowledge or impugning their level of knowledge, etc. You can share what you know and think without running others down. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try my best not to overreact. But my frustration is based on other conversations with the same people. But of course you are correct and I try to keep my frustration in check.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going thru the category, I came across Wayne_Marshall_(conductor). I do not know what to do with him because he has nothing to do with what Henriettapussycat cites as "Black culture". As such, this category is being applied to inappropriate intersections.Curb Chain (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have taken a university course in African-American history to 1865, not to mention having taken a univeristy course on the Civil War and Reconstuction where our professor was Matthew Mason, who had Ira Berlin as his Ph.D. advisor. This probably does not matter, but it would be nice for people to not make such accusations of my "not caring" with no evidence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say inapropriate inclusion is not generally a reason to delete a cat. It is a reason to conduct through and indepth purging of the contents though. People should not be put in the cat unless their belong in the cat is mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I neglected to mention I have also taken two university courses on the history of Africa, took a course on the history of World War I where we studied the role of French West Africans in World War I. I am the person who created the article on Alex Boye, who would be in this category if it was applied indiscriminately. I also created the wikipedia article on Mia Love, Marvin Perkins, and Jesse Lee Thomas. It would really be good if people did not throw out personal attacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2011 (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. I've listified the contents at Talk:Pulpwood. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pulpwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think it is overcategorization to categorize trees by how their wood can be used. The articles about the trees/wood are certainly not defined for being used in pulpwood: none of them are exclusively pulpwood trees. Shouldn't this simply be covered in the article Pulpwood? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Listify to a new section at Talk:Pulpwood and suggest adding appropriate information to the article. Currently, the list of pulpwood trees in the article and in the category don't clearly match, and this is prone to confuse a reader. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For example, Eucalyptus is used in acne medication and Koala food. Acacia has medical uses. These species are or more notable NOT as pulpwood. Hardwood and softwood is a term I've heard of, and they are used primarily to categorize wood for uses such as furniture for hardwood and wood more easily "minced", such as to make pulp, for paper, as softwood. Really, all wood can be minced and made into pulp, and paper, but its just a harder wood.Curb Chain (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I have started looking on the pulpwood article. Thought it was nice to have a list of the common pulpwoods. It seem to be easier to make it on the genius level, so it won't be to many on the list - it ok for me to put it in the list in the article itelf. And btw, ecaluptus is a hardwood and the main use is for pulpwood. Pulpwood is one of the most economicaly important uses for wood, but not all wood species are suitable for pulping.--Langbein Rise (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the wear and tear on the debarker is faster on some species?Curb Chain (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly it is economical reasons, but also the wood may contain components that makes pulping difficult. --Langbein Rise (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which are not objective criteriaCurb Chain (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Earth evolution to Category:Geological history of Earth

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't know if "Earth evolution" is a neologism or not, but this category seems to me to be entirely redundant to Category:Geological history of Earth. There is no article Earth evolution and Evolution of Earth simply redirects to Geological history of Earth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Categories should match parent articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "Earth evolution" unscientifically acceptedCurb Chain (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I've removed the 'rationale' that the category is NOT based on an article. I just started an Earth evolution Article and will continue for about 6 hours on it. (and Note Geology is only one factor in Earth evolution.)-(Mmcannis-of-NorthAmerican Continent) (User talk:Mmcannis)=Mmcannis (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the term "Earth evolution" come from? If used in the sciences, in which branch of science is the term usually used? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you title the article Tectonic evolution of Earth? Earth evolution could imply geologic evolution, and your article is not about this.Curb Chain (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article doesn't even make sense. It seems like synthesis.Curb Chain (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge essentially duplicate category ... don't rightly know how a category is merged though, just empty and delete. Seems the category was created prematurely ... perhaps to support the Earth evolution article ... which remains an unref'd and unfocused bit of WP:OR. Vsmith (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, upmerges happen, where a subcategory gets deleted and the contents become "unsplit" and "distributed" in the supercategory. I think downmerges might happen, when a supercategory goes into a more specific category. The only other kind of merge I can think of is if the contents are the same as another category, which is usually called a Rename, when the category has not been made. If the contents are disparate, then that's where the entries need to be assessed individually, and the category deleted. In this case, the contents don't really related to one another, so the category should be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2011 (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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baltimore Bullets (original) to Category:Baltimore Bullets (1944–1954)

Propose renaming Category:Baltimore Bullets (original) coaches to Category:Baltimore Bullets (1944–1954) coaches

Propose renaming Category:Baltimore Bullets (original) head coaches to Category:Baltimore Bullets (1944–1954) head coaches

Propose renaming Category:Baltimore Bullets (original) draft picks to Category:Baltimore Bullets (1944–1954) draft picks

Propose renaming Category:Baltimore Bullets (original) players to Category:Baltimore Bullets (1944–1954) players

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. "Baltimore Bullets (original)" has been renamed to Baltimore Bullets (1944–1954) NThomas (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. To match parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename main article renamed. I didn't the move log, though.Curb Chain (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the specific dates is a much better method of disambiguation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bing (search engine) to Category:Bing

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Bing (search engine) has been renamed to Bing. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 02:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per Talk:Bing#Requested_move, clear consensus to move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Bing" is still too ambiguous to have the "(search engine)" removed.Curb Chain (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Per main article. Moreover, imo, the only reasonable argument in the requested move discussion was the possible confusion with the bing cherry. But who in their right mind would expect a category for a cherry cultivar? Pichpich (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see no reason to assume that cherries never would get cats. Anyway what about David Bing and his now defunct Bing Group?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category for a cherry cultivar? What on earth would this category contain? It's pretty telling that there's currently not a single category for a plant cultivar (see Category:Cultivars) Pichpich (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match main article Bing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 16 August 2011 (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.