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 for now. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting Category:Volcanic events in Guatemala

Nominator's rationale: Most volcanic events are categorised as natural disasters by country and by year/century. Guatemala is the only country with this category, and it has only one entry, see Category:Volcanic events Hugo999 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I certainly think that volcanic events should be categorized by country, but only if there is an event article. The Guatemala category contains a volcano article, not an event article, so should be deleted. It will be covered by Category:volcanoes of Guatemala. But we do have volcanic event articles, so a category tree should be created for them, just as we have Category:Earthquakes by country and Category:Tornadoes by country, so we should have Category:Volcanic events by country. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 15:25, 26 March 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: do not create.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming a non-existant Category:People of deaf parents : Since we have a large number of articles that reflect 'CODA' (children of deaf adults), a world-view term within the Deaf society. I am proposing a new subcategory Category:Child of Deaf Adult that goes under Category:Deaf people. Would this pass the Wiki community litimus-test regarding current Category naming convention? --Egberts (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Category:Child of Deaf Adult has improper capitalisation; it should be Category:Child of deaf adult, and would be better grammar as Category:Children of deaf adults. However, I suspect that any such category would quite rapidly be nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is not a defining characteristic. Is anyone anywhere actually notable (per WP:GNG) as a child of a deaf adult? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 25 March 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: Superseded by a wider nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Romanesque sites. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging with category:Romanesque sites in Germany : they both cover the same thing but there are two variations of naming in Category:Romanesque architecture by country. --ZH2010 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Byzantine diplomacy to Category:Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the structure of similar categories. This is one of only two (see nomination below) categories which use the "Fooian diplomacy" pattern. Pichpich (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:33, 28 March 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 to Category:Ambassadors to the Ottoman Empire. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ottoman diplomacy to Category:Foreign relations of the Ottoman Empire

Nominator's rationale: Merge There are no "fooian diplomacy" categories. The standard structure is to place all relevant articles in the category "Foreign relations of foo". Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Ambassadors to the Ottoman Empire, as entries in the category relate to ambassadors to the Ottoman Empire. Cjc13 (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per user Cjc13 - Category:Ambassadors to the Ottoman Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:34, 28 March 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 delete (CSD G7: good-faith request for deletion by author and primary contributor). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazilian palaeontologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category: Duplicate of Category:Brazilian paleontologists Arjuno (talk 05:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1 as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 25 March 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. This is a clear case of matching an established naming convention to avoid ambiguity.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Arts & Crafts artists to Category:Arts & Crafts (record label) artists
• Category:Arts & Crafts remix albums to Category:Arts & Crafts (record label) remix albums
• Category:Arts & Crafts compilation albums to Category:Arts & Crafts (record label) compilation albums
• Category:Arts & Crafts EPs to Category:Arts & Crafts (record label) EPs
• Category:Arts & Crafts live albums to Category:Arts & Crafts (record label) live albums
• Category:Arts & Crafts albums to Category:Arts & Crafts (record label) albums

Nominator rationale: Rename all to match parent category. After the parent category was recently renamed to Category:Arts & Crafts (record label), I nominated the subcategories for renaming so that they would match the name of the category and the name of the article Arts & Crafts (record label). The speedy rename was opposed. (By a user who opposed the processed rename of the parent category, I would add.) Rather than argue about it at speedy rename, I'm bringing it here. These sorts of renames where subcategories are renamed to match the parent category for purposes of consistently are relatively routine, from what I have seen. In my opinion such renames do satisfy the speedy rename criterion C2B because they are bringing subcategories into naming conformity with their parent categories. I'm unclear on whether the opposer is opposing the use of the speedy process simply on the basis of a technical/process argument that C2B is not satisfied or because the user thinks the renames are a bad idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. It is customary in cfd to support renaming all subcats in line with the article and the parent category; and it sounds as if Category:Albums by record label needs some attention. Occuli (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename all per nominator. This renaming meets speedy criteria C2B and C2C: C2B as disambiguation, and C2C as a convention established at CfD March 15. I have no idea why the objector claims that these renamings do not meet the conventions of, for example Category:Albums by record label: the convention of that category is "Label albums", and in this case the label is "Arts & Crafts (record label)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Pichpich (talk) 15:07, 25 March 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) 16:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American inventors of Russian descent to Category:American inventors and Category:American people of Russian descent

Nominator's rationale: The criterion for a category which intersects nationality, ethnicity and occupation is whether "the combination is recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"—i.e., whether "the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources". In general, each combination should be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is academically or culturally significant, and a combination's significance should be demonstrated, not assumed.

My search for coverage of this particular combination in reliable sources did not yield evidence of the combination's significance. The sources I found merely verified that there have been Russian-American inventors (e.g. [1]), which says nothing about the recognition of the combination as a distinct topic of academic or popular interest. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This nomination is a follow-up to the one of 25 February 2011. That discussion ended with "no consensus" in spite of significant opposition to the category because, in my opinion, it involved two categories (two separate combinations) and there was a split of "delete" and "upmerge" !votes. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – per nom. Editors seem to delight in these endless intersections. Occuli (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 25 March 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) 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American inventors of Ukrainian descent to Category:American inventors and Category:American people of Ukrainian descent

Nominator's rationale: The criterion for a category which intersects nationality, ethnicity and occupation is whether "the combination is recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"—i.e., whether "the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources". In general, each combination should be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is academically or culturally significant, and a combination's significance should be demonstrated, not assumed.

My search for coverage of this particular combination in reliable sources did not yield evidence of the combination's significance. The sources I found merely verified that there have been Ukrainian-American inventors (e.g. [2][3]), which says nothing about the recognition of the combination as a distinct topic of academic or popular interest. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This nomination is a follow-up to the one of 25 February 2011. That discussion ended with "no consensus" in spite of significant opposition to the category because, in my opinion, it involved two categories (two separate combinations) and there was a split of "delete" and "upmerge" !votes. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. IMO many editors say 'delete' when they mean 'merge then delete'. Occuli (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 25 March 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: No consensus to keep; as this is a product of deletion review, default to delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 18. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous decision. Not really any sort of defining characteristic like an FRS or FBA for instance, which actually mean something. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now. I agree with Necrothesp that fellowship of the RSA is not a great achievement, because there are 27,000 fellows, who each pay £150 a year for the privilege of membership; from the blurb on the RSA website, it seems that the net is cast quite wide. That's quite a contrast to Fellowships of learned societies, such as Fellows of the Royal Society, who are elected for having made "a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge".
  However, the reason I'm holding off for now from saying "delete" is that RSA Fellowship appears to have some degree of importance as a social network, and that this might be significant enough to consider keeping the category. Any thoughts on that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Changing my !vote from my initial "neutral for now"). Per my comment above, an RSA fellowship is not of itself either an achievement or evidence of professional excellence. I was open to considering any evidence that a FRSA was significant as membership of a sovcail network, but no such evidence has been offered, so the category should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category is meaningless, as previous two editors have explained. Like joining (in the US) the Parent-Teachers Association, except not quite so useful and a lot more expensive!  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fellowship of the Royal Society of Arts is considered as an award and an honour by many or not most Fellows (see some example references under FRSA of notable people who consider it so publicly). More could easily be added. While it is possible to apply, Fellows are also invited and in any case must demonstrate achievement (or less often potential) in the area of arts, manufactures and commerce. I believe it is considered a defining characteristic by most Fellows. It is certainly nothing like the Parent-Teachers Association in the US and is not "meaningless". It also allows the use of post-nominals like FRS and FBA. It is less prestigious than these, but still carries not insignificant prestige and is the nearest equivalent in the arts. It is an important part of the fabric of British society. For example, the 250th anniversary celebrations in 2004 included a party for Fellows in the grounds at Buckingham Palace, hosted by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, who has been associated with the RSA [4]. There is certainly a networking aspect to the Society but there are also academic/educational aspects (talks by well-known speakers, support for an Academy School opened by the Duke of Edinburgh, etc.) — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many institutions authorise postnominal initials indicating membership. Membership of most of these is not, and shouldn't be, notable enough to be categorised. The fact the RSA has postnoms is neither here nor there - it certainly doesn't mean it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are considered as "Fellows" rather than members. We have categories for Fellows of many other societies on Wikipedia; e.g., FRS, FBA, FBCS, FIEEE, FACM, etc. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: membership of professional and learned societies is also included as categories on Wikipedia elsewhere. I believe that FRSA is at least on a par with this. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's just the point, you see, they aren't at all notable. I could join this society tomorrow. There are no criteria. If this can be listed, so can any meaningless society that let's anyone join. They are not elected on the basis of any notability as are these other societies. Fellow means something there. An elected member has credentials on a par with other distinguished members. Not here, though. Student7 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are criteria. You could not join this society tomorrow. There is an election procedure with proposers, checking, etc. See general criteria on the RSA website here. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Look at how many Wikipedia articles exist for their members. List of Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts. This is something notable that connects them, and thus a category for them should exist. News mention of notable people getting in, listed in that article, proves it is something notable. Dream Focus 23:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. They may have members who were already notable and whose presence graces their organization. But even they weren't truly elected. It's as if Stephen Hawking were in the same organization as I was. His presence would not make us both distinguished by osmosis! Apparently that is exactly the affect here in some editors minds! Student7 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A person has to be "notable" in RSA terms to become a Fellow (see criteria above). A significant number of these are "notable" in Wikipedia terms too. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are 27,000 "notable" people in the organization. This is doubtless more "notable" fellows than any of the next ten most highly populated organizations put together. There is a reason for that. The reason is that the "election" committee judges everyone who applies "notable," including some who were before joining. They have no idea and could care less. Student7 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am not convinced by the discussion that this award is defining and as such it should be deleted. Also since this was recreated due to an alleged lack of input on the previous discussion, that result should be the decision here unless there is a clear and convincing case made to keep. A no consensus here really supports the previous deletion decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 1 April 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think that for these top-level categories, it is appropriate to expand to use the non-abbreviated name for these legislators. I understand the attraction of using the abbreviated version in subcategories, and I think that is OK, but usually for legislators at least the top level one uses a non-abbreviated form. For example:

• Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons, but the subcategories use "Canadian MPs"
• Category:Members of the European Parliament, but the subcategories use "MEPs"
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, but the subcategories use "British MPs"
• Category:Members of the Hellenic Parliament, but the subcategories use "Greek MPs"

And so forth. I believe this would be conforming these categories to the usual standard for legislator categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. Looks much better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• rename, non-abbreviated form is much clearer. sonia♫ 08:25, 26 March 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.