< September 27 September 29 >

September 28

Canadian High Commissioners

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. See the British nomination below. The format is standardized for all of these type of categories. Without the standardization, we would have to rely on the entities themselves to remain consistent, and one look at the at least three different phrasings on this government page proves that's a bad idea.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadian High Commissioners to Category:High Commissioners of Canada
Propose renaming Category:Canadian High Commissioners to the United Kingdom to Category:High Commissioners of Canada to the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:Canadian High Commissioners to Pakistan to Category:High Commissioners of Canada to Pakistan
Propose renaming Category:Canadian High Commissioners to Barbados to Category:High Commissioners of Canada to Barbados
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Almost all of the categories for ambassadors and high commissioners are now in the format "High Commissioners [or Ambassadors] of XXX to YYY". These are some of the few that are not. Canadian ambassadors are in the "Ambassadors of Canada to YYY" format (see Category:Ambassadors of Canada), but not its high commissioners. I suspect this is because it is indeed very common to refer to high commissioners of Canada as "Canadian High Commissioners". So do we want to keep the Canadian ones unique in Category:High Commissioners (Commonwealth) due to common usage, or do we change them to be like the other categories? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 28 September 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.

Category:Tsumeb minerals

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 06:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tsumeb minerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This would best be handled using a list. Most minerals found there can be found elsewhere and as such being found in Tsumeb is not necessarily a defining characteristic of a mineral. Moreover, categorizing minerals through mines in which they're found is a sure recipe for category clutter. Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Strickja (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I suggest Speedy Delete as only-contributor agrees to deletionCurb Chain (talk) 08:01, 29 September 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.

Category:Aircraft of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)

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:Aircraft of the Global War on Terror. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aircraft of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A well-intentioned but not really defining and rather indeterminate category. "Aircraft of the Global War on Terror" might be a better cat, as the same aircraft are used in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. The Bushranger One ping only 22:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter much to me what you want to call the category, as long as there is one. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does make more sense. Changing my rationaile to Rename to Category:Aircraft of the Global War on Terror - The Bushranger One ping only 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just tagged the category for renaming, and I'm voting to rename it as well. You can fill in the reason, Bushranger. ----DanTD (talk) 22:33, 3 October 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.

Category:British High Commissioners to Egypt

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. See below. Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom is very clear in its naming format. So those who desire a greater change should nominate it and its subcategories for discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British High Commissioners to Egypt to Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to Egypt
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I nominated this category at WP:CFDS under criterion C2C so that it would match the standard format of "High Commissioners of XXX to YYY" that is used pretty much universally for the high commissioners categories now. A user objected and said that he thought further discussion was needed. The subcategories of Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom all use this format. There were no high commissioners of Great Britain (1707–1800) to Egypt, so using the broader "British" adjective is unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 28 September 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.

British ambassadors clean-up

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. None of the opposing arguments give a compelling reason why the category scheme for all other UK ambassador categories should not be used on these. A greater nomination may be necessary if some people want the entire scheme overturned, but these will not be outliers to it. (I also suggest the subcategories of Category:Ambassadors of the United States all be nominated for discussion.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British ambassadors to Luxembourg to Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Luxembourg
Propose renaming Category:British ambassadors to Germany to Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Germany
Propose renaming Category:British ambassadors to West Germany to Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to West Germany
Propose renaming Category:British ambassadors to Egypt to Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Egypt
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I nominated these categories at WP:CFDS under criterion C2C so that they would match the standard format of "XXX ambassadors to YYY" that is used pretty much universally for the ambassadors categories now. A user objected and said that he thought further discussion was needed. Most of subcategories of Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom are now in this format; these are the only ones that remain. (Note: I don't think there's any sense keeping the "British ambassadors of FOO" format for these particular categories, since all British ambassadors to these countries were from the UK—none were from Great Britain (1707–1800). For instances where there have been British ambassadors to a country from the UK, GB, and the Kingdom of England, it can make sense to keep a general "British ambassadors" category, as with Category:British ambassadors to France. But such general container categories are simply not needed for these particular states.)Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME shouldn't be a straightjacket, especially in categories where, as there is here, there's one outlier to the entire rest of the set. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; and one of the problems, as has been discussed in the thrashing out that occurred elsewhere, is that the "British ambassadors" form is ambiguous. It could mean "ambassadors that are of British nationality". But we don't care what nationality the ambassadors are—we care what government they represented. In the past, it was common for ambassadors to represent a country that was not the same country as their own nationality. A British person could have been the ambassadors of Spain to a third country, for instance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "British ambassador" is ambiguous than so is "ambassador of the United Kingdom", which could mean someone from the UK who happens to be an ambassador. Cjc13 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errrr...no. "Ambassador of the United Kingdom" is not ambigious in the least. "Ambassador from the United Kingdom" would have the ambiguity you describe. "British Ambassador" can be "the ambassador representing Britian" or "an ambassador from Britian", but "Ambassador of the United Kingdom" can only mean one thing: "the ambassador representing the United Kingdom". - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambassador of the United Kingdom" can also mean "Ambassador to the United Kingdom". Cjc13 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in normal usage, it can't. I challenge you to find one usage anywhere that uses "Ambassador of FOO" to actually mean "ambassador to FOO". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In normal usage, "British Ambassador" means "the ambassador representing Britain", regardless of the nationality of the ambassador. Cjc13 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 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.

Category:3D films India

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) 19:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:3D films India to Category:Indian 3D films
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose that this category be renamed to match the general format of the films categories, which is "FOOian films". I suppose it could also be Category:3D Indian films, but the format I propose seems to best match what already exists for films of other genres and types that are combined with a country of origin: e.g., Category:Indian comedy films. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 28 September 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.

Category:MeTV affiliates

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) 19:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MeTV affiliates to Category:Me-TV affiliates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The network is referred to as Me-TV with the hyphen on its official website and when shown in plain text on the network itself. Also, several websites including Sitcoms Online and that of the Chicago Tribune (where the network originated) spell it with the hyphen. mcy919 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 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.

Category:2011 Candidates, Yukon general election

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) 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2011 Candidates, Yukon general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Slightly different, yet simultaneously not, from my first case. Instead of being for a specific party, this category was originally constituted to contain everybody from any party who was running in this election — but again, without regard to whether the person was already an incumbent MLA or not. So, once corrected, the category now contains just one article — and if that person wins his seat on October 11, he'll have to be removed from it too and the category will be empty. Delete; Yukon general election, 2011 is already serving as the appropriate navigational hub with links to all the candidates who are notable enough for their own articles — and because he's already occupying the unusual (but not unprecedented) circumstance of being the incumbent Premier of Yukon without yet being a sitting MLA, Mr. Pasloski is already in an appropriate Yukon politicians category. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and find me one, just one, example of Wikipedia ever previously having a category of this type in a provincial or territorial election. And while they do exist for federal elections, they really shouldn't — and they aren't used the way you seem to think they should be, because people who were actual sitting members of parliament before or after the election are not sitting in them. What proof do you need besides the way similar categories are or aren't actually being used in actual practice? Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 9 October 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.

Category:2011 Progressive Conservative candidates, Ontario general election

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) 19:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2011 Progressive Conservative candidates, Ontario general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As this category was originally created and populated, it was also being used to contain the party's incumbent MPPs who happen to be running for re-election — which isn't useful, as it leads to extreme category bloat: if we created comparable categories for each and every election, long-serving politicians could end up in between five and ten, or possibly even more, of them at once. Rather, "candidate" categories are only supposed to contain people who, by virtue of not having been elected to the legislature, would otherwise have no categorization related to the relevant level of politics at all — and, of course, given the principle that election candidates are not generally notable just for being candidates, these can rarely contain more than a small handful of star candidates who were already notable enough for other things to have articles anyway. Given those two realities, as corrected this category now contains only three people, and the parent Category:Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates in Ontario provincial elections is not, and is unlikely to ever become, large enough to require subcategories for each individual election. Further, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election list already serves as a navigational hub, linking to all of the candidates, incumbent MPP or otherwise, who are notable enough for their own articles — and thus this category just isn't necessary. Delete and upmerge entries to Category:Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates in Ontario provincial elections. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. Category bloat is not a question of how many articles are in this category; it's a question of how many categories would have to be added to each individual article if we created similar categories for each and every party in each and every election and used them the way you wish to. Rosario Marchese, for instance, would have to be in six of these at once; Bill Murdoch would have to be in five; Herb Gray would have to be in 13. That's what "category bloat" is about: not the size of an individual category, but the number of categories that have to be created and added to articles if a certain categorization scheme is pursued. Bearcat (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election,_2011_(candidates)&action=history Ottawahitech (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I have a "clear party affiliation", exactly? At any rate, I've been around since 2003 and have administrator status on here — which means that I'm quite intimately familiar with how our practices for writing about provincial and federal elections have evolved and why they are the way they are, because I've been here to witness what gets done and why. But it's got jack-all to do with being biased for or against one party or another — trust me, in all of the editing I've done around this provincial election, you're not going to find one single solitary thing that reveals which party I personally chose to vote for last Thursday. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 9 October 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.

Category:Type theory stubs

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: Wrong process - thius discussion was moved to WP:SFD, at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/October/6#Category:Type theory stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Type theory stubs to Category:Programming language theory stubs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have slightly widened the scope of this stub template, so the name of the category should be changed as well. —Ruud 15:40, 28 September 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.

Category:LGBT parents

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. This is a very shaky category, as we do not typically characterize people by the children they have. There's only one category with anything close to this type of formatting, Category:Foster parents, and that's a legal status. So this has to go. Now, I want to speak to certain voters who attack the belief systems of the nominator or other commenters. That's not ever going to play here. Don't do it, or you risk being booted out of Wikipedia for good.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT parents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic, overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what on Justin's page would lead you to believe that he is homophobic, but nonetheless it's not entirely relevant; there are legitimate arguments against keeping the category (saying this as someone who voted to keep), and there's no evidence the nomination was made in bad faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow WP:AGF, WP:ETTIQUETTE, heck even, M:DICK. You disagree, that's fine. You're rude and assume bad faith, that's not fine. Please restrict your comments to the merits of my (and others' arguments) without leaping to accusations of bigotry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is a category, not an article; secondly, going fishing on peoples' userpages in search of imagined prejustice doesn't help your cause. Prejustice is wrong. All forms of prejustice. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Birmaniac should see my comment to Q. Same thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to admins Just for kicks, I figured I would take a look at the user contributions for

And noticed that the former is the creator of the category and edits articles about cats and cat shows, the second is a user with less than 25 edits about LGBT parenting and cat shows (and hasn't edited in over a year, but showed up for this), and the final has five edits in the past three and a half years about (wait for it...) LGBT parenting and cat shows. Something's fishy in Denmark... Also, notice that all three have happened to edit LaPerm. Without having any usercheck rights or anything, I'm inclined to say that there may be some sockpuppetry involved, especially considering the aggressively rude comments placed by the first two users. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. *facepalming at my fellow keep voters or rather voter, here* –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact one of the editors had been absent for over a year, and the other for over two years, is also concering. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A look at LGBT parenting discloses that it covers the second group of people I listed, but not the first; perhaps a better definition of the category is in order then? Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point: not all the parents in your second group adopted children, some are biological. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point to a specific example? Mangoe (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The LGBT parenting article has a section on forms of LGBT parenting, and all are represented in the list. Adoption is not the most common way in which LGBT people become parents, although it is a very significant one. If the suggestion is that the category should cover only people who have parented children in a same-sex relationship then that would be hard to make workable there are people who have conceived and started parenting a child in an opposite sex relationship and then subsequently been in a same sex relationship and continued being an active parent. Gene Robinson is an example- he is one of the most famous gay people in the world and one of the first people to come to mind when people think of gay parents, but his children were conceived in an opposite sex relationship. The LGBT community includes bisexual and transgender people. Tom Robinson, for example, has a high profile as a bisexual person and LGBT activist who had a key role in the history of the political LGBT movement. Bisexual activists try to educate people that bisexuals are still bisexual even if they are in opposite sex relationships, so it would seem wrong to strike him off if the list is supposed to include bisexuals also. Inclusivity is an important concept in the LGBT community and its politics. The article does mention that some LGBT people have children as a result of former relationships, in fact they make up the largest group of LGBT parents (albeit now shrinking in relation to other groups) so it would be wrong to exclude them. Where would the cut off come? People like Meredith Baxter who are out lesbian mothers shouldn't be excluded because they had their children in opposite sex relationships. But also someone looking at the history of LGBT parenting might benefit from having a ket figure in LGBT history like Oscar Wilde there. It is significant in the history of the LGBT movement that a gay parent like Wilde was prevented from seeing his children because of his sexuality. Quincunxcats (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that parents who have raised or are raising children in a same-sex relationship would be appropriate for the category even if the children were initially produced in an opposite-sex relationship, because it is still relevant to the topic of same-sex parenting - indeed, as you point out, it is very common. However, I continue to disagree that "LGBT people who are parents," as opposed to people raising kids in same-sex couples, is an appropriately narrow scope for the category - there simply isn't the same volume of scholarly literature on the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take your point, but in some cases it may be difficult to decide which category to put someone in. For example, if someone entered a same sex relationship when their child was sixteen would they still qualify? At what age would the cut off point come and what if that information wasn't available? At what point do you stop being an active parent? A parent still parents their child even if both are adults. Would you want to exclude someone like Mel White whose children were probably relatively grown up when he came out and became a well known LGBT activist within the church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincunxcats (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What your questions lead to here is the likelihood that the category cannot be defined without expanding it to people the fact of whose parenting isn't notable. If there is a problem establishing when parenting is occurring in a same sex relationship, it suggests that it isn't a well-defined category. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take all the various refinements to my second class, but it still seems clear to me that there are two categories, one not notable and the other potentially notable, the latter being something like "people raising children in LGBT relationships". But further consideration leads me to doubt that even this is notable: after all, isn't the argument that raising children in such a family is really no different than raising them in any other form of family? I'm coming to the conclusion that the whole notion isn't notable, and therefore I am inclined to Delete the category in its entirety. Mangoe (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, if that's your rationale then you have missed the point. The argument is not that raising children in same sex relationships is no different from other forms of family. There are some significant differences, for example that LGBT parents can often be discriminated against in law, and this is why they have become a category of particular focus for the political LGBT rights movement. What is not different is the outcomes in terms of parenting success. Quincunxcats (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean that when someone creates Category:People raised in same-sex relationships, you'll agree to its deletion? Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "the argument is that it's no different from raising children in an opposite-sex couple" holds water as a rationale for deletion. In spite of this argument, there have been studies etc. on same-sex parenting; it is a topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is proof with the recent additions of people like Jared Polis to the category that it is very much a live and active topic, continually growing and keeping pace with news and events. Quincunxcats (talk) 10:16, 4 October 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.

Category:Spacecraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution

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 "Individual..." and purge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spacecraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Aircraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete both. These are examples of categories that would work much better as lists. The categories are non-defining for most, if not all of the types listed, and they also opens the question as to whether or not other museums should have their own categories. IMHO, these should be deleted and/or listified - the aircraft actually have a list page already, that should be expanded. The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only-survivors are questionable; I can see the arguments either way. That might be something to be discussed at WT:AIR after the CfD closes. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a little more background these categories were created when we created the WikiProject for the Smithsonian Museum which falls under GLAM. Unfortunately the project hasn't had much activity itself but I am hoping that will change in time. The categories were created to better identify artifacts and items in the museums collection so that in future collaborations it would be easier to see what articles needed to be constructed or improved. I am not opposed to the disussion being under WP:AIR but if you do so I would request dropping a line to the SI project page as well. There are some initiatives happening over the next couple months that may give some more activity to the SI project. --Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No prob; once this closes I'll see about setting up a thread for the "last survivor" thingy. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to include individual BUT it then should only be used on articles describing indiviudal aircraft not aircraft types even if it is the only one left. Do we start a cat for every museum that has the last one of anything? MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 8 October 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.

Category:Beşiktaş basketballers

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 and purge. I've moved the female players to the women's category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Beşiktaş basketballers to Category:Beşiktaş men's basketball players
Nominator's rationale: Rename, and also move all women in the category to Category:Beşiktaş women's basketball players (newly created). Split by sex, and also use the more common term "basketball players". Dale Arnett (talk) 06:50, 28 September 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.

Category:Miscarriage victims

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 17:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Miscarriage victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, partly for the same reason that Category:Rape victims is always deleted. It's a BLP-sensitive topic that is almost never defining, and we have no business categorizing people in this way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:42, 28 September 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.

Category:STOL

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) 19:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:STOL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is one of those "seems like a great idea" catgegories, that once it starts getting populated proves to have been "at the time". The criterion is simply too nebulous: how do you define STOL? Do pure VTOL aircraft get included (some have)? What about STOLports (ditto)? At the very least it should be renamed to "STOL aircraft", but I think it would be best to be deleted as too indiscriminate and undefinable. The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 28 September 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.

Category:Jamaican people of Jewish descent

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. These categories have now survived multiple deletion nominations, so even though there's a split decision here, I'm giving them a keep result. I'm also overturning the decision of Category:People of Jewish descent to give these a home.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jamaican people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Russian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian people of Hungarian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian people of Polish-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Australian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Belgian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Colombian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Croatian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cuban people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Czech people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dutch people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:French people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hungarian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pakistani people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Polish people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Romanian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Serbian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swedish people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ukrainian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German people of Austrian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German people of Hungarian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German people of Polish-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German people of Romanian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German people of Russian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American people of Moroccan-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American people of Portuguese-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American people of Romanian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American people of Syrian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American people of Slovak-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American people of Swiss-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American people of Turkish-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Austrian people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Austrian people of Czech-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Austrian people of Russian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Austrian people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Newly added single entry category added after the parent category, Category:People of Jewish descent was deleted at a full CfD upheld at DRV. This probably qualifies as a speedy. The other option is an upmerge to Category:Jamaican Jews. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the parent cat has already been deleted and DRV'd with a confirmation, so this tree's roots have already been hit with Roundup. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 3 October 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.
More