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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale We should only use Austrian to refer to people who lived at or after the end of World War I and the disintegration of Austria-Hungary. We have Category:Austro-Hungarian people and should have Category:People of the Austrian Empire or a similar title, which would cover all these people. How to treat pre-1804 people of Asutria is somewhat of a dilema, but using Austrian as a nationality designator in the 19th century opens up too many ambiguities for it to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see no problem with this category, but it should be confined to approximately the extent of the modern Austria, with those from the provinces of the Kingdom of Hungary in a Hungarian category, and those from Bohemia and Moravia Category:19th century Czech people in one or two other categories. The unity of the dual state of Austria and Hungary goes back to the end of the medieval period. The alternative might be to use a different split - people of Imperial Austria [1804-1918]. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to confine it to the extent of modern Austria would be ahistorical. It would also require original research and direct contradicting of any pre-1918 sources. Austria was always more broad than modern Austria, modern Slovenia had been part of Austria at the most integral level for centuries, and the same was true of most of the South Tyrol and Trieste. In fact, Salzburg had been in Austria for less time, since it was not too long before tit was part of the Archbishopric of Salzburg. Voralberg was at least as distinct from the area around Vienna as what is now Slovenia, probably more so. It actually came close to joining Switzerland after World War I. It is even worse to put people from Bohemia in a Czech people category, because a large portion of the residents of Bohemia, especially in the Sudentenland, were not at all Czech. However this applied to those in Prague. In fact in 1848 most German nationalists saw Bohemia as integrally part of Germany. Since there was part of Saxony with a Slavic majority population at that time, they were not as off base as modern people might claim. We should not retroactively apply the modern boundaries of Austria in the 19th century. Doing so with Hungary would be even worse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in fact in 1919 in Voralberg they voted by an 80% margin to join with Switzerland. The idea that they were any more integral to Austria than was what is today Slovenia was totally foriegn to them. They fully realized that they were the furthest east part of Switzerland, the last Swiss domains under Habsburg control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary is quite a messy state of affairs for these sorts of categories and I'm not sure deleting the 19th century or merging it into a state that only formally existed after 1867 is the best way to go about it. The whole tree may need wider consideration. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2012 (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.
Austrian expatriates in the Czech lands
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. All are categorise in (at least) Austrian categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Austrian expatriates in the Czech lands
Nominator's rationale this category makes less sense than Category:American expatriates in the Confederate States of America. From 1867-1918 the Czech lands were part of the Austrian sub-division of Austria-Hungary. From 1804-1867 they were part of the Austrian Empire. for hundreds of years before that it is hard to see an Austrian as any more an expatriate in Prague than a Californian is an expatriate in Philadelphia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but check that they are all categorised either in an Austrian or a Czech category before deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2012 (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.
Venetian emigrants to the United States
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.
Rename per nom. - choster (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after recategorising the one article into Category:Italian emigrants to the United States. This category is too specific. I hope we do not have cognate categories for Naples (Two Sicilies), Papal States, Tuscany, etc. If we do, they too should be merged into the Italian category. Italy was a well-understood concept long before Garibaldi's resorgimento. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These people came from a distinct nation state. What is the reason to delete them? Anyway, much of the territory that was under Venetian rule has never been under the control of Italy, except maybe during World War II.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a conceptual nightmare. If a hypothetical family lived for 2 millennia in the same house in Ancient Corinth and exported one child from each generation, those emigrants would be categorised in succession as emigrants from Ancient Greece, Roman Empire, Byzantine Greece, the Principality of Achaea, the Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Venice, the Ottoman Empire (again), then the Kingdom of Greece. Something about how we categorise historical people needs a radical rethink, because these frequently-changed boundaries make a mockery of any attempt to use the category system as a navigational device at such a fine level. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hypotheticals are not a good way to approach this. We have an actual case of immigration to the United States here that deserves categorizing. Anyway your hypothetical situation is inherently misleading, because most military takeovers of cities involve displacing large amounts of the population. A key problem with ignoring historical realities in categorizing is that would not deal with the facts that the population excahnges of the first half of the 20th century in Eatern Europe fundamentally changed the nature of the population in many cities. It is generally very different families sending out emigrants in 1820 than in 1970 from many of these cities. Anyway, national governments do exert influence on their citizens. People through estern Europe are constantly being Turkified, Slavicized, Teutonized, Magyarized and all sorts of other ethnic transformations. People are other not the same ethnicity as their grandparents, even if they live in the same place. This becomes very true in cases like Turkey where under Ataturk they embarked on a proactive campaign to make all inhabitrants of the nation into Turks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Italian emigrants to the United States. This is too fine a distinction for categories. We routinely categorize Republic of Venice people as being "Italian" for categorization purposes, just as we routinely categorize pre-1776 residents of the Thirteen Colonies as "American" and pre-1991 Soviet people from Kazakh SSR as "Kazakhstani". I don't think there's a problem with this as far as categorization goes. The article text always works out the details of the precise nationality of the time that they "were". Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:04, 18 April 2012 (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:PDFlink without a parameter
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.
Nominator's rationale: I've finally gone and fixed all of the instances of articles misusing the template, including the ~70 that PDFbot couldn't fix by itself. I've now added an ((error)) to the template so that errors are immediately obvious: that obviates the need for a hidden cleanup category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2012 (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:Polish independence and revolutionary organizations
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 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:Academicians by nationality
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Another dubious subcategory of the Category:Members of learned societies. I'm aware that pointing out the extend of confusion between nationality and institutional affiliation within the academics categories would be like fighting a hydra. However, at least we might settle on not confusing an academic's nationality with a membership in a national academy. Currently, when considering its subcategories, this category seems to be about the latter while claiming to be about the former. Btw, the interlanguage links seem to refer to academics, not academicians. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I had just assumed that "Members of national academies" is what the category's creator had intended in the first place, because there is actually no sorting "by nationality". Most of the categories have already been inserted into the Category:Members of learned societies anyways. I also realize that some of the learned societies, on the other hand, aren't national academies. So maybe I'd propose a kind of "careful merging"... --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced that this is a useful category. These people will all be properly classified under their specific artistic, leterary or scholarly pursuits. This category just boils down to Category:Another category to put already overcategorized people in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Despite their very different names, these two categories do seem to be essentially redundant to one another, so we are probably better off not having both of them. The nominator's proposal and rationale are fairly persuasive, but I'd like to see additional discussion before I make up my mind. Cgingold (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. The subject is redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (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:Scientists by learned society
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I fail to see this category's propose purpose in relation to the parent category Members of learned societies. This category suggests that all members of learned societies are scientists (as distinguished from "academics" or "scholars"), which is debatable. On the other hand, its title doesn't specify the scientists' state of affiliation to the learned societies, either. There are different kinds of learned societies, some who do research independently from universities, others who don't. So, is this category meant to include elected members, researches, both, or whom? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete and move articles to parent category "Members of learned societies". Current use is not clear or helping. Move articles to parent category Members of learned societies, if not already part of it. -- SchreyP(messages) 17:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate - The only problem here is that after creating this category I didn't finish the job. My apologies. (I just reviewed my edits from mid-October 2011, when I created it, and it appears that I got sidetracked by some other things I was working on.) The reason I created the category was because I had spotted several categories that had been placed directly in the super-cat Category:Scientists, adding unneeded clutter to that already very full category. Far better to group them together in a single category, along with all the other comparable categories, of which there are dozens located in Category:Members of learned societies. This will also improve navigability in that category, which currently has more than 75 sub-cats, about equally divided between scientific and non-scientific societies. Again, my apologies for not finishing the job. Cgingold (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: In no way does this category "suggest that all members of learned societies are scientists". That's complete nonsense. Quite to the contrary, it is intended precisely to separate out those who are scientists from all of the other sorts of academics who belong to learned societies. Cgingold (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet further comment: The other issues identified by the nominator have nothing whatsoever to do with this category, which is merely a container category for the existing categories (some of which may suffer from the defects he describes). Cgingold (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the point in naming such a category "Scientists by learned society" instead of "Members of scientific societies". It's obviously meant to fit the other "Scientists by..." categories, but it works much better the other way 'round, for a number of reasons. I hope you don't intend to create categories such as "Scientists who are members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences", "Artists who are members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences" etc., which would be a huge effort with little gain. So, let's imagine seperating members of the purely scientific societies from the other ones. The only benefit I see would be the improved navigability you mentioned, with the usual cost of an additional category level, i.e. the loss of overview and higher demand of maintenance. So, I still don't see the need for such a category. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would be happy to talk about renaming the category, though I'm not yet persuaded that Category:Members of scientific societies would be an improvement. Your straw-man question about other categories I might want to create is farcical and something of an insult to my intelligence -- surely not what you intended?? (Feel free to strike thru and I'll consider it withdrawn.) As for the rest, improved navigability is hugely important, not merely an incidental benefit. I certainly don't see the creation of another category level as a "cost" or impediment, when the result is greatly improved navigation. I'm not at all sure what you mean by "higher demand of maintenance". In any event, I think the need for this category was made evident by the circumstance I described above that prompted its creation. Do you really want to see all of those sub-cats added directly to the super-cat Category:Scientists?? I certainly hope not! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry if you interpret my comment as an insult, and maybe we should have kept this discussion in the user namespace. So I apologize for not waiting for your answer concerning your reasons for creating the category. However, categories of the kind I had named would be the necessary consequence of a Category:Scientists by learned society. As for the navigability: First, it's not like there are hundreds of "members of learned societies" categories, so navigability isn't an issue of such huge importance yet. Second, most of the learned societies listed are scientific societies, so the improvement would be rather small. And third, if we take navigability seriously, we should search for options that help creating a kind of intuitive navigability. I'd prefer keeping equivalent categories on the same level, while seperating scientific societies from other learned societies would be a rather "artificial" move, especially when considering the close relation of arts and humanities. Concerning renaming: The category I had proposed would be a different category needing different parent categories, and the current one isn't very populated anyway. And I still just don't see the need for such a category, whatever it may be named. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I think I finally understand the point you were trying to make (a bit clumsily) about other categories that would be "needed" for scientists who happen to belong to other kinds of learned societies. In practice, it's highly unlikely that that issue would arise; in any event, we certainly wouldn't create such categories. However, as I indicated, I would be amenable to a name change in order to eliminate any uncertainty on that score.
The more important issue here is navigation -- not just for the sub-cats that this category was created for, but equally for the other non-scientific societies. I just took a close look at all of the sub-cats, and roughly 70% of them are for scientific societies, with about 30% for non-scientific societies. With more than 70 sub-cats, it's already a visually confusing welter, which would be vastly easier to navigate if the scientific and non-scientific sub-cats were separated. We could also consider creating an umbrella sub-category for societies pertaining to the arts & humanities, which would be on a par with this category.
Lastly, you haven't made any attempt to deal with the paramount issue that prompted the creation of this category. There are approx. 50 categories for members of scientific societies. They absolutely require an umbrella category (however named) that places them in the category tree for the super-cat, Category:Scientists. In the absence of such a category, they will end up being place directly in Category:Scientists, which would create a terrible mess. Talk about maintenance! Cgingold (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one creating a shortcut between the Category:Scientists and the Category:Members of learned societies, which both are subcategories of the Category:Academics. So, as far I can tell, these categories had been unrelated until then, and by deleting the category, that would be the case again. The relation of the Scientists and the Academics categories, then, would probably be the main subject of debate. Currently, the Category:Scientists is just one of 60 subcategories of the Category:Scholars and academics by subject, meaning that many of these categories (for example, the Category:Mathematicians) are both on the same level as the Category:Scientists and subcategories of it - which does not make sense at all. So, apparently, the question what distinguishes a scientist from an academic in general (concerning categories) hasn't been solved convincingly yet. I don't think that, right know, creating another link between these branches makes this question easier. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. I am just about at my wit's end here. What does it take to get my point across?? "So, as far I can tell, these categories had been unrelated until then..."?? Are you kidding me?!?? Please go back and re-read what I said about this above -- these sub-cats were already being added directly to Category:Scientists. I created this category precisely to clean up the mess that had inadvertently been created by other editors. How much more plainly can I say it??? Cgingold (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, I had only checked the Category:Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, my apology. So, two "members of learned societies" categories had actually been subcategories of Category:Scientists before. This certainly doesn't constitute a "mess", so why are you arguing for inserting dozens of similar categories as a consequence, instead of just removing those few categories from the "scientists" branch? There are so many plain misconceptions within the categorial system that need to be dealed with by removing categories, like the Category:Members of the United States National Academy of Sciences being a subcategory of Category:American scientists. You're arguing as if having members of learned societies within the scientists categories branch were absolutely mandatory, but it's not.
So, let me get this straight, 'cause this will be my last answer: Like I had tried to explain (talking 'bout reading and re-reading...), the "members of learned societies" categories are subcategories of the Category:Academics, just like the Category:Scientists is. I'd say that segmentation is just fine and sufficient. You're arguing for the members of scientific societies needing a category on their own. Alright, so when done competently, this would have two benefits: The Category:Members of learned societies would get tidied up, and the "scientists" category branch would get an additional "... by learned society"-like sorting, whatever we might call it. As you have written yourself, the majority of the "members of learned societies" refers to scientific learned societies, so a moderately packed category would largely just get moved one category level down. Now, I don't intend to underestimate the advantage concerning the categories' then clearer arrangement, but I'm not convinced that it actually leads to a better navigability, due to a) what I refer to as a "non-intuitive" seperation of equivalent categories (an ordinary user who may navigate down from the "academics" branch just doesn't know straightaway which learned societies are purely "scientific" ones; concerning this argument, I'd still prefer using the already existent Category:Members of national academies instead) and b) the tedency of such fine distinctions being totally flattened by other editors' categorizations (leading to redundant categorization, i.e. inserting "members of scientific societies" categories into the parent "members of learned societies" category). Concerning the latter benefit, I just regard this to be a kind of "making the second step before the first". What is a "scientist" in this context? You might consider this to be a trivial question, but currently, as I had pointed out, a mathematician is simultaneously categorized as a scientist and someone who is equal to a scientist, i.e. a non-scientist (which is not just my personal interpretation, but the the kind of discrimination the categorial system necessarily creates – and it's not a bug, it's a feature, at least if we're able to cope with it). Shouldn't we address such basical concerns before creating additional categories which absolutely depend on a clear distinction of their subjects?
To sum it up, the problem I see is that you're trying to cope with a mess by creating additional mess to cover the existent one. Unfortunately, such behavior isn't uncommon in the English Wikipedia's category system and it's a main reason for the misconceptions I had mentioned, but that certainly doesn't mean we should go on like that. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Oh, and as for the maintenance: If we took the separation "members of national academies" and "members of other learned societies" seriously, this would be the kind of additional category level I'd support. However, experience tells me that such seperation of different levels are always disregarded in the long run, which is also why I had nominated the Category:Fellows of learned societies for deletion. As mentioned above, the improvement concerning navigability would be small anyway, and it'd be totally flattened by redundant categorization within a little while. Always having to keep an eye on that is what I meant by "higher demand of maintenance". --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after moving any scientists not so categorized into specific categories for their field of study.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment suggests that you haven't seen what's actually in the category. Perhaps you should take a look at the contents (current and potential), and hopefully reconsider in light of my comments above. Cgingold (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No my comment suggests that I am not persuaded that categorizing people by membership in a given society makes any sense at all. How is this any different than the ended categorizing of people as having been freemasons?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you really do seem to have misunderstood what's being discussed here. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the particular category we're discussing, which merely groups together a number of already-existing sub-categories. The issue you've raised pertains to those sub-cats, so if you wish to pursue that you might want to open up a whole new CFD discussion. In the mean time, until and unless a decision is taken to eliminate those sub-cats, the only question -- as I've explained above -- is how best to link them into the category tree under Category:Scientists. Cgingold (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS - As you apparently said yourself, below, "since we have the categories, having the grouping of the categories is useful." In fact, it's necessary. Cgingold (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Members of learned societies. They are essentially the same thing. The target should priamrily be a container category, though list articles might properly belong. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, you're not looking at the whole picture. Please review my remarks above explaining the paramount issue that prompted the creation of this category. Cgingold (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this category is to group together those categories that are for societies comprised entirelyexclusively of scientists (which does, of course, include social scientists). The overiding objective is to avoid the mess that would result from those categories being added individually directly to the super-cat, Category:Scientists (as was being done), since they clearly belong in that category tree. I do hope you will address that issue, BHG. As I said above, I am open to renaming the category; perhaps Category:Members of scientific societies?? Cgingold (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I see what you were trying to do, but but because of the lack of a clear split between scientific and non-scientific learned societies, I don't think that it works. Some other solution is needed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a clear split, BHG -- between those societies that are comprised exclusively of scientists on the one hand, and all of the other learned societies on the other hand, which of course includes those "mixed" societies you're concerned about. Only the purely scientific societies would be categorized as such -- the "mixed" societies don't enter the picture at all. Hopefully I've now clarified things to your satisfaction? Cgingold (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sorted it, I'm afraid :( Per your explanation this is not a Category:Scientists by learned society. It is a category of scientists who are member of exclusively scientific learned societies. It seems unhelpful to navigation that the involvement of scientists in learned societies should be split in this way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the statement about "does include social scientists" caused me to realize another problem with this category. The definition of "scientist" is fluid and debatable. We should avoid category names that open debate, as is the classification of a broad group of people under the heading of scientist. The very fact that someone has to say "which does include social scientists" is an acknowledgement of the fact that many people would dispute the classification of scocial scientists as scienttists. It is a debatable classification, and we try and avoid such with categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. John, could you possibly focus your comments on the very specific issues that pertain directly to this particular category? This new issue you've brought up goes way beyond the scope of this CFD discussion -- so it really makes no sense at all to call it "another problem with this category." Like I said before -- if you wish to pursue the issue, you are certainly free to open up a whole new CFD discussion calling into question the entire category tree for Category:Scientists. (I kind of suspect you'll raise a few eyebrows with that one...) As for social scientists -- really, that's more of a cocktail party kind of debate. Hardly anybody would seriously contend that they are not honest-to-goodness scientists. Again, if you really want to pursue that issue, you're welcome to open another CFD. This just isn't the right place for that debate. Cgingold (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge to members of learned societies/fellows of learned societies, as appropriate. If no consensus to merge, then Rename to members of learned scientific societies/fellows of learned scientific societies as appropriate (Though not sure about retaining the word "learned"). I'm fine with seeing this go either way. - jc37 23:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Members of learned societies. Per my comment above, learned societies are not neatly divisible into scientific societies and others, because some include all academic disciplines. I am aware that this will remove the membership of these groups from the scientists tree, but that seems better than a category whose scope will always be misleading. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Members of scientific societies, which is what it is. These are obviously part of the 'scientists' tree, which is where Cgingold found them initially. (Learned societies are neatly divisible into societies which are purely scientific and those which are not purely scientific.) Oculi (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2012 (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:Fellows of learned societies
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category is completely redundant to the parent category Category:Members of learned societies, with the exception of including some articles and categories related to "research fellowships" (Guggenheim fellowships etc.), though this isn't done in a consequent manner either (the article Guggenheim Fellowship is part of this category, but not the related Category:Guggenheim Fellowships). However, these two kinds of "fellowships" are completely different from each other and must not be confused by creating such a category. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete and move articles to parent category "Members of learned societies". For some learned societies fellow or member is the same, so the distinction is artificial. And if different it can be made clear with a separate category in the parent category Category:Members of learned societies. Move articles to this parent category if not already part of it. -- SchreyP(messages) 17:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this groups together people with a specific kind of relationship with these societies. Whether we need all these categories I do not know, but since we have the categories, having the grouping of the categories is useful.21:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
Keep - to me this just seems like simple diffusion of like/similarly named things. I'm not sure what problem deletion would be solving here. If anything, I would think that this would help navigation, rather than the other way round. That said, I'm not sure that having "fellows" as a subcat of "members" is appropriate. So maybe this should be recatted to be a member of the parents? I dunno. - jc37 23:44, 19 April 2012 (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:Fictional MI6 agents
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:Fictional British secret agents; revisit if this precise form is problematic. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. An opposed speedy rename. MI6 redirects to Secret Intelligence Service. The parent category is Category:Secret Intelligence Service personnel. The overall parent category is Category:Secret Intelligence Service. Since "MI6" is common shorthand for this organization, the existing category could be a redirect, but I don't see any good reason not to conform this subcategory to the name format used in by its parent categories and the articles in Wikipedia. They may usually called "MI6" agents in fiction and real-life, but that doesn't mean we have to use the shorthand term for this category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose they are usually called MI6 agents in fiction, so this would be using a rare variant to categorize them under. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge to Category:Fictional secret agents and spies, there is no reason for such precision with fictional people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nom proposal (as per my objection at speedy), since they are commonly referred to in fiction as "MI6" agents. Further, "Secret Intelligence Service" doesn't even usually show up in fiction, so would be inconsistent with the topic at hand, fictional MI6 agents. Neutral on the merge proposal to combine all fictional spies together. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Fictional UK secret agents. The important aspect here is their UK nationality, to distinguish them from CIA etc. We should preserve that much, so I'm against Category:Fictional secret agents and spies as too broad. We don't care though about MI6 vs. SIS, not because of the naming precision, but because of the broader scope. We just don't care (at this level) between the MI5 / MI6 / Army distinctions. For fiction there are also invented groups like CI5 or The Laundry, which should clearly be included under this cat, yet are neither MI5, MI6 nor SIS. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional UK secret agents per Andy's argument. - The BushrangerOne ping only 05:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, "UK" is never used in categories as an adjective. Do we mean Category:Fictional British secret agents or Category:Fictional United Kingdom secret agents? I prefer the former. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional British secret agents per GoF, and per Andy Dingley's arguments above. - jc37 22:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional British secret agents. I agree with the IP, but I think Andy makes a a well-reasoned argument for why it should be renamed. Jenks24 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2012 (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:Anarchist films
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. If there are films by anarchists that are not anarchism in here, they should be removed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While encouraging the creation of the suggested new cat and moving most of the articles here into it, I'm not sure that there isn't also scope for films in the 1920s and 1930s (particularly of the Spanish civil war) that were produced by anarchists as deliberate propaganda. These would be "anarchist films" in the literal sense, not V for Vendetta (film), which is a film intended to make profits for Warner Bros. Last time I looked, Warners were firmly capitalist, rather than anarchist in nature. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stefanomione, if you see this discussion it's best to not create anything in this area until the matter is resolved at Cfd, per jc37's comment to you yesterday. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename/Merge - Category:Anarchist works and all it's similarly named subcats (including the nominated Category:Anarchist films), for the reasons outlined above. Rename/merge to Works about anarchism, but only if each entry is appropriate to such categorisation. - jc37 23:49, 19 April 2012 (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:Arabic-language women's writers
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.
Nominator's rationale This is one of only two sub-cats of Category:Women writers by nationality that is actually a by language category (the other is Category:Telugu women writers, which is either a combination of ethnicity and language, or just misnamed. There is a whole mess there that is different). It is not clear why women writing in Arabic are a distinct group when we do not have Category:English-language women writers or Category:Spanish language women writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2012 (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:Black science fiction writers
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.
Nominators rationale we do not categorize people by race. This category involves conflating people of African descent in the US, Britain and Canada as somehow a unified ethnic group and then using a clearly racial label for them. This is not an ethnic category, but a racial category, and as such we should not have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am reserving judgement on this particular category. However, I have to take issue with the suggestion that there is no valid rationale for grouping together categories for people of African descent in the US, Britain and Canada. They clearly have a great deal in common, in terms of both their ancestry and cultural heritage, and their life experience as black people in majority-white/European societies. Cgingold (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it is customary to not group professions by race. Ethnicity is fine, and we have Category:African American science fiction writers. But lumping together writers from US and, say, Congo, just because they share the same skin color, seems rather pointless. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most African Americans in the US have large amounts of Native American and or European ancestry. In general their families have been in the US since well before 1850. Most African Americans in Britain have only or almost only African ancestry. In general their first ancestors who came to Britain came in 1900 or later, and from either the Caribbean or Africa. I would challenge on ethnic grounds the placement of Mia Love the daughter of Haitian immigrants in Category:African-American politicians because she is not ethnically African American, she is only classed as such when people do race and not ethnicity based classifications. However to claim that African Americans and Afro-British people "have the same ancestry" is to ignore the very different situations in which they live. Also Clarence Thomas clearly has origins in a society that has never been in any way European majority. The fact that in 1860 South Carolina and Louisiana had slave majority populations, never mind the many free people of African descent, and in parts of South Carolina the "free people of color" who were Native Americans, shows that the claims about being in a European majority society does not stand up to scrutiny in all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we do not have Category:Black writers. That said, one of these writers is from Grenada, one is from Jamaica, one is a Nigeria born American (why she is not in the African American sub-cat I do not know), one is a Trinadad and Tobago born writer in Britain and one is Kenyan. So all of those currently in the category were born in black majority societies, and 3 of them work in Black majority socieites. If this is not "categorizing by race" than nothing is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. No evidence has been provided that "black science fiction writers" are a notable topic of scholarly study, and without such evidence this fails WP:CATGRS. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 12 April 2012 (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:Beaches in Malaysia
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 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:EXO (band)
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. With only two articles and a template included, this category doesn't seem necessary for navigation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP EXO is new kpop group which just debuted in March 2012, and as of 17 April 2012 there are 3 subcategories and 4 pages on it, and people are starting to use it. --Lpmfx (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2012 (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:Solar eclipse of 2010 January 15
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. One of two categories that are not part of an overall scheme, the contents are adequately covered by the article, and there is no need to replicate Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move files to commons. I think the best first step would be to move the files to commons. Then the category would naturally be emtpied. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom this is an image category without being in the image category tree, or indicating that it is an image category. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2012 (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:Solar eclipse of 1893 April 16
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. One of two categories that are not part of an overall scheme, the contents are adequately covered by the article, and there is no need to replicate Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move files to commons. I think the best first step would be to move the files to commons. Then the category would naturally be emptied. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom this is an image category without being in the image category tree, or indicating that it is an image category. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2012 (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:Oriya writers and Gujarati writers
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.
Nominator's rationale Oriya is both an ethnic and a lingustic designation like French. This category is currently in the writers by language written in tree, and so should be repurposed for this. It may also need purging of those who are ethnic Oriya who wrote in other languages, but I am not sure if any such people appear in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gujarati has the same problem, with the added complication that "Gujarati may refer to anything of or related to Gujarat". Thus Gujarati could also include those of other ethnic groups who are from Gujarat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2012 (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:Contributor to Rees's Cyclopaedia, 1802-1819
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 - jc37 22:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Contributor to Rees's Cyclopaedia, 1802-1819 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We generally do not categorize people by what venue or publication their works have appeared in. Doing so comprehensively would lead to tremendous category clutter. Essentially, it is analogous to "performer by performance" overcategorization. The information is already contained in a list found in the article Rees's Cyclopædia. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I shudder to think of how many encyclopedias reach the level of this one, and what would happen if we categorized by the contribution everyone who we had an article on who had contributed. Do not go there, down that path lies madness. Especially if we start Category:Contributors to the World Book Encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Cyclopaedia is notable and as a past historical event it's bounded against future expansion. The contributors are sourced and relatively few in number - this wasn't WP where thousands wrote a word each. As to "performer by performance", then what about the infinity of "NFL league players 1984" etc. that we have out there? We're not seriously suggesting that we remove those too. As to "category clutter", then that's as fallacious an argument as claiming that we need to delete big articles because the servers are running out of bytes. WP is just a small wiki by many standards - the page view volumes and the edit rate are huge, but the page count isn't uniquely large and page complexity or cat inclusion levels are downright piffling compared to a large commercial intranet wiki on the same MediaWiki platform. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how one gets from the fact that the Cyclopaedia is notable to the argument that we should categorize contributors to the Cyclopaedia by that contribution. I'm also not clear on what is being referred to by "NFL league players 1984". I don't see categories that categorize NFL players by year of playing in the league. Finally, category clutter is measured on WP by comparing ourselves to ourselves and WP standards and guidelines, not by comparing ourselves to other Wikis that may exist in the universe. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apwoolrich (talk·contribs) has done great work in creating the article on Rees's Cyclopædia, and the result is very impressive. Apwoolrich also created and populated this category, and I dislike dismantling any part of the hard work of such a conscientious editor, but I agree that the category should go. I have just spent some time studying the article Rees's Cyclopædia and the nominated category ... and have so far found no evidence that contributing to the pedia was a defining characteristic of any of those categorised. I checked all the articles on contributors indexed under "B", and found that a) in some cases it was not known which topics they had contributed to; b) the only article which asserted that its subject was notable for their role in the pedia was William Blair, but there was no reference to support this claim; c) most of the contributors appeared to be have been recruited for their pre-existing notability. Additionally, it seems that that Rees's Cyclopædia did not receive as much acclaim as might have been deserved, so it's hard to support any assumption that its contributors are likely to have been noted for their involvement. I Most of the subjects of the articles I checked were he authors of numerous other published works, and I see no reason to single out this particular one as defining; OTOH categorising writers in whatever scholarly discipline by their publication of noted reference books or scholarly works or contributions to learned journals would be a recipe for horrendous category clutter (as noted by other editors, above). We have a Category:Signatories by document for signatories of documents of particular historical significance, but I see no similar category for contributors to any publication. So I think that the nominator is right that this is is analogous to "performer by performance" overcategorization, and that we are better served by the comprehensive list which Apwoolrich has created in the head article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The reason why I created the category was that the new lives I was creating were being flagged as needing categorising. (When I started his phase of the work about 1/3 of the contributors had no pages on WP, so I am writing them gradually.) If they don't need a specific category for Rees, that's fine by me since it will save me work. Will I have to remove the codings from the pages I have done or is that done automatically? On a wider point, most of the names might be categorised by their political or religious persuasions. I have notes for this. Its true that Rees seems to have been ignored in its life-time, mainly because of the lack of an index volume,and competition from rivals but it in modern times it has become an importance source for the history of science and technology. Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be done automatically, asa part of the closure process. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- I agree that this is a performace by performer category, but the number of performances by each is unlikely to be great enough to clutter up the articles. Apwoolrich's comment that its deletion may leave articles uncategorised seems to me a reason for keeping the category. The fact that David Mushet published a series of articles in (I think) Philosophical Magazine does not mean that we need him in a category for contributors. I therefore think we should make an exception for this. Rees' Cyclopedia is a work that has restrospectively gained a lot of respect, because a lot of the articles provide a contemporary account of the state of technology at that date. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are you saying it would be OK to have categories like this for those who contributed to encyclopedias, but not OK to have similar categories for other works? If so, how can we justify such a distinction? Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apwoolrich a good start is to categorize by birth year, death year, and nationality + profession, or even just profession. You can also categorize by place educated. In theory all these people since they did contribute to the work in question would go in Category:Writers or its specific nationality sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are 106 contributors listed in the article. However that is not the issue with category clutter. The issue is, what publications will we decide are notable enough to categoize people by their contributions to them? We categorize people by being on the staff of specific newspapers, but this works because most people are only on the staff of one newspaper at a time. It is possible for a person to have articles published by the very top ranked journals and encyclopedias, maybe two of each, all in one month. The list fulfills the categorizing needs wonderfully.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe introduction to Pantologia does have a short list of contributors. The Index volumes to the 11th and 12th editions of EB have lists of contributors. These have been part digitised on Wikisource. I have no idea (and don't aim to find out!) how many of these names have pages on WP so could be categorised. But if it is decided that encyclopedia contributors are worth categorising, the info is ready to hand. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2012 (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:Events at the Millennium Stadium
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Listify & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:FA Community Shield matches hosted at the Millennium Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:FA Cup finals hosted at the Millennium Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Heineken Cup finals hosted at the Millennium Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Football League Cup finals hosted at the Millennium Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete and listify. WP:OC#VENUES states that we should "avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations." The validity of this guideline was recently tested with the discussion about Category:Events at the O2 Arena (London), which resulted in delete. The prevailing viewpoint seemed to be that this type of material is most appropriate for lists, so one should be created in this case for events held at the Millennium Stadium. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per nom. this is not a useful set of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete -- This is much too like a performace by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2012 (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:Deaf painters
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.
Nominator's rationale: The target category isn't large enough to necessitate splitting. I don't think there is any notable connection between Deafness and painting in particular. I was tempted to suggest deletion of both this and Category:Deaf artists, but per International Center on Deafness and the Arts, I think it could be argued that the intersection of Deafness and art is sufficiently notable to justify categorization. I'm still worried about the way that these categories ghettoize Deaf people. This doesn't technically fall afoul of WP:CATGRS, but it bothers me for similar reasons. At least limiting the number of such categories seems wise. LeSnail (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can see some art forms and deafness intersection as being notable. There is also a deaf culture, so that would lead to unique manifestations in the arts. However to have the deaf painters we need proof that being deaf has some direct link to painting, and we lack that, so there is no reason for that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If for no other reason than it allows us to keep the cat as a sub-category of painters, not merely artists. I had no idea we had articles in such a category. I expect that casual browsers of Category:painters would be equally interested. The sub-cat is also consistent with Commons use. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Deaf artists and Merge Category:Deaf painters as proposed. I strongly support having occupational categories for deaf people. However, I don't see a real need to separate out painters from other artists, especially when the number of articles in both categories is fairly small. Cgingold (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (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 missing information
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 merge; rename to Category:Wikipedia spacecraft articles missing information. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose (with a trout on the side) This is a category for managing the condition of spacecraft articles. It's a good thing if it's currently empty. If up-merged to a non-subject specific category, then it would lose all value of visibility to the spacecraft project people. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should Category:Wikipedia files lacking a description have multiple subcategories? It may help with categorization, or it may lead to fragmentation. If its the former, where more subcategories are better, than I'll create additional categories and categorize. Additionally, I don't believe that category was ever used.Smallman12q (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy- I guess I should've explained better. Its a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia files lacking a description. It seems to be a match category for files like one on Commons. I do not think it has ever been used for articles, nor was it meant for that purpose. I generally steer away from article categories. This one for files just seems a little odd to have. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the article management categories that is auto-populated by either adding a tag template, or by an infobox template detecting that it has been given an insufficient set of parameters. In a well-run wiki with completed articles, these categories should exist and be empty. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedia spacecraft articles missing information. Should have the "Wikipedia" prefix, and adding "articles" clarifies that it's about the articles themselves as well. Perhaps it should be hidden? - The BushrangerOne ping only 05:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down with the rename idea. Its not used for files and that is where it currently lives. Andy brings up a good point, though, that it seems like it would be used to categorize articles. I withdraw my merge nomination in support of your rename. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 11:27, 17 April 2012 (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:Files with short filenames
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:Already merged. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are never enough files in either category to have both. Therefore, I believe that we do not need this category. Also, with the template for Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming you can specify a reason, and that would be the appropriate place to list a rename because of a short name. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template was deleted on 06:57, 13 April 2012 for being unused and redundant. This category would have to be manually populated by adding a category tag. Still no need for this. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 11:29, 17 April 2012 (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.