< January 12	January 14 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Marine Corps history to Category:History of the United States Marine Corps

Nominator's rationale: to suit related article and to suit convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:20, 16 January 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2012 Summer Olympics sports templates to Category:2012 Summer Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:2010 Winter Olympics sports templates to Category:2010 Winter Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:2008 Summer Olympics sports templates to Category:2008 Summer Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:2006 Winter Olympics sports templates to Category:2006 Winter Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:2004 Summer Olympics sports templates to Category:2004 Summer Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:2002 Winter Olympics sports templates to Category:2002 Winter Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:2000 Summer Olympics sports templates to Category:2000 Summer Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:1994 Winter Olympics sports templates to Category:1994 Winter Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:1992 Winter Olympics sports templates to Category:1992 Winter Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:1984 Winter Olympics sports templates to Category:1984 Winter Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:1972 Summer Olympics sports templates to Category:1972 Summer Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:2012 Winter Youth Olympics sports templates to Category:2012 Winter Youth Olympics event navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:2010 Summer Youth Olympics sports templates to Category:2010 Summer Youth Olympics event navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: In line with recent renaming of Category:2008 Summer Olympics water polo squad navigational boxes. The template are used for cross-navigation between the various events within a sport, and so they are navboxes. ~~Some of the articles in the subcategories should probably be recategorized to 2008 Summer Olympics convenience templates (or the corresponding for the other Games), as they are not navboxes.~~ The proposal obviously affects all corresponding categories for older Games. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Alternatively, it could be "...sport navigational boxes" instead. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

I retract the alternative above, the original proposal is better. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subcats recategorized. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:38, 16 January 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.

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) 16:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Isolated category redirect from s to z spelling, not part of a set. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fayenatic has also listed this at RfD, at WP:RFD#Organisations_established_in_1901. Just trying to tie the two together, with this one. Si Trew (talk) 14:38, 14 January 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.

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. This is a split discussion, and it is the kind of triple intersection that CfD normally doesn't approve of. But here, the keep side is strongly supported by the similar subcategorization of quite a few other LGBT categories by occupation and nationality. Category:LGBT musicians by nationality‎ shows why: with 421 American LGBT musicians alone, the category could easily get swamped without subcategorization. So I'm validating the approach here, which leaves the problem that several of the subcategories were emptied in advance, and now have to be reconstituted. I will ask User:SatyrTN to do that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: * Category:LGBT sportspeople from Australia

Category:LGBT sportspeople from Canada
Category:LGBT sportspeople from Czechoslovakia
Category:LGBT sportspeople from France
Category:LGBT sportspeople from Germany
Category:LGBT sportspeople from Ireland
Category:LGBT sportspeople from Israel
Category:LGBT sportspeople from the Netherlands
Category:LGBT sportspeople from New Zealand
Category:LGBT sportspeople from Norway
Category:LGBT sportspeople from Slovakia
Category:LGBT sportspeople from South Africa
Category:LGBT sportspeople from Sweden
Category:LGBT sportspeople from Thailand
Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United Kingdom
Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States

The main reason for this nomination is that this cat and it's subcats fail WP:OCAT#Intersection by location. Specifically, "avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." It may be interesting that an LGBT person plays a sport (see Homosexuality in sports) and/or that an LGBT person is from a specific country (see Category:LGBT rights by region and associated categories and pages), but the intersection is too much.

Furthermore, we already have the two category trees Category:LGBT sportspeople that diffuses the category by L, G, B, & T, as well as the tree Category:LGBT people by nationality. Both those trees are far more defining. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nationality is an accepted way of diffusing what could otherwise be an overly large category. Query - did you depopulate these before nominating them? Some are empty. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of moving people to the separate categories "Gay sportspeople" (etc) and "LGBT people from nationality" (etc), but had an objection, so brought it here. The largest category has not been depopulated at all - 69 entries in Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States. Given that's the largest, I don't think overpopulation is going to be an issue. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could restore the articles to the categories pending discussion? It's rather improper to empty categories before arguing to delete them on the grounds that they are redundant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really necessary? If there is no consensus to delete the categories, then it should be easy enough to generate a list using WP:AWB by intersecting Foo sportspeople and LGBT people from Foo. For example, I was able to quickly produce the following list for Australia: Bobby Goldsmith, Daniel Kowalski, Freda du Faur, Hana Mandlíková, Ian Roberts (rugby league), Ji Wallace, Lisa-Marie Vizaniari, Matthew Mitcham, Mianne Bagger, Natalie Cook, Peter Wherrett, Rennae Stubbs. Not all of these articles were removed by SatyrTN, but they are all part of both category trees. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about the effect on the discussion, not about whether it will be too much work if the categories are kept - if you look in these categories and see that they're empty or have very few members it's easy to say "we don't need nationality subcategories to diffuse a large category," but if the categories have been depopulated beforehand you're not getting an accurate view of the situation upon which to base your comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, Roscelese. I was being bold in my work with List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople and these categories - it was not my intent to depopulate simply to nominate them for deletion. Furthermore, I'm not arguing that they need to be deleted because they are empty - see my reasons above. Sorry for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatyrTN (talk • contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know. I'm just trying to make sure that people joining the discussion have all necessary information, such as how many articles are in the categories in question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reasonable nomination. - Darwinek (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the argument at WP:OCAT#Intersection by location allows for this particular division. While some of the sportspeople from Foo may not play for a Foo team or league, probably most of them do, so division by nationality is a pretty fair way of dividing this group. i would draw the line here, and disallow "lgbt sportspeople by subnational region" as definitely being an overcategorization not relevant to the nature of the subject. I do, however, acknowledge that this is not a completely cut and dried decision, as i have indicated.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename them all to 'Fooian LGBT sportspeople' per the usual nationality conventions. 81.174.243.65 (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- All sports (with one or two exceptions, such as certain equestrian sports) are competed for by men and women separately. Their sexuality is irrelevant to their sport. I therefore regard this as a trivial intersection. I would not object to them being upmerged to Fooian sportspeople (but preferably sorted by gender) and Fooian LGBT people. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic that is appropriate to be broken down in this manner by nation. Alansohn (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm of two minds about these — but wanted to offer some food for thought nonetheless (particularly since I'm the person who raised the initial objection to SatyrTN preemptively decatting the affected articles.)
The LGBT wikiproject has traditionally encouraged LGBT-occupation-by-country crosscategorization for occupations where that intersection is an encyclopedically relevant contextual grouping in its own right (e.g. politicians, writers), and has tried to avoid it in cases where it just constitutes "people who happen to be both X and Y" (e.g. actors). However, at least some of these sportspeople intersections were created almost three years ago, with no objections being raised until now. More recently, several other occupations (journalists, radio personalities, television personalities, comedians, etc.) were similarly subdivided after being duly requested at the category creation project, and weren't objected to then either — and there's simply no credible case to be made that Category:LGBT comedians by nationality and Category:LGBT journalists by nationality should exist but Category:LGBT sportspeople by nationality shouldn't, because their cases for "encyclopedically relevant contextual grouping" aren't any stronger, and may even be significantly weaker, than this one's is.
I can't deny that there's been a clear evolution in what sort of categorization is expected in this tree — what I don't yet know is whether that represents a genuine need which should rightly force a revision of the project's traditional approach, or whether this is just a case of overeager categorizing for the sake of categorizing. And given the fact that most of the categories were prematurely evacuated I can't properly determine whether the number of relevant articles warrants invoking the "location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories" clause or not. And finally, it probably warrants mention that this isn't the first time I've seen SatyrTN arbitrarily emptying LGBT-occupation-by-country crosscats that didn't meet his sense of which ones should and shouldn't exist, without seeking an actual consensus for their deletion first (though it is the first time he's responded to my consequent objections by actually taking the category to CFD, instead of by just calling me a prissy bitchface and ignoring the actual process issue at stake.)
No !vote yet, though I reserve the right to make a decision one way or the other as the discussion evolves. Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've decided to go with the keep side, per location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. A category that's large enough to warrant diffusion may be subcatted in this way regardless of whether the intersection of location and occupation is relevant classification scheme in its own right or just as a size management sort of thing. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is right that nationality is irrelevant. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another multi-way categorization scheme that is unnecessary and adds to cat clutter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that Category:LGBT sportspeople and all related subcats should be nommed for deletion per comments above, and past discussions on intersection by occupation. but until such time as that, weak keep the split by location, as it's one of the ways we split large categories. - jc37 04:17, 4 February 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.

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 subcats and delete. As the sub-cats are large enough to justify it, listify as a new Nebraska toponymy article, and link to this within the new list that will replace Category:Place names of French origin in the United States (see CFD Jan 16). Category:Place names by location is not meant to hold the places themselves, but (i) articles about toponymy and (ii) lists which can include explanations and citations. The "place names of Foo origin" sub-cats within Category:Names of places in the United States are all eligible for nomination. (Non-admin closure.) – Fayenatic (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a problematically named container category for two subcategories. Alternately, it could be upmerged to Category:Populated places in Nebraska.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the creator of this category. It is the beginning of a series of articles I am going to write specific to the toponymy of Nebraska. It would be inappropriate to put these in Category:Populated places in Nebraska, and if they are placed there this category will likely be recreated in the future to accordingly place the related articles. • Freechildtalk 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're putting the cart before the horse, then. I have no problem with the category being recreated when the articles exist, providing the name is changed to ~~Category:Place names in Nebraska by origin~~ Category:Names of places in Nebraska by origin.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no convention established for "when to create a container category". • Freechildtalk 18:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose not. I'd say my threshold for it hasn't been reached yet, then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My comment is probably beyond the scope of this particular nomination, but it occurs to me that categorizing settlements by the origin of their names is overcategorization on the basis of a characteristic "of the name rather than the subject itself" and, therefore, non-defining. This seems to be something that would be better suited to lists rather than categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this discussion on that subject today, and that is what led me to find this category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that link. I don't envy you having to close that discussion, by the way... In light of that discussion, then, I agree that this category should be deleted. I would prefer that we continue to use the current system – of subcategorizing Place names of Foo origin in {U.S. state} within Geography of {U.S. state} and Place names of Foo origin in the United States – rather than start further fragmenting these categories by state. If there is no consensus to delete the category, it should at least be renamed to something like Category:Names of places in Nebraska, following Category:Names of places in the United States. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify the subcategories then delete all -- A native American list already exists, but no French one. Most of the articles that I checked have no explanation of the origin of the name; so that categorisation is a variety WP:OR. If we are to keep this, is should be something like Category:Places in Nebraska by placename origin. (note "places", not "populated places" as there may be mountaisn or rivers to be included. I regard that as potentially a valid category, but it needs to be supported by an article. The native American article often lists the origin, meaning that the list provides more than a category can. I think I even saw one place that was allegedly both French and Native American, which surely cannot be right. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the creator wants to write articles on the toponyms of Nebraska, that is what should be done. There is no reason for Nebraska place names to be grouped in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Populated places in Nebraska founded by the French would be fine, but Category:Populated places in Nebraska with French names is not. We categorize by subject not by name; which reminds me to finally get around to nominating a few cats that are otherwise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the thoughtful reasons above. If the admin wants to they can listify but that should not be required. The other option would be the leave the information in the creators space so that his research does not have to be done if he wants to create the list. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whatever is done, the closer should take into consideration Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_16#Category:Place_names_of_French_origin_in_the_United_States. (Category:Place names of Native American origin in the United States also exists but isn't up for CfD atm.) - jc37 04:10, 4 February 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.

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: nomination withdrawn. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Propose renaming Category:Magazines (artillery) to Category:Artillery magazines~~

Nominator's rationale: To bring this category name in line with the others used at Category:Magazines by interest. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SNOW. A Magazine (artillery) is "the name for an item or place within which ammunition is stored." To rename as nominated to "bring this category name in line with the others used at Category:Magazines by interest" would mean that this is a category for publications about artillery storehouses, which it is not. I suspect the nominator has not does his before work and actually looked at the contents of the nominated category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn I did look at the cat and saw some entries that looked like possible titles of magazines (but didn't look too closely nor looked at any of the articles). I guess I'm just not very military minded, it never occurred to me that "magazine" could mean anything else then a publication... Sorry about the hassle. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 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.

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) 23:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: /Rename to Category:Albums produced by Bob Dylan There is no article on Jack Frost (pseudonym), rather one for Bob Dylan. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:22, 16 January 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.

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:People associated with direct selling. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Is this defining? I tend to think not, but I'm willing to be wrong. At the very least rename to Category:People associated with direct sales or Category:People associated with direct selling per proper caps. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People associated with direct selling per nom's secondary recommendation. Useful category to determine persons with an association to direct selling & MLM. Leef5 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a useful category. Anyway Direct selling is not MLM.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MLM is a subset of direct selling - thus a category on direct selling includes MLM by definition. Leef5 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:People associated with direct selling as a proper occupation category for the people involved Hmains (talk) 04:12, 20 January 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ekumen to Category:Hainish Cycle

Nominator's rationale: This should be the name, as thats whats its known as in the SF world. Ekumen is a federation in one phase of the works. sub categories should also be renamed: Ekumen books to Hainish Cycle books, Ekumen planets to Hainish Cycle planets. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per main article Hainish Cycle. Oculi (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, the Ekumen emerges after the events of City of Illusions. Several books are set before it in the timeline of the Hainish Cycle. --GwydionM (talk) 21:57, 13 January 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.

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: Upnerge & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This container category is simply an extra layer that duplicates part of a function that is already performed by Category:Trinidad and Tobago articles by quality. Anyone involved with WikiProject assessment will easily recognize which quality classes apply to articles and which apply to non-article pages and, in addition, 20 subcategories is hardly enough to necessitate a split of Category:Trinidad and Tobago articles by quality, so this category appears to serve no useful purpose. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to category for parent project. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom's goals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Kylekieran (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Why? What useful function does the category perform? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:18, 21 January 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Non-article Scientology pages to Category:WikiProject Scientology

Nominator's rationale: There is no advantage to separating these nine non-article WikiProject Scientology pages from the eight non-article WikiProject Scientology pages that are in Category:WikiProject Scientology; in fact, two pages already are in both categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to category for parent project. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 14 January 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a single-member category that contains a page which already appears directly in Category:Peru – the main content category supported by this WikiProject. In sprite of what the intended function may have been, this category currently does little more than indicate that Peru-related images are non-article pages that fall within the scope of WikiProject Peru – a fact that is self-evident even without this category. If the goal is assessment and tracking, then that should be accomplished through use of ((WikiProject Peru)) on the talk pages of the relevant files. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to category for parent project. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 14 January 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category constitutes unnecessary duplication of categorization already carried out through Category:Education in Georgia (U.S. state) task force. Any internal pages belonging to a task force of a WikiProject are, by definition, non-article pages within the scope of that WikiProject, and so nothing is gained by this dual categorization. If the goal is assessment rather than organization, then that should be (and is, in fact) performed on the two pages' talk pages. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to category for parent project. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 14 January 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.

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, but without prejudice to recreating if the suggestion of making 'Books...' an intermediate layer between 'Works...' and 'Novels...', 'Non-fiction books...' and so on, is implemented. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary subcategory, and the title is misleading. this would be considered "nonfiction books by ursula leguin" but we dont seem to have such a format for dividing works by author into fiction and nonfiction Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created the category, I've been invited to comment. What I would like to point out is that when I created it, it included all books by Ursula K. Le Guin (e.g. Novels by... was a subcategory of this). A random sampling of "Books by author" categories shows that there exist other categories using that definition, as well as others using the unintuitive "books means non-fiction" definition. Is there an actual formal definition of what "Books by author" means somewhere, or have people just been making it up as they go along? — Paul A (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I would personally favour Category:Non-fiction books by Ursula K. Le Guin, part of Category:American non-fiction books. People do however seem to be making it up as they go along. (Mercurywoodrose should bring categories to cfd before emptying them.) Occuli (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized what i did was not kosher (reading a discussion above). The combination of bold editing, THEN bringing to discussion, is not right. my apologies. i do like the nonfiction division idea, per occculi, thats why i mentioned it above. actually, maybe "books by leguin" should be between "works by leguin" and "novels by leguin"/"short story collections by leguin", with books divided into novels, nonfiction, collections, childrens books. odd i didnt think of that, maybe i was focused on the definition within the cat, which was so odd to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these is no reason to have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:24, 16 January 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.

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

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 31

Nominator's rationale: her collections cannot be delineated into "short story collections" and "science fiction short story collections". i recategorized all that were here into the broader cat, and placed that cat in "sf stories by author" as its true enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the suggested separation fail for Ursula K. Le Guin? (Again, the correct process is to leave the category populated and submit it to cfd. Viewing an empty category is not illuminating. A non-empty example is Category:Science fiction short story collections by L. Sprague de Camp, which looks perfectly acceptable to me.) Occuli (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
again, sorry for the incorrect procedure. i wont do that again. My understanding is that her collections often combine both, and she tends to straddle sf and fantasy in many of her works, instead of, say, producing hard sf vs. high fantasy (larry niven is 90% pure hard sf, with a small number of clearly fantasy works, no middle ground). if someone can reliably categorize her short stories into sf and fantasy collections (i cant, and i dont think its possible, but i could be wrong), then we can have both.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 14 January 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category unnecessarily violates the separation that normally is maintained between content pages and WikiProject pages. Its existence does not make the two subcategories or their contents more accessible to the WikiProject's members since both subcategories already appear in Category:Genetics, which is the main content category supported by this WikiProject. In addition, every image and template contained within the two subcategories has the WikiProject's assessment banner on its talk page, so any desired assessment or tracking activities are already performed through Category:File-Class Genetics articles and Category:Template-Class Genetics articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to category for parent project. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 14 January 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant to Category:WikiProject Jewish Christianity as any internal page of a WikiProject is, by definition, a "non-article" page. This category's contents can and should (and, in fact, do) appear directly in the WikiProject's main category and there's no need for this supplemental categorization. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to category for parent project. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per Peterkingiron.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:25, 16 January 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.

January 13

Category:United States Marine Corps history

Category:2008 Summer Olympics sports templates

Category:Organisations established in 1901

Category:LGBT sportspeople by nationality

Category:Places names in Nebraska

Category:Magazines (artillery)

Category:Albums produced by Jack Frost

Category:People associated with Direct Sales

Category:Ekumen

Category:Non-article Trinidad and Tobago pages

Category:Non-article Scientology pages

Category:Non-article Peru pages

Category:Non-article Georgia (U.S. state) pages

Category:Books by Ursula K. Le Guin

Category:Science fiction short story collections by Ursula K. Le Guin

Category:Non-article Genetics pages

Category:Non-article Jewish Christianity pages