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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Environmental protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This page was created by a blocked sockpuppet who had a bit of a history of creating pages that were not suitable. The category contains a real mishmash of articles that are suitably categorised elsewhere. If we carry on with the same theme the category could quite easily fill up with 1000s of article and subcats thereby diminishing its usefulness as a category. There is an Environmental protection article but it does not need a matching category. I have done a lot of work on the environment categories and I would struggle to fit this one into the established structure. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, not only does it have a main article for the specific category, it also completes the category structure, and has 2 sub-categories under it. It should not be deleted, and it doesn't matter who created it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How does this fit in with the Category:Conservation tree? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, maybe the categories could be merged in some way? --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:00, 20 June 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. Courcelles 18:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional Incans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only two redirects to the list of The Adventures of Tintin characters. Redirects generally need not be categorized within content categories, and there is no need for a content category which contains only redirects. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the title should be Category:Fictional Incas. The civilization and people of the Inca Empire are referred to as the 'Inca civilization' and 'Inca people', respectively. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also, I believe Tintin calls them Incans, so technically, they *are* fictional Incans. ;)Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians to Category:Latter-day Saint Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: All userboxes associated with this category (which are actually in use) refer only to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest denomination within the larger Latter Day Saint movement. Our options are to either include members of other Latter Day Saint denominations within this category, or change the name accordingly. For a complete list of reasons as to why I would prefer that the name be changed, see Category talk:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians#Requested move. Steele W. Farnsworth^Talk 17:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only collaborative used of a category like this is for partisan purposes, such as votestacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain what you mean by using the category for votestacking. Are you also suggesting that we delete Category:Catholic Wikipedians, Category:Muslim Wikipedians, Category:Hindu Wikipedians, and Category:Bahá'í Wikipedians? Steele W. Farnsworth^Talk 20:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree, it is difficult to justify deletion of this category if the rest of Category:Wikipedians by religion remains. I agree wholeheartedly that this category, and others within the by-religion user category tree, serve no collaborative purpose, but that argument applies to them all equally. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, let's delete them all, but we can start here.
      Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for expressing a personal religious/political opinion. A category which identifies editors by their belief system may be used to select editors who can be WP:CANVASSed in support of a particular POV. That applies whether the belief system is religious, political, or otherwise. We deleted Category:Wikipedians by political ideology for those reasons, and should get rid of the religious categories on the same basis.
      Editors who want to collaborate on the encyclopedia's coverage of a topic should be able to use a "Category:Wikipedians interested in X", which can include people with any views about the merits or otherwise of the topic.
      Note that in the 2007 discussion on the political ideology categories, I remained neutral because of the merits of identifying the background of another editor. In hindsight, that comment is irrelevant, because the same info about a particular editor will remain available. Editors can describe their beliefs and lives on their user page, whether in plain text or through userboxes, and the removal of the category will not alter that. What will be achieved by removing this category is the ability to search out others of the same belief. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then shouldn't you propose elsewhere that all religious user categories be deleted? Steele W. Farnsworth^Talk 22:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The main denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ, representing about 98% and 2%, respectively, of the LDS movement. Despite this, I am not convinced that we ought to narrow the scope of this category. User categorization does not require userboxes and renaming this category may miscategorize users who are not using one of the userboxes—it would be more prudent to split out a subcategory for Latter-day Saints than to rename this category. Also, narrowing this category's scope in the manner proposed likely will (eventually) lead to the creation of a separate and sparsely populated category for CoC. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a userbox for the Community of Christ which is included in this category, though the userbox is not in use on a single userpage. Steele W. Farnsworth^Talk 22:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this movement from our article, includes a Protestant LDS and a Mormon LDS division, with most people being Mormon LDS... wouldn't it be better to have a Category:Mormon Wikipedians and move the Protestant LDS to Category:Protestant Wikipedians ? (Mormon would include the Church of LDS, and most branches of the LDS movement; Protestant LDS would include the Community of Christ). 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wow. BHG. We have categories for Catholics as well so we can collaborate. Isn't that what wikipedia is for? Getting folks together so that they can work on common interests? Oppose the Delete suggestion. As for the rename, Oppose, I don't really see the distinction between the two of them, and how it excludes the COC. Include the COC within it, and keep the name, sans hyphen.Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but this is not that category. Category:WikiProject Catholicism members (and others within Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject) and Category:Wikipedians interested in religion (and its subcats) serve the function of connecting editors with common interests. This category, and others like it in Category:Wikipedians by religion, merely are labels (i.e., userbox substitutes). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not all Latter Day Saints are Latter-day Saints, so I support widening the scope of the category to include any Wikipedian that wants to identify as an adherent of a church within the Latter Day Saint movement. I've never understood the appeal of these categories in general, however; they are often used as if Wikipedia is a My Space successor. More broadly, I agree with BHG and I would not really be opposed to deleting all of the Wikipedian religion categories. Why not just have categories for members of WikiProjects rather than ones that indicate personal beliefs? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposal, but the use of a three word compound noun as an adjective is unsatisfactory. Would Category:Wikipedians who are Latter Day Saints be better? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is, then it points to the need to rename the whole of Category:Wikipedians by religion, wherein the Fooian Wikipedians standard is established. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment people within a religious group may have a desire to wirte articles related to that religious group. The claims of potential vote stacking are thrown out without any evidence to support this view. I have to say that you cannot justify deleting this category alone. You either have to leave all religious groups or delete them all. cherry-picking deletion is not allowed. This is especially true of a group that suffers from much higher levels of animus than some other groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 28 June 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. No prejudice against speedy renaming if the article is renamed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Alexia (condition) to Category:Alexia (acquired dyslexia)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Alexia is the term used for acquired dyslexia, Alexia is a symptom of an acute brain injury such as a stroke, or a progressive illness or dementia. Alexia is not a condition rather a shared symptom of multiple conditions dolfrog (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Categories normally follow the name of the lead article, which is currently at Alexia (condition). It would be better to withdraw this nomination, and start instead at Talk:Alexia (condition) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine by proposing a move of the article to Acquired dyslexia. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Until a few minutes ago Alexia (acquired dyslexia) was the lead article. (Due to my own communication disability I have problems with these various Wikipedia procedures, I need the support of other editors to help taking this further) dolfrog (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just suggested to Dolfrog that they take the main article to Wikipedia:Requested moves to gain consensus for moving that article first. -- The Anome (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose disambiguation terms are not a gloss, it is a disambiguator/discriminator. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until the article is renamed. Discussion on this is occuring at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Alexia (acquired dyslexia) is not a condition but a shared symptom. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:02, 14 June 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 all. Courcelles 18:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:African-American female activists to Category:African-American women activists
• Category:Native American female activists to Category:Native American women activists
• Category:Asian American women in activism to Category:Asian-American women activists
• Category:Hispanic and Latino American women in activism to Category:Hispanic and Latino American women activists

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the head category Category:Women activists and its other three national sub-categories. The hyphen being inserted into Asian-American is explained below in the recent discussion on the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – the convention is to match the head category Category:Women activists (or Category:African-American women, Category:Native American women, Category:Asian American women, Category:Hispanic and Latino American women). Oculi (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. African American woman activists is a quadruple non-notable intersection. Same with the rest. Upmerge all to American activists, or Women activists. Don't see why we should regard genitalia as notable to the cause of activism. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator and Oculi. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 18 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:?fD-Class articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete this category is supposed to be populated automatically using project banner templates. However no such template supports a ?fD class so the category is empty and unlikely to ever be populated. I also doubt that an ?fD will ever be created since it's pretty useless to assess pages headed to deletion. Pichpich (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not opposed to seeing this category deleted. If there was any kind of WP:BEFORE, we could have worked this out. Mostly because we're not determined to add the new tracking class as the current parameters are sufficiently robust. Pichpich, it would be good of you to consider using the project talk page if ever you have regards in the future. My76Strat (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's an interesting idea, though I admit that I lack the technical knowledge to determine how it could be implemented on talk pages, but I think that Wikipedia:Article alerts is a more straightforward system. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment deletion processes are called WP:XFD "XFD", so why is this "?FD" ? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  When it was postulated as an additional tracking class the focus was on "questionable" articles. That followed with choosing the ? opposed to the X. Additionally the code displayed for unassessed is ??? so it seemed ?FD was reasonable. My76Strat (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If they are up "for deletion/discussion", it is still XFD, or does "FD" stand for something other than deletion/discussion? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This was not to be a category for articles already under a deletion discussion but rather for articles that could be nominated if not corrected. And we have abandoned the inclination to track it as an additional class. My76Strat (talk) 09:24, 17 June 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 - already merged. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:WPRECP to Category:WikiProject Record Production

Nominator's rationale: Merge As far as I can tell, the two categories have the same intended scope and we usually use a WikiProject's full title to name the corresponding category. Pichpich (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support merge. Category:WikiProject Record Production is a tracking category to track articles and lists within the projects scope and functions in conjunction with Template:class mask whereas Category:WPRECP is a container category that has pages related to the projects function which includes Category:WikiProject Record Production as it fits this criteria but also templates and transclusion pages. They serve different purposes. My76Strat (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (manually), per nom. The standard organization for WikiProjects is for Category:WikiProject FOO (Category:WikiProject Record Production) to be the main administrative category, with Category:WikiProject FOO articles (Category:WikiProject Record Production articles) as a subcategory used for tracking pages within the project's scope. Incidentally, this tracking function should be carried out via the project's banner template (which should be added to talk pages) and not directly on article pages; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article tagging. (I have reverted the addition of the WikiProject category to Template:Record-producer-stub.) A good example of this system can be found at Category:WikiProject Football. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, all of the project's categories can be unhidden. They should be visible in those places where their presence is appropriate (e.g., article talk pages, the WikiProject's pages or templates). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is that every category under the project moniker was created from red linked categories generated from one template or another. This category is the only one created by the project exclusively for its own needs. That being to categorize all of the pages generated and used by the project for project specific goals. It doesn't seem reasonable that our userbox for example should appear on a list of in scope articles. An admin cat generates a list for the sake of the list, but here it is suggested that a list must conform to observer expectations? My76Strat (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, of course, that every project needs an administrative category for internal project pages (such as the project banner and userbox). However, Category:WikiProject Record Production can serve as that category, with the subcategory Category:WikiProject Record Production articles serving as a container for in-scope articles. After all, as things stand currently, Category:WikiProject Record Production is populated only by the main project page and the 'articles' subcategory. If you don't object (I wouldn't want to preempt the outcome of the discussion), I could standardize the category structure so that you could see what I have in mind. The general outline would be:

  • Category:WikiProject Record Production - the main administrative category for the project, containing the project page, userbox, and subcategories
    • Category:Record production portal
    • Category:WikiProject Record Production members (currently titled Category:WPRECP/Member)
    • Category:WikiProject Record Production articles - a tracking category for in-scope articles
      • Category:Record Production articles by importance
        • Category:High-importance Record Production articles
        • ...
        • Category:Unknown-importance Record Production articles
      • Category:Record Production articles by quality
        • Category:A-Class Record Production articles
        • ...
        • Category:Unassessed Record Production articles

  -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection and in fact appreciate the offer. I apologize that I created an unnecessary workload. It was set as a future goal to review the categories amassed to determine how a better organization could be achieved. This is as good a time as any, and your expertise is certainly a valued commodity. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  ✓ Done, and it was no trouble, particularly since the hard part – creating and bringing together all of the pages – is already done. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:33, 14 June 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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Energy WikiProjects to Category:WikiProject Energy

Nominator's rationale: Redundant and low popn. Downmerge into WikiProject Energy. Note that there is no actual WikiProject Energy development. A minor point - the naming does not follow convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree on merging to WikiProject Energy's category. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. The category contains administration and maintenance categories related to energy topics, so they can all be placed under the umbrella of WikiProject Energy. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:54, 19 June 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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Seinfeld to category:Seinfeld task force
  • Category:WikiProject Seinfeld articles to Category:Seinfeld task force articles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have recently converted this Project into a task force of WP:WikiProject Television. I wanted these requests to be speedy, but someone wanted inclusion of "Wikipedia" in the name. In this logic, Category:Friends task force and Category:Dexter task force must include "Wikipedia". George Ho (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to include "Wikipedia" (or "WikiProject"). (And rename the other 2 per the same logic.) Oculi (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to whatever convention that is used for task force article. I could not find any and then got side tracked cleaning up a lot of rubbish in project categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Oculi this should include "Wikipedia" or "WikiProject" since these are not content categories, and are project categories, so should be named to indicate they are administrative. Both Dexter and Friends should also be renamed in that manner. Suggest Category:Wikipedia Seinfeld task force or Category:Seinfield WikiProject task force or Category:WikiProject Television Seinfield task force. 04:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.251.208 (talk)
• Rename to category:Wikipedia Seinfeld task force and Category:Wikipedia Seinfeld task force articles per Oculi. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Oculi and Armbrust. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 18 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:High school sports associations in Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT/WP:OC#NARROW: single-article category with no hope of expansion Closeapple (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (per my own nomination): I know of no high school sports association in Illinois except the Illinois High School Association. (There may be some obscure equivalent for private schools that refuse to participate in IHSA, but I don't know of one; private schools with real competition generally compete in ISHA tournaments.) --Closeapple (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have a problem with deleting the category, but I'm wondering what you would suggest that we use instead, for an IL category? --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Illinois high school sports conferences is the only other content I could find that would fit into this category. We have only a handful of state-level categories, such as New York which does have multiple high school sports associations.- choster (talk) 13:18, 14 June 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: no consensus; delayed till SFD merger is sorted out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Template:Europe-athletics-bio-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Consensus has been reached to eliminate Stub types for deletion and move current discussion to categories for discussion. The original proposal is to delete this template and makes its associated category a container category only. The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/January/19 D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The original proposal rests on the fact that "[a]ll countries that compete in the European Athletic Association now have country-level templates". However, that does not account for athletes of former countries in Europe, such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. In theory, such cases (e.g. Borislav Pisić) could be upmerged to ((athletics-bio-stub)) and Category:Track and field athletics biography stubs, but that category is identified as 'parent-only'. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:46, 14 June 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, withdrawn by nominator after category tree established. While there is a 'support' !vote, that was placed before the expansion occured, and as it stands now there isn't a snowball's chance of there being a consensus to delete, hence closing per WP:BURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Superfund sites in New Jersey to Category:Superfund sites

Nominator's rationale: It is the only state with its own Superfund site category. The Category:Lists of Superfund sites in the United States is a better option than individual categories for each state. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Makes sense to me. Kumioko (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It is no longer the only state with own superfund category. With the thousands of sites in the USA, they will need to be categorized more specifically and by state would follow convention.Djflem (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion, it would be good to make categories by U.S. state for the various Superfund sites, that would go under Category:Environment in ... (U.S. state name here). --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw (as nominator) if the whole series is created within 2.1 milliseconds from NOW. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on adding to the categories, is it alright then to remove the cfd templates off the categories?? --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have to wait for the Cfd to close. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose due to people finding cool stuff and working to improve the project. CFD to the rescue! Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:57, 15 June 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: no consensus; delayed till SFD merger is sorted out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging the ten templates below to Template:US-painter-19th-century-stub.

Nominator's rationale: There are ten different stub templates that all direct to Category:American painters, 19th century birth stubs. The templates are:

1. Template:US-painter-1800s-stub
2. Template:US-painter-1810s-stub
3. Template:US-painter-1820s-stub
4. Template:US-painter-1830s-stub
5. Template:US-painter-1840s-stub
6. Template:US-painter-1850s-stub
7. Template:US-painter-1860s-stub
8. Template:US-painter-1870s-stub
9. Template:US-painter-1880s-stub
10. Template:US-painter-1890s-stub

I recommend merging all these stub templates into one for Template:US-painter-19th-century-stub or something similar. There are only about 120 articles affected by all of these templates and IMO we would be better off with one template for the century if that's how we are going to categorize them. Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion, I wouldn't delete the category before the templates are put up for TfD. That is like deleting the horse before the cart. I would suggest to first nominate the templates for deletion, and then see how that goes. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The stub deletion venue was merged with this one for a variety of reasons so for stub templates this is the venue for deleting and merging. Kumioko (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Am I missing something?? The templates are supposed to be listed at WP:TFD, not here. This is for Categories only, not Templates. The deletion template on the various templates is incorrect, because it's for categories, not templates. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawing my vote, I guess the procedure has been changed!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose. The practicalities of the closure of SFD need to be sorted out, so I have opened a discusssion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Implementing_the_merger_of_SFD_to_CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you oppose the deletion of these stub templates then that's but if you have a problem with the venue that consensus decided then that is not a valid reason to oppose deleting these and should be addressed in the discussion you started not here. Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not persuaded that the decision on venue has been fully thought-through, but even if editors do want to use CFD for stub template discussions, the practicalities need to be fixed. It is highly misleading to have a discussion headlined by the name of a category which has never existed, and which there is no proposal to create. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace all with Template:US-painter-19thC-stub (easy enough with WP:AWB ... I'll volunteer if that's how the discussion closes) and delete, per nom. That title better matches the likes of ((US-composer-19thC-stub)), ((US-journalist-19thC-stub)) and ((France-painter-19thC-stub)). Currently, the ten templates are used on a total of 110 articles, which comes to an average of 11 articles per decade—far below the 60-article threshhold for creating a new stub category. More important for me, however, is the fact that I concur with Vegaswikian's assessment in the discussion below that categorizing biographical stubs by decade of birth is a less-than-optimal approach. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge to a single template per Black Falcon. I'll also say to not allow recreation but if and when subcategories are needed use a media related type of structure since the by years is not likely helpful in addressing the expansion of these stub articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion - I'm willing to support a category merge. These templates are severely underused, in my experience - there are far more than 120 articles on which they may be used. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:02, 23 June 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: no consensus; delayed till SFD merger is sorted out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging the ten templates below that direct to Category:American painters, 20th century birth stubs into Template:US-painter-20th-century-stub.

Nominator's rationale: Currently there are ten different Stub templates that all direct to Category:American painters, 20th century birth stubs. The templates are:

1. Template:US-painter-1900s-stub
2. Template:US-painter-1910s-stub
3. Template:US-painter-1920s-stub
4. Template:US-painter-1930s-stub
5. Template:US-painter-1940s-stub
6. Template:US-painter-1950s-stub
7. Template:US-painter-1960s-stub
8. Template:US-painter-1970s-stub
9. Template:US-painter-1980s-stub
10. Template:US-painter-1990s-stub

I recommend merging all these stub templates into one for Template:US-painter-20th-century-stub or something similar. There are only about 175 articles affected by all of these templates and IMO we would be better off with one template for the century if that's how we are going to categorize them. Kumioko (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion, same as above, I think the templates have to be nominated for deletion first, or else you won't have the right category to contain the stubs. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawing my vote, didn't realize that procedure had changed. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion for both of these proposals. This is not unheard of amongst stub categories. Basically, at the time, there are not enough articles for each of these templates to support individual categories (would need > 60 articles per template), so for now, they are upmerging to a century category. It is possible that each of these templates may grow enough to support individual categories. Even now, the text that appears on each tagged article is specific to the decade of the template, which would not be, if a single template was created covering the entire century. Dawynn (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what your saying but to me, we are over burdening ourselves by forcing a more specific template to be used than necessary. I look at it like this, what do we gain from breaking it by decade? Not much. It doesn't help us categorize, it doesn't help us expand the articles, it just makes it more time consuming to tag them. I understand your reasoning but IMO we should create the split when its needed not in anticipation that some day we might need it. Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that there was much support for taking on the stub stuff here. However since the move was apparently supported, you are now going to have a different culture with a different viewpoint chiming in. So a more typical question might be how do the categories generated by these templates improve navigation? A question in that direction might be, do editors really look for stub articles to flesh out in these smaller categories? Or are editors working with modern painters rather then painters in 10 year blocks? I know when I look at stub categories I gravitate to subcategories in an area that I might have an interest. Do editors actually focus on painters in groups of ten years based on birth years which has little to do with then they started painting or became notable? My personal feeling is that, if appropriate, grouping by style or medium would make more sense to me. But then this is not an area I'm normally involved with. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I thought it would be better to send them to TFD since they are templates but it was decided that since the deal with categorization this was the best place for them. Good points. Kumioko (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose. The practicalities of the closure of SFD need to be sorted out, so I have opened a discusssion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Implementing_the_merger_of_SFD_to_CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you oppose the deletion of these stub templates then that's but if you have a problem with the venue that consensus decided then that is not a valid reason to oppose deleting these and should be addressed in the discussion you started not here. Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not persuaded that the decision on venue has been fully thought-through, but even if editors do want to use CFD for stub template discussions, the practicalities need to be fixed. It is highly misleading to have a discussion headlined by the name of a category which has never existed, and which there is no proposal to create. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace all with Template:US-painter-20thC-stub (easy enough with WP:AWB ... I'll volunteer if that's how the discussion closes) and delete, per nom. That title better matches the likes of ((US-composer-20thC-stub)) and ((France-painter-20thC-stub)). Currently, the ten templates are used on a total of 163 articles, which comes to an average of 16.3 articles per decade—far below the 60-article threshhold for creating a new stub category. More important for me, however, is the fact that I concur with Vegaswikian's assessment that categorizing biographical stubs by decade of birth is a less-than-optimal approach. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge to a single template per Black Falcon. I'll also say to not allow recreation but if and when subcategories are needed use a media related type of structure since the by years is not likely helpful in addressing the expansion of these stub articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion - I'm willing to support a category merge. These templates are severely underused, in my experience - there are far more than 175 articles on which they may be used. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:03, 23 June 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.