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) 15:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Wikitravel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Single entry , and given the migration of Wikitravel content to Wikivoyage unlikely to see future use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom –sumone10154^(talk) 04:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Normally I'd advise keeping it (it's comparable to the category for pages that draw from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships), but your comment about how we're importing it wholesale to a WMF project is a good argument for saying that we won't need this — we can just use an edit summary, "This content copied from voy:pagename". Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nyttend's argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 18 November 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:National Gay Newspaper Guild (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a defining characteristic of the member newspapers. The header text indicates the category was intended to serve the function of a list and the list in the main article serves that purpose. Buck Winston (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some evidence is presented that this is defining or notable, which the article does not provide. --Qetuth (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete; the list in National Gay Newspaper Guild currently omits two of the members. No need to upmerge as the members are already suitably categorised. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the two missing entries to the list article so there is no need for further list-making. Buck Winston (talk) 23:37, 24 November 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 to parents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gay-related newspapers in the United States to Category:LGBT-related newspapers in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with virtually no chance for expansion. Almost no newspapers cater specifically to gay male and not lesbian or bisexual readers. Buck Winston (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Double upmerge also to Category:Gay (male) media in the United States unless someone has a good reason why not. – Fayenatic London 09:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, one good reason not to is that so few media outlets in the United States cater specifically to gay men to the exclusion of lesbians and bisexual men that the category will never be useful and should probably be deleted. Buck Winston (talk) 19:58, 18 November 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) 15:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: In each of these cateogries, the adjectival forms of the country names are also the names of languages; in the case of linguists and grammarians, it sounds like these people study the languages, as opposed to being from these countries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename while it is true that precedent and usage would suggest that the goal should be implied by the start, these categories are too closely linked to language that the current names will always be ambiguous. The end names are much better and more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominated to avoid ambiguity. However, the categories will need careful checking to ensure that their contents reflect the narrower scope of the more precise titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all and I would be happy to see the un-nominated ones (I presume because their nationality was not a language name) go with them for consistency, but won't push for it if others don't agree. This is a case where an exception from the established system clearly needs to be made to avoid ambiguity, and one which has actually caught me out in the past. --Qetuth (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the un-nominated ones were excluded because they don't share this ambiguity problem - "Egyptian linguists" are clearly linguists who are "Egyptian people"; "English linguists" are not clearly linguists who are "English people". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think we should rename all categories in this tree to this form for consistency.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think so, then feel free to nominate them after this discussion is closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, both the nominated ones and the ones such as the Egyptians; it won't hurt to rename the Egyptians, Americans, Pakistanis, UAE-ians, etc., but it would be confusing if we ended up with Irani linguists and linguists from Azerbaijan, and the nominator is plainly correct in saying that the nominated ones are quite ambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, it's "Iranian linguists", not "Irani" (or were you confused by Iraqi?); secondly, many of these "by nationality" categories have Georgia (country)‎ and/or Northern Ireland, which confuse things as much as this scenario, IMO. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- An Englishman who has studied Chinese as an academic subject could properly be secribed as a Chinese linguist. A scholar of Egyptian hieroglyphics is surely an Egyptian linguist, whether living in London, Berlin or New York. It may well be that the categories are ambiguous, but the rename will produce misleading results. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the ambiguity which needs to be resolved. Have you found any that were categorised in the way you describe? John Sandford (poet) was an Englishman and a grammarian of the Romance languages; he is categorised in Category:English grammarians. – Fayenatic London 17:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to remove ambiguity, which is real as shown by Peterkingiron's interpreting the title the other way round. Follow up with the unambiguous ones for consistency, at the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 17:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are two possible tress, one for linguists by their nationality, and one for linguists by their subject of study. We should not merge the two together, so a rename is clear needed. I believe we should have Category:English-language linguists, Category:Chinese-lanaguage lingusits and so on for the other meaning. Although maybe Category:Linguists of the English language or Category:Lingusits of the English-language would be better, since the issue is their subject not the language they use and Category:English-language singers and its sister cats are all for people who use that language, so the study of the language might need a clearly different name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current contents overwhelmingly use nationality, so this would be a new creation not a split. The only exception I was able to find in a large random sampling was Sheldon Pollock, who had no mention of his own nationality in the article (and may in fact be Indian for all I know). I think a by-language tree would be useful, though, having just seen how many linguists study a language other than their own. There are currently a fair few mixed among Category:Linguists by field of research with rather inconsistent naming (eg Category:Austronesianists, Category:Linguists of Yiddish, Category:Southeast Asian language scholars and Category:Mesoamerican linguists). --Qetuth (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's mantion of Sheldon Pollock having received the Padma Shri, which would seem to imply that he is, in fact, a citizen of India. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:23, 20 November 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:American Civil Liberties Union people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People associated with the American Civil Liberties Union to ???

Nominator's rationale: Current name is kind of awkward. Any chance we could come up with something better? pbp 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/repurpose to Category:American Civil Liberties Union members. This will make its membership clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category is not for anyone who is a member, but for those whose association with the ACLU is defining. In fact, it was renamed to this form from Category:Members of the American Civil Liberties Union. Membership in open subscription organizations is non-defining, but clearly the ACLU is a notable organization and there are people who derive their notability from their association with it. See previous discussion at CfD 2012/Jan/8 Members of the ACLU, as well as many deletions of categories for organization members from 2012/May/2, such as CfD 2012/May/2 NRA members. If there is insufficient support to keep, then it would be better to delete this category altogether than rename it as proposed.- choster (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• New vote: Delete Association is a fuzzy concept that has no yes/no answer and is not a workable way to categorize. We do not need categories to link together everyone collected around some organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We could rename to Category:American Civil Liberties Union people to remove the awkward "associated," as this is the convention of Category:People by organization. As association with the ACLU is a primary characteristic of people like Ira Glasser or Roger Nash Baldwin, I am somewhat reluctant to see the category abolished, my earlier comments notwithstanding.- choster (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not defining per se; if we had a limited category for ACLU presidents or ACLU board members, perhaps, but "associated with" is overbroad. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this category is deleted, there is no easy way to navigate between these closely linked articles - no lists, not even navboxes or succession boxes between the ACLU heads. What about Category:American Civil Liberties Union leaders? To eventually become a container for presidents, board members, founders, etc categories? --Qetuth (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REname and repurpose to Category:American Civil Liberties Union people (purging if necessary)-- Categories about "associates" are unsatisfactory, because it is not clear how close the association has to be. A "members" category is probably too wide-ranging for an organisation that (I presume) has a large number of members. A "People" category might do, for those who are either active in or board members of ACLU. That scope will need to be expressed in a head note. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:American Civil Liberties Union people is the obvious solution, per Choster & Peterkingiron. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:American Civil Liberties Union people per above. --Qetuth (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:American Civil Liberties Union people for clarity. There is no justification for trying to repurpose the category. If a subcat is justified for members, it can be created by anyone at any time. Hmains (talk) 20:35, 25 November 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: split as nominated. The "British Palestine" vs. "Mandatory Palestine" point is a good one, and may be taken up for all of the subcategories of Category:Mandatory Palestine. For now, it's OK if we create one with "British Palestine", and then we can consider it with the others that use this terminology. Similarly, the "of" vs. "in" issue can be dealt with separately, as needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Split Category:Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine into Category:Jews in Ottoman Palestine and Category:Jews in British Palestine.
• Nominator's rationale this combination does not make any sense at all. These are clearly two distinct historical periods. This also will allow the former to be clearly in Cateogry:Ottoman Jews (which this category is in, but that makes no sense since many of these people were never Ottoman subjects). Splitting is the logical course.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not care if it says in/of, I will support either form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the Jews in variation. Seems an odd hodgepodge for two things that don't really fit well together... Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- but the nom will need to undertake the split manually, by adding a target category as appropriate, so that the combined one can be deleted. A person should be categorised as to whether they were most active pre-1918; 1918-48; or post-1948 Israel; dual categorisation should only be exceprionally allowed. The alternative might be to rename to Category:Jews in pre-1948 Palestine, which avoids the difficulty. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split but using "of" rather than "in" as this is the norm for historical eras, see Special:Prefixindex/Category:People of. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think we should discuss the of/in issue seperately. This is a subcat of Category:Jews in the Land of Israel and the name was chosen because of issues specific to the history of the Jews. I think for now we should just split the category, and let the of/in issue be settled at a different time. For now I will refrain from making any statement on the matter one way or the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment why is Mandatory Palestine' not used for the British period? Mandatory Palestine is the name of the political entity of the time 1920-1948. Hmains (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easiest way to answer that question is that we are doing the minimal possible rename. That said, British Palestine is just a much better name. The British controlled the place, so it seems a much clearer and less ambiguous name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 26 November 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) 15:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Norwegian toponyms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are not articles on Norwegian toponymy, most are either places in Norway or disambiguation pages having one or more places in Norway among the entries. We have entire schemes for categorizing places by where they are located; this adds little to nothing. Yes, there are a whole slew of these, but this is the trial balloon; if we decide it ought to go, then the rest will get nominated in short order.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a useful way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I suspect the creator's object was to collect names elsewhere, derived from places in Norway, but Havre and Barbu only seem marginally to comply; both these are dab-pages covering other things too. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 18 November 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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Law of the People's Republic of China to Category:Law in China
• Propose renaming Category:Law of the Republic of China to Category:Law in the Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are many recent precedents for using the short name China for PRC. The RoC category name is still required as it contains categories for pre-1949 as well as Category:Taiwanese law. Although most of Category:Law by country would use the pattern "Chinese law", this would be ambiguous; in such cases, "Law in" is more common than "Law of", e.g. Category:Law in the Republic of Ireland‎. – Fayenatic London 18:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose law is the type of subject that lends itself to the long scope of study. The current category names works as subsets of greater categories for laws over the whole history of China. It is useful to break out law categories into historical time frame based on changing names of regimes, so the current categories work as legimate subcats. We should keep them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Most of the stuff in there has nothing to do with the PRC and predate it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you are referring to Category:Chinese law. I accept that the nomination would become confusing with that. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose periodization of something with the history of law in China needs to separate time periods out. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I am withdrawing this as my main aim was to change "of" to "in". I will re-nominate the pages without shortening to "China"; I had not thought about that enough. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 15 November 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:Lists of honours of a royal family by country. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:List of honours of a royal family by country to Category:Lists of honours of sovereign families by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Originally requested as a speedy rename to correct List to Lists, but I wasn't particularly happy with the result. Mimich suggested this rename as not all members are royal families.. Tassedethe (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• REanme to Category:Lists of honours of a royal family by country. The fact that it includes a couple of states where trhe monarch is a Prince or a Grand Duke seems to me to make litlte difference. The only advantage in the proposal would be if it was intended to expand the category to include honours to presidnets of republics. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Peterkingiron. In this case royal family much better conveys the desired scope of the category than anything else. Royal can adequately be used for the ruling family, whatever exact title to rule they use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Peterkingon. All the articles for the families in question are categorised under Category:Royal families, we don't use the term 'sovereign families' anywhere else (article is a redirect to Royal family). --Qetuth (talk) 03:02, 17 November 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Enver Hoxha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content--all of it is interlinked and some of it has a more general tie to the individual. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge it somewhere. This is about the political theory and ruler of communist Albania. This should be able to make a coherent cateogry. Delete only if it is adequately covered elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A defining property that unites the articles included here for navigation purposes. Some light pruning may help. Alansohn (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We all agree that this is a perfectly fine category name, and even after pruning some less-related articles, we'll have enough to support a category. We should remove Anti-Revisionism and perhaps Soviet–Albanian split, but the rest are closely enough related that they definitely shouldn't be removed. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment eponymous categories are discoraged unless there are enough articles to justify the category. I do not think this topic has reached the threshold of having enough articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 18 November 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Burials at Metsakalmistu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category based on non-defining (trivial) criteria. Might be fine in Estonian Wiki, but here unneeded. Just clutters category sections if used on articles here. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 10:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – part of the well-established Category:Burials; no more clutter-provoking than say Category:Burials at Highgate Cemetery. Oculi (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. What kind of value does categorization on such minor details give?! --Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 21:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have had many cfds on burials categories, nearly all of which have ended in either keep or no consensus. Eg this one. Oculi (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The offered example was way back in 2007. I see no reason why we should continue an unwise policy because 5 years ago people thought it was good. Anyway the given example did not debate the merits of having such categories, it debated how they should be named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think we should delte all the categorization of people by where they are buried. We might as well start somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree, a person isn't defined by where they're buried. They don't even know where they're buried, being dead and all. If a particular cemetery is notable enough for an article then the article can have a list of notable interred. Buck Winston (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify or else delete. Note most of the articles do not mention the cemetery (in the en.wp version), and we do not have an article for this cemetery. No sign that burial here is notable. --Qetuth (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I am not wholly happy with places of burial categories, but we do have some. This category needs to be discussed in the context of a CFD for them all. This category is reasonably well-populated, so that I see no objection to keeping it. However, I would oppose one for my own parish's churchyard or civil parish cemetery, on the basis that we would never get it adequately populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have opened a discussion aimed at getting rid of Category:Burials by cemetery and all its component parts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 19 November 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: do not do a straight rename. As discussed, the nominated category can remain as a category for cricketers of Guyanese nationality. However, we can also have created a category for cricketers on the national team of Guyana, which can be called Category:Guyana cricketers. So, feel free to split the contents into the two categories in question. I have reformatted the nominated category into a "by nationality" category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Guyanese cricketers to Category:Guyana cricketers

Nominator's rationale: This category is misleadingly named if the category description is correct. According to the description this category is for cricketers who have played for a particular cricket team - British Guiana (1865-1966) or Guyana (1967-present). It is not for cricketers of Guyanese nationality - as this name assumes. Cricketers of Guyanese nationality may have played for some other team and non-Guyanese players can and have played for the Guyana cricket team. This confusion between nationality and cricket team also extends to Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Jamaica. Mattinbgn (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename per nom. This rationale already applies to cricketer categories for first-class teams for other parts of the world. Johnlp (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split: One of these names refers to a nationality, and the other to a first class team, both of which are established and well-defined trees. Presumably there is some overlap, but with 88 members I have little doubt that both categories are justified. --Qetuth (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Exactly correct and summarised much better than I did. The Guyana cricket team is not the national team of Guyana in the same sense of the Guyana national football team but rather a representative side of the Guyana Cricket Board. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Qetuth does not just summarise better, but also proposes a different action. Per my Qetuth's comment and objection below, Mattinbgn's renaming proposal is wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the present name -- The appropriate adjectgive is Guyanese. WP has an annoying habit of instisting on using a noun (as if an adjective), where an appropriate adjective exists. By all means split, if desired, to distinguish Guyanese cricketers (nationaliry) and Category:Guyana cricket team players. There is no objection to including those from the period when the polity was the colony of British Guiana. This is an application of the principle that we use for alumni categories, that alumni of a predecessor are deemed to be alumni of the successor, where an institution has merged or been renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The present name is incorrect - and can't be kept. This category is for the players of a particular cricket team. If you want to establish a new category for cricketers of Guyanese nationality, that's fine - but it doesn't make this name any more correct. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is the right objective, but the wrong way of going about it.
  There are many cricketers who do not play for their country's international team, and the convention of Category:Sportspeople by nationality is that each category for sportspeople from that country is called Category:Fooian fooers, where "Fooian" is the nationality and "fooers" is cricketers/footballers/swimmers/etc.
  The same logic should be applied to cricketers, with a catch-all Category:Guyanese cricketers and a subcat for the international players. That should be achieved by creating and populating the sub-category rather than by renaming this one. Since this has been the only category for cricketers from Guyana, it will inevitably include many who never played for the international team, added there in good faith by editors suing HotCat who never see the category definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not correct. You do not have to be Guyanese to play for the Guyana cricket team. There are two completely separate category trees - albeit most (but not all) of the membership of the team category will also be members of the nationality category. The team category is not a simple sub-cat of the nationality cat. The Guyana cricket team is made up of cricketers who are registered players with the Guyana Cricket Board whether they be Guyanese or not. It is not a representative team in the same sense as the Guyanese National Football Team. A Jamaican could choose to take up a contract and play for Guyana should he choose. This is common in the West Indies - Wes Hall, a Barbadian, played some of his cricket for Trinidad and Tobago cricket team, Frank Worrell, another Barbadian, played some of his cricket for Jamaica cricket team. More recently Runako Morton played for Trinidad despite being Nevisian and thus notionally a Windward Islands cricketer. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. If you are right that Guyana cricket team is not composed exclusively of Guyanese cricketers, that only reinforces my argument against renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this is part of the cricketers by nationality scheme and has the right name. It does have a possibly misleading description, which should be changed so it properly fits what this category should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since further clarification/examples may be needed: As I understand it, because of the structure of West Indies cricket, the teams which play in the Category:West Indian domestic cricket competitions are not strictly representative side in the normal sense of international competition, but in effect a club side which just happens to be the local side for...an entire nation. A non-cricket equivalent may be the New Zealand Warriors. Barbados and Jamaica for example have separate categories for players from that country, which follow the naming convention for Fooian players, and then another for the team, following naming convention for team-name players (all four of these cats found in Category:West Indian cricketers. This was discussed previously at CfD here. Outside the West Indies, you can look at equivalent categories: Category:Cricketers from Western Australia vs Category:Western Australia cricketers as state is the first class team level in Australia. In England, the teams and hence the first class team categories are by county or university, but the players are either sorted by Era or not sorted at all.

The current category has a description for a team-members cat, but a name and 'fooian' template of a nationality cat, and contains both. It also has the parent categories of both structures. I have not examined the contents fully, but a minute of quick checking of random members found me an example of a player who (I think from reading article) is not Guyanese but played for Guyana Snuffy Browne, one who was Guyanese but who never played for Guyana was Rupert Roopnaraine and one who was both is Mark Harper. This my argument for split. Mattinbgn's comments above seem to say he considers the current cat the team one but would be happy for a nationality one to be created, so as far as I can tell we are arguing the exact same thing, just using a different word for it. --Qetuth (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be general agreement that a split is needed. However, my concern is that a rename is not the way to go about it, and not even a good first step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Moondyne's rationale is perfectly sound, and probably made clearer by Qetuth. Two separate categories are needed: Guyanese cricketers (as part of the *cricketers by nationality*, *Guyanese sportspeople*, and *West Indian cricketers* categories) and Guyana cricketers (as part of the *Players in West Indian domestic cricket by team* category. I don't think renaming the current category is the best way to go about this (particularly with the amount of the opposition here)—although it may be the easiest. Probably some manual work is needed to tidy up the whole of Category:West Indian cricketers to match both team and nationality trees. IgnorantArmies – 13:48, Friday November 16, 2012 (UTC)

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, not least because it has been deleted before at CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Philosophical works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This whole "works" category is unnecessary insofar as the philosophy category is concerned. The philosophical literature category already covered everything sufficiently a long time ago. This whole "works" thing is a little late to the party. The organization of the philosophy department and project are not helped by the "works" category, and I propose that people just accept that "philosophical literature" will suffice for these purposes. Greg Bard (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cat is just a container. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete speedily as recreation (by the incorrigible user:Stefanomione, unsurprisingly) of deleted category. Oculi (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category is part of the scheme Category:Works by discipline and, surprisingly, contains "works" (Radio programs, podcasts, lectures, ...), not only "literature". Category:Philosophical literature is a subcategory of Category:Philosophical works, just as Category:Religious literature is a subcategory of Category:Religious works. Stefanomione (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop.Greg Bard (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 3 of its subcategories (podcasts, radio programs, and television series) are not anywhere else in the philosophy tree and are not traditionally placed in literature categories anywhere else (eg, see Category:Religious works, or Category:Science fiction by medium. No suggestion has been made as to where these should instead go except for a mention of another deleted category and the idea that once a podcast has been transcribed it is no longer a podcast. As far as I can see, the previous CfD had zero supporting votes, and no editor besides nom offered any agreement or argument for deletion. And being a container category is not a reason for deletion. I'm willing to be convinced if an argument for deletion appears. --Qetuth (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not in the category tree otherwise because they were moved subsequent to this proposal. Greg Bard (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - way, way, waaaaay too broad a topic to be an "X works" category. - jc37 02:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  All primary works-categories (e.g. Category:Scientific works,Category:Legal works, ...) are broad. Secondary works are placed in Category:Works about philosophy,Category:Works about science, Category:Works about law, ... . We should talk about the distinction between primary vs secondary works (and therefore, ask if any other name can be proposed for Category:Philosophical works). Stefanomione (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  False comparison. Not all "topics" are equal in coverage. And to use your examples, there is philosophy of science; philosophy of law; etc. Philosophy is just too broad as a stand along category. - jc37 13:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a valid container category, covering both printed and other media works. It correctly has no articles except a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- Since the moment this proposal was put forward, User:Stefanomione has been aggressively moving categories so as to support his view that this category is essential. So much was going on, that I haven't been able to do anything about it. So, things have stabilized, and now it looks like I have a lot of work ahead, whether this proposal goes forward of not. However, there are votes whose justification seems to be based on the subsequent moves. So, the whole thing is a bit frustrating. I would hope the discussion would be relisted (or time extended so as to deal with the situation). The WikiProject Philosophy has a philosophical literature task force, and the organzation of things has been based on that.Now we will either have to retool the whole thing to "works" (a big task) or replace much of the moved content. Greg Bard (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Category:Works by discipline contain podcasts, documentary films, television series, ... We can't stick with the term "literature". As for "the big task", I could fix it in a few hours. Stefanomione (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include all the Wikipedia namespace stuff too? There is a whole Philosophical literature task force which was designed to cover all of that stuff. Greg Bard (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see ... Indeed, the task force will need a few months ... But ... I'm not sure ... shouldn't we consider

Category:Primary works of philosophy and

Category:Secondary works of philosophy ? Stefanomione (talk) 18:48, 6 December 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. Sub-categories not explicitly listed here can be taken through speedy renaming. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to Category:Brazilian jiu-jitsu

Nominator's rationale: Rename to lower case:

• Category:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu → Category:Brazilian jiu-jitsu
  • Category:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu organizations → Category:Brazilian jiu-jitsu organizations
    • Category:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu training facilities → Category:Brazilian jiu-jitsu training facilities (Probably a good candidate for upmerging, since there's not a clear distinction in the articles between these "organizations" and "facilities"; it's extremely unlikely that any such "facility" is notable as a particular locale in space, like a historic building. But that should be a separate CfD.)
  • Category:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners‎ → Category:Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners‎
    • Category:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners by nationality‎
      • 41 national subcategories, e.g. Category:Chinese practitioners of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu‎ → conforming lower-case renames, e.g. Category:Chinese practitioners of Brazilian jiu-jitsu‎ (Many of these are arguably candidates for upmerging, though I'm a fan of keeping rather than eliminating national categories like this even when there's only one member.)
        • 2 subsubcategories under Category:Chinese practitioners of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu‎ → conforming lower-case renames
      • Category:Female Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners‎ → Category:Female Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners‎ (Note incorrect hyphenation. Also, possibly a good candidate for deletion per WP:CATGRS, but that should be a separate CfD.)
      • Category:Fictional Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners‎ → Category:Fictional Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners‎ (Possibly a good candidate for deletion per WP:OVERCAT and anti-trivia precedents at WP:CFD, but that should be a separate CfD.)
      • Category:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu trainers‎ → Category:Brazilian jiu-jitsu trainers
  • Category:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu tournaments‎ → Category:Brazilian jiu-jitsu events (Note: "tournaments" is too specific and prone to squabbling over definitions, as already decided at WP:CFD in previous cases)

Per MOS:CAPS and WP:AT. This is English, not German; we do not capitalize random nouns and noun phrases. The [non-trademarked] names of sports and games are not proper names and are not capitalized. Cf. jujutsu, chess, snooker, basketball, etc., etc., etc. The real name is jujutsu, anyway, and we don't capitalize after the hyphen in English, so "Jiu-Jitsu" is wrong three times over. A case can probably be made for moving this all to "Brazilian jujutsu", but I won't raise that issue in this rename nomination (it would be a debate between proponents of "proper" usage of historical martial arts terminology vs. proponents of following populist but often historically ignorant current sources; it is an argument I WP:DGAF about in this case).

This is arguably a speedy case as a simple typo correction, but the WP:SSF essay exists largely because aficionados of any particular special interest are liable to argue pretty close to the point of death over capitalizing whatever it is they are especially interested in. PS: See also Talk:Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu#Requested move. PPS: This nomination intentionally does not include Category:World Jiu-Jitsu Championship, which reflects the official name (capitalized and hyphenated) of the event series. PPPS: I do not have even 1/10 the necessary patience for robotic nonsense to add redundant CfR tags to all 40+ subcats of this thing. The probably <20 editors who care at all will notice the CfR tag on the main category and the related article talk page.
— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 13 November 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: convert to List of people from Bijapur, Karnataka, since Bijapur is ambiguous. At the time of the close, no articles were left in the category, so I assume a manual merge was done to Category:People from Bijapur, Karnataka. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:People from Bijapur to article List of people from Bijapur

Nominator's rationale: Incorrectly used category –sumone10154^(talk) 03:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Unless I'm missing something and am about to be embarrassed, this is the same as everything else under Category:People by district in India‎, Category:People by state in India, Category:People by city in India‎, and every similar categorization system for other parts of the world. The fact that a list article could be created that overlaps the category doesn't necessarily mean that the the category must be deleted, or vice versa. Otherwise we would have either nearly zero categories or nearly zero lists. Anyway, we're not in the habit of deleting pattern-predictable, useful navigation, just poor attempts at it that don't actually serve the interests of our readers. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert – as a category it is empty; as a list, it is one. (No objection to a category Category:People from Bijapur.) Oculi (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Articlise then categorise those with articles into the category. Presumably an inexperienced user has not understood the category system. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom — categories are not meant to have a hardcoded list of articles that should be included in the category. This page is a fine example of how to start a list and a very bad example of how to start a category. Unfortunately, I believe that SMcCandlish is missing something. By the way, I was about to suggest that we keep the category and simply put all of the bluelinks into it, but I observed that they're already members of Category:People from Bijapur, Karnataka. We have absolutely no need to have two categories that cover precisely the same group of articles. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:People from Bijapur, Karnataka and remove the stuff that does not belong in a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert then merge: I see what the issue is now - the list-article-style content in it can be made into a list as suggested, and the non-redlinks in the list categorized in the category, but it is redundant with Category:People from Bijapur, Karnataka. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:17, 2 December 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) 15:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Khuda Kay Liye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not needed. The film and its soundtrack are this category's only contents, and the soundtrack is easily linkable from the main article and vice versa. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not a viable category, just fannish over-enthusiasm. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:35, 13 November 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.