< April 27 April 29 >

April 28

Category:African-American science fiction writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS, this is a classic case of the last-rung-on-the-ladder classification, which would tend to "ghettoize" these authors since there are no other diffusion options from Category:American science fiction writers. Thus per policy, this cat should not have been created, and should be merged up to the parents. Also, it's a triple intersection, which we normally avoid WP:OC#NARROW Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm just going by the guidance, which is pretty clear: "Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory."
Also, if kept, I don't know why you would put them in also Category:African-American writers - there's no reason I can see for that, and no policy to do so either - as you move up the tree, if you retain the same ethnic identifier, you don't need to diffuse up (that's a rule I'm starting to understand). But in general, this confusion around "bubble up rules" is exactly what I've been talking about elsewhere...
re: science fiction vs speculative fiction, that's a broader issue, we would need to rename lots of cats.
Finally, while I certainly accept this may be an area of scholarship, in the same way there is scholarship for gay latino men's writing, but we will not create such a cat. What do we do when guidance says don't create, but there are books written about the subject? I think the answer is, don't create - as there are many more books than we have categories. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Gosnold, Massachusetts

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with only 1 entry. ...William 20:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American humor novelists

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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recent creation, a subset of humorists - not sure I really see the value of this particular thematic slice of novelists, most of the contents would be fine under Category:American novelists Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I just don't think we need to divide those who are known for writing humorous things from those known for writing humorous novels - many people would have done both anyway, I'm not convinced it's a subset worth keeping. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is true, I can see your point - but I'd just suggest backing down now - this one is probably a snow delete, it was perhaps a cat created in haste, which is never a good idea in this environment. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you might be right it will get deleted, but it is clear that "humor novel" is an actually used phrase.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term "comic novelists" does have a clearly-defined meaning and is used to describe numerous novelists. Do you think a rename to that would be better? I have found twelve other Americans who were not in this category that have been described several times as comic novelists in reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the rename, but do have to wonder if it would be clearly distinct from Category:American comics writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that cat is talking about graphic novels, while the "comic" in "comic novelists" refers to comedy. One would probably want to make the distinction clear on the cat page, but I think typically people who author graphic novels are referred to as "graphic novelists" or "comic book writers" so there should not be much confusion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Executed victims of Red Terror in Soviet Russia

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 Category:Victims of Red Terror in Soviet Russia. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: POV content fork: conflates two entirely separate points of view: one that executed criminals are "victims" and the other that victims of terrorism are "executed". DrKiernan (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the article histories, they were all previously in that category, until they were moved into this one yesterday. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Estoril Open

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Name of the tournament has changed. See Portugal Open. 79.168.51.74 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parliament of England

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. BrownHairedGirl is right about the lack of clarity, but there's no consensus here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. The sub-cat for its members was renamed at CFD 2012 April 18 to Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) for clarity, and this category needs clarification for the same reasons.
There has never been a post-1707 English Parliament, but the nuances of the history are not widely understood, and have frequently been misrepresented in reliable sources. For example, for over 100 years the key reference book on election results in the period after 1707 was The Parliaments of England. Fine book, but woefully misnamed, because it includes results from Scotland and Wales after the Act of Union 1707 which abolished the Parliament of England.
Three different Parliaments have met at the same site in the Palace of Westminster, with a continuity of process and tradition through several major changes of geographical scope and two creations of new states. The dominant narrative of historical continuity has led to such terminological inaccuracies as The Parliaments of England.
The inclusion of the date period provides a clear warning to editors who are unaware of the complexities of Westminster parliamentary history, and helps to avoid miscategorisations which are hard to track down. Please remember that categories will frequently be added by editors who have little or no knowledge of the subject area, and who are helpfully trying in good faith to organise inadequately-categorised articles. This change will make their job easier, and reduce the need for other editors to monitor the categories for miscategorisations. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject England has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that Wikipedia does not "prepare" for uncertain possible future events in our cat trees. Gwent might one day come back under English administration, England might get a parliament again, Scotland might become an independent state again, and the European Union might become a sovereign state one day. If, and when, any of these things happen, rest assured that Wikipedia will respond as appropriate. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're arguing my subsidiary point about the advantage of the name, not the primary point on why it should be renamed. It's not the thing I'm using to support my opinion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you follow that particular strand to its logical conclusion then we would have to rename Category:England to Category:England (no, this is not the same thing as England & Wales, Britain, Great Britain, the British Isles or the United Kingdom, you twat). If we must assume that half of our editors are thick as mince then we will have to "disambiguate" thousands of unambiguous category names. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Youth Olympic Games host cities

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. Wizardman 14:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having hosted an event is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. See WP:OC#VENUES. For info: There is a list at Youth Olympic Games#List of Youth Olympic Games. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this category would not imply that the Youth Olympic games are insignificant, but that having hosted the games is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. It doesn't make sense to place a city under Category:Sports. We don't have categories for things like "cities with an underground/metro system" or "cities that have been beseiged" as these are not defining characteristics, although the long-term effect on the city is likely to be greater than having hosted a sporting event. These arguments could also be applied to the main "Olympic Games cities" categories, but WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. DexDor (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Local Hero Award winners

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. Wizardman 14:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD (having received this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic). For info: there is List of Australian Local Hero Award recipients a list article. DexDor (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BBC Audio Drama Award winners

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. Wizardman 14:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD (having won an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic). Cat contains only one article. There is (currently) no article about the award. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Towns and villages in India

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 14:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless duplicates of Category:Cities and towns in India and Category:Cities and towns in Uttar Pradesh respectively. I've emptied both categories (except for the latter as a subcategory of the former) which contained only a single town and Category:Towns and villages in Kamsar. Huon (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. separate categs: Category:Towns in India and Category:Villages in India, or
  2. a joint Category:Towns and villages in India
However, we can't see what we're dealing with until the depopulation is reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only article I removed was Sandhole from Category:Towns and villages in India, which should not have been in that category anyway because it was already categorized in the more specific Category:Cities and towns in Mandi district (not a subcategory, though if we were to keep the category it should have been), and the category I noted above, which should probably be deleted as well because while I cannot tell what exactly Kamsar is, all its contents are contained in Category:Cities and towns in Ghazipur district anyway (so there's nothing to merge). These categories and the articles therein (excepting the outlier Sandhole) are all part of a beautiful WP:Walled garden created by Zamania123 largely without any sources which I've begun to clean up; if that's preferred I won't bother with removing nonsensical and obviously redundant categories from the articles I clean up but tag them for deletion and/or merger first. Should I really re-add Sandhole to a category to which it clearly does not belong just to revert the "depopulation"?
Finally, Category:Villages in India seems alive and well despite my intervention. The current categorization seems to be by either that category or Category:Cities and towns in India. Huon (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that helpful clarification. I have struck my oppose, and I think that the best solution for now is to delete. Longer term, the combination of cities and towns looks like bad idea, because if India does have a clear system of city status, the cities should be separated out from the towns. But that's outside the scope of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American humor writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge per WP:C2E. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More