< February 25 February 27 >

February 26

Category:ZCBJ

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. Only the nominator commented here, and the situation is a little too confused to allow this one to slip through on the basis of silence=no opposition.
If all these different names do indeed refer to the same organisation, then the articles should be merged. If that happens, feel free to renominate the category without delay ... but unless and until the articles are merged, a category renaming would be putting to cart before the horse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. ZCBJ is an article about a defunct newspaper. These articles appear to be about the Zapandi Czechoslovakia Brakaska Jednota fraternal association. The association has been renamed to the Western Fraternal Life Association which might be an even better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 26 February 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:TV articles of unclear notability

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 on merger, but speedy delete Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability‎ as empty'. There seems to be agreement here that we have duplicate categories, and that this duplication should be removed. However, the underlying situation is more complicated than that (and would require significant changes to the ((notability)) template), so I am closing the merger proposal as "no consensus" without prejudice to a renaming if and when the underlying issues are resolved.
The Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability‎ was created on 13 Feb, and has always been empty. It will remain empty, because ((notability)) is currently incapable of populating the category.
((notability)) currently takes the following parameters:
  1. An unnamed first parameter, which generates a link to the appropriate notability guideline. For example, ((notability|Biographies)) ensures that the template generates a link to Wikipedia:Notability (people).
  2. A date= parameter to allow population of the monthly subcats such as Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from March 2013
  3. An undocumented (see Template:Notability/doc) cat=Foo parameter which categorises the page in Foo articles of unclear notability. Note that the category title is "Foo articles of unclear notability", and not "Foo articles with topics of unclear notability". So there is no way using ((notability)) to populate any Foo articles with topics of unclear notability, and all the catregories with that name format are currently empty (e.g. Category:Company articles with topics of unclear notability‎, Category:Media articles with topics of unclear notability‎, Category:Music articles with topics of unclear notability‎, Category:Sport articles with topics of unclear notability‎)
So if editors want to group articles of unclear notability by topic in the proposed format, then some significant changes would need be made to the template. That is a wider issue which should be discussed at Template talk:Notability, and if there is a consensus there for any such change, then a new CFD can be opened to make any necessary category changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: seem to be the same and the latter is the format by convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:31, 26 February 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:Albert Einstein prizes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 7. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a more specific variation of Category:Things named after Albert Einstein, which was deleted here. There are several unrelated prizes named after Einstein, and the disambiguation page is Einstein Prize. This category is grouping those unrelated prizes. See WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Categories are not intended to function as disambiguation pages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:06, 26 February 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:Worthies of Devon

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a category for people who were mentioned in John Prince's The Worthies of Devon. We generally do not categorize people for having been mentioned in a book or included in a published list. This guideline, though not exactly on point, is of the same spirit. A list already exists at List of people in John Prince's The Worthies of Devon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:56, 26 February 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:Teenage mothers

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Teenage mothers
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't really seem to be a defining characteristic. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is clear is that a large percentage of pre-modern women who have articles will fit this category. From going through the list of Queens Consort of Sicily I realized that many of these were married at age 12 and often had three children by the time they turned 20. Also, I still think that the name is misleading. A lady who is married and has a 2-week-old baby on her 20th birthday is in a very different situation than a single 15-year-old mother, and so I think the attempt to scope all this in one category just does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand I can't put Aurelia Spencer Rogers in the category, even though she was married at age 16 and the mother of 10 children, because the dates of births of her children are not noted in the article, so while I strongly suspect she was a teenaged mother, I have no evidence for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, we don't have Category:Women who first gave birth to a child after age 40 for example. In fact we do not have Category:Mothers at all. We do have Category:Queen mothers but that is for a totally different reason. We also do not have Category:Teenage fathers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 27 February 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:Unicode character

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. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/💮 was closed as "merge", so Faynatic's reservation no longer applies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This has essentially no content. the one "article" would be in category:unicode characters, and is up for AFD. other content can be upmerged. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:44, 26 February 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.

Australian Aboriginal peoples categories

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, as nobody opposed the move on the ground that the existing term is used by the peoples in question. The objection at the end of this discussion is answered by keeping biographies in the "Foo people" sub-category of "Foo" where this exists. ((Category explanation)) templates may help. In unambiguous cases it may be appropriate to move the lead article from "Foo people" to "Foo". – Fayenatic London 13:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: To match with main article, per WP:NCCAT. "Tribes" is altogether confusing, offensive and uncommon. Also considered Category:Australian Aboriginal groups, but thought that might be a bit ambiguous. Feel free to keep that option in consideration though. Osiris (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because that name already exists as the main container category for the topic. Category:Torres Strait Islanders is currently categorised separately. Could still match them up I suppose, but it would require renaming the main category and I don't have any suggestions for that. Osiris (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia [1] and the Australian Wikipedians' notice board [2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sounds good to me. Osiris (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the difference between the concepts are not deeply established in English. The fact of the matter is that categories like Category:Wyandot people have been placed in Category:Iroquoian peoples, the later being a category to hold articles on "tribes", not individuals. So it is clear that people do confuse these two concepts. It probably does not help that some categories with name "x tribe" have had bio articles placed in them, which then messes everything up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the case I came across is even more messed up because the article is Wyandot people. So it is really unclear is people in Wyandot people the same as people in Category:American people of French descent? Maybe to avoid confusion we should rename it to Category:American persons of French descent? Somehow I do not see getting widespread support to rename Category:People from Michigan and thousands of other categories to Category:Persons from Michigan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the relevance of discussing North American usage is here - 'peoples' is the relevant, and common, term used by Indigenous Australians. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is inherently a confusing term, because the specific group is a "people" but if we use that label in a category we generally limit the category to bio articles, and using "x people" to hold general articles on the people will lead to confusion, especially when people who are not of that ethnic group get put in the category because they are somewhat connected with it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 14 March 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.

Ballet dancers by gender categories

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 the male categories, no consensus for the female categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
another 34 categories of ballerinas
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