< January 22 January 24 >

January 23

Category:American Inaugural poets

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify and delete. I will ask the nominator to create the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be over-categorisation of 'performers by performance' (WP:OC#PERF). Our general practice is to delete such categories, as they're non-defining: true, reading at a presidential inauguration is a rare honour, but it's still not really a defining characteristic of any of these people. This is the kind of content that's better expressed with a list than a category. Robofish (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would second the notion that this could make an article, and probably more than just a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 26 January 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:Hindi loandwords

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 all, and do not listify. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. 'we categoriez things by what they are, not what they are named. We do not categorize things by having a shared name'? Er, I beg to differ. Category:Words and phrases by language is a long-established category tree, and a perfectly reasonable one. However, as I said on the similar CFD for 'Greek loanwords', I think 'loanwords' is an unnecessary subcategory - how do we determine whether a foreign word has passed into English or not? These should probably be merged into Category:Hindi words and phrases, Category:Arabic words and phrases, etc. Robofish (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However the articles are not on words and phrases, they are on things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I had forgotten about the Loanwords cat discussion (and I even was invovled in it), so I guess we have a precedent to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a requirement would just encorage people to turn encyclopedia articles into dictionary articles. The articles are on the things, not the words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to listify in Wikipedia when Wiktionary is the proper place to collate this information (e.g. in Wiktionary:Category:English terms derived from Hindi). DexDor (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is Cheetah. If for some reason we decided to rename all animal articles to their scientific names and thus renamed this article Acinonyx jubatus, it should still be in the same categories. It would still fit in Category:Mammals of Asia and even Category:Animals described in 1776 but it would not longer fit in this category. That shows that we are here categorizing by other than what the thing is, and that is just plain a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Articles should have appropriate categorization based on what the title means (i.e. the subject of the article), not the title itself. Most articles (even those with titles like Yara-ma-yha-who) also have subject-based categories. Articles like Doryanthes excelsa don't even have a title that's of Aboriginal origin. Having a pale imitation of Wiktionary:Category:Australian Aboriginal languages just clutters up Wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 2 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:Persistent organic pollutants

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, after a selective upmerge per Fayenatic london's proposal.
.The difficulty with this category is that persistence is not a binary characteristic (where compounds either persist or don't); it is a scale, in which compounds may have a half-life ranging from seconds to years. Without a threshold, a category of persistent organic pollutants is meaningless (or at least WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, but attempts to apply a threshold fall foul of WP:OC#ARBITRARY. So the consensus is to retain the Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention, which does have clear inclusion criteria, and delete this one. Editors may wish to consider creating a list of other persistent organic pollutants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The definition of this category is ambiguous. We have Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention that is clearly defined. Leyo 16:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a sufficiently robust boundary. Some chemicals are defined as persistent organic pollutants by reputable sources and that is what should be in the category (or subcat). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron is wrong. Even Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Stockholm Convention are in fact naturally degraded in the environment, just slow. Thresholds in half-lives are two months for water and six months for soil and sediment.
The problem with Category:Persistent organic pollutants is that whether a compound or articles like Brominated flame retardant (substance properties differ a lot among this group) is put into this category or not, is normally purely original research. --Leyo 13:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have an empirical standard already. We should be using said empirical standard. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of strong defining characteristic is there for compounds that are not regulated under the Stockholm convention? None that is not OR. --Leyo 22:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On further examination I find that the three non-substance pages which I mentioned are already linked under "see also" in the main article, which suffices for navigation. Just upmerge the main article and the sub-cat Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention to the parents of the nominated cat (for the record, I only placed that sub-cat within this one after the nomination); also selectively categorise the convention, protocol & network into the parent Category:Biodegradable waste management. – Fayenatic London 19:40, 30 January 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:Joe Arroyo

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 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:13, 23 January 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:Grupo Niche

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 20:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 23 January 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:Eastman School of Music alumni

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 keep. The consensus was that the current name fits with the existing naming convention, so the nominator withdrew the nomination. An RFC is underway at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC - Alumni, which may lead to changes in the convention. If there is a consensus there to change the convention in a way that affects this category, feel free to nominate this category again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standardise with other Alumni categories Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 23 January 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:Films in The Hobbit film series

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 to Category:The Hobbit film series – Fayenatic London 19:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#SMALL. The category will never have more than three articles in it. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:50, 23 January 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:Sportswomen from Newcastle, New South Wales

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. delldot ∇. 00:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. Sportspeople aren't divided by gender. ...William 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. The majority of sports still divide men's and women's competitions. Wouldn't it have been easier to wait until the earlier nominations were closed to see which way the rest of the community wants to go with this? --99of9 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are categories like this[1] for female athletes. As I pointed out previously, the categorization by gender and city/territory location isn't done by city. Except it seems in Australia. The debate doesn't have to wait either...William 14:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about past practice on Wiki (although Jayvdb has shown you some counterexamples on that), I'm talking about real life. Sports people are very used to constantly being divided by gender, in competition and out, it is one of the ways that humans categorize sportspeople when we talk about them and write about them. Thus it is a useful category to put encyclopedia articles in. Per WP:USEFUL. --99of9 (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't people read the links they cite anymore? The last sentence of WP:USEFUL explicitly states: "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument.". --99of9 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination and the one below are not a collegian way to have a discussion. William started two discussions about the same thing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_22#Category:Sportswomen_from_Sydney. Discussion should continue in one place. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle is not Sydney, so this is not the same thing. With city categories larger cities often have some specific type of people categories that smaller cities lack. So even if the Sydney ones were kepts it would not force a keep on the Newcastle ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone going to make a Newcastle-specific argument for deletion then? I'd really rather not have to copy both my keep votes and my rebuttal of false-policy into many more carbon copy CfDs. --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 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:Sportswomen from New South Wales

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. delldot ∇. 00:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. Sportspeople aren't divided by gender. ...William 12:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. The majority of sports still divide men's and women's competitions. Wouldn't it have been easier to wait until the earlier nominations were closed to see which way the rest of the community wants to go with this? --99of9 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are categories like this[2] for female athletes. As I pointed out previously, the categorization by gender and city/territory location isn't done by city. Except it seems in Australia. The debate doesn't have to wait either...William 14:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out to you in yesterday's discussion, it is done elsewhere. see Category:Footballers from Greater London. As we are talking about states here, see also Category:American players of American football by state. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL is about removing non-encyclopedic content so I don't think it's relevant here - if anything the last paragraph of it applies. DexDor (talk) 07:22, 24 January 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:User Pages

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. Merging of duplicate categories. WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User pages are in the tiered "Wikipedians" category. This is an outlier created last month, with only eight users in it. McGeddon (talk) 09:26, 23 January 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.

Wikipedia categories named after musicians

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 all. In future similar cases it would be appreciated if nominators would check that an artists' songs and albums categories are mutually linked using ((related category)), and of course linked to the artist's page. The category only becomes unnecessary once those links are provided. – Fayenatic London 19:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per numerous precedent and WP:OC#Eponymous, these categories have minimal content to justify them. None of these have anything more than songs and albums for the artist as child categories, and maybe a template. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:21, 23 January 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:Webcomic authors

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 Bushranger One ping only 20:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Authors" is terribly ambiguous. With webcomics, nearly all the creators are both author and artist, so splitting doesn't make much sense. As very few creatives take over someone else's webcomic, "creators" seems the best renaming possibility, similar to Category:Comics creators.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 08:02, 23 January 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 Reformed clergy

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 to Category:American Calvinist and Reformed clergy. From the discussion, both category names are correct but not expansive enough, yet both overlap. So putting them together seems the smartest thing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:American Reformed clergy to Category:American Calvinist clergy
Nominator's rationale: All Reformed are Calvinists, but all Calvinists are not Reformed... for the purposes of Wikipedia these two terms are interchangeable and having two categories is redundant. ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using this discussion as a back-door to get the no consensus result of your previous bid for merge overturned is inappropriate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be inappropriate to have this as an outlier. Why would we keep the current setup if ReformedArsenal's logic is accepted? --JFH (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the term "Reformed" specifically designates that branch of the Reformation of the western church originally characterized by a distinctively non-Lutheran, Augustinian sacramental theology with a high ecclesiology but little regard for ecclesiatical tradition that is not traceable to the Scriptures or the earliest church. - Johnson, Roger, "What Is Reformed Theology?", Institute for Reformed Theology, Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education, retrieved 24 January 2013
"The best English expression of the Reformed faith is arguably contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith." -Westminster Theological Seminary, What is Reformed Theology, retrieved 24 January 2013
"On the one hand, the words Reformed and Calvinist are historically and ecclesiastically rooted in confessional Reformed “theology, piety, and practice,” to employ the language of R. Scott Clark in his helpful epilogue, “Predestination Is Not Enough,” in Clark, R. Scott (October 2008), Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice, P & R Publishing Company, ISBN 978-1-59638-110-0, retrieved 24 January 2013." - Parsons, Burk, "Calvinism Isn't Enough", Ligonier Ministries, retrieved 24 January 2013
ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't used that way at all, especially in polemical and popular works. I just don't think it's that widespread, especially in historical literature, for us to make a distinction like that that's not going to be confusing in categorization. --JFH (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly call them "Calvinist". StAnselm (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we're going to call some people who are Reformed "Calvinists" and other people who are Reformed "Reformed? That sure clears things up. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One way around this is to rename Category:Reformed Christians to Category:Members of Reformed Christian churches, just as we already have Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches (and also analogous to, for example, Category:Members of the Churches of Christ. StAnselm (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other option is to perform a merge, but amalgamate the titles: e.g. Category:American Calvinist and Reformed clergy. StAnselm (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be amicable to identifying with something like Category: Members of Reformed Christian Denominations and then having a sub category for each denomination (Category: Member of the Dutch Reformed Denomination). I just think to call out people as Reformed while ignoring other people who are also Reformed is an error and presents something that is inaccurate. If we keep it denominationally based (and made clear by including the word denomination in the Category) I'd be fine with it. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my !vote above. If some people are saying "merge", and others are saying "reverse merge", it looks like we should have an amalgamation. StAnselm (talk) 21:34, 27 January 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:Overpasses

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: selective merge to Category:Road interchanges, with a few articles going to other categories such as Category:Rail junctions or Category:Viaducts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. While we have an article on an overpass, it is not clear how defining this is in classifying these structures. If you look at the articles, some are about overpasses and others are about much more then this one feature in an interchange. Based on looking at the contents, I thought that a rename to Category:Interchanges might be an option, but that was deleted here as empty. Proposing delete, but unsure if there is a better option which would include keeping. If I understand this correctly, an overpass is a bridge that crosses a road or a rail line. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 23 January 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:Cold War intercontinental ballistic missiles

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. Deleting the Cold War weapons categories en masse might be possible, but this corner case should not be where that effort starts.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some of this group has been nominated before, as part of the clean-up of User:Target for Today's category-creating enthusiasms. The situation hasn't changed: there's no such thing as a Soviet weapon that isn't a Cold War weapon, more or less by definition; and it turns out that the American SSBNs all date from the same period. Therefore all of these categories overlap with other categories or only contain categories in this structure which I propose to be rid of. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still considering a larger-scale examination of the cold war weapons categories. There are after all hardly any non-Cold-war missiles of the US, and of course none for the Soviet Union. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as we have a Category:Weapons by period category structure then we shouldn't be taking ICBM/SLBM articles out of it. That structure is a bit of a mess so merging/renaming "Cold War" cats (e.g. into "post-1945" or "20th-century" cats) might make sense, but that isn't what this CFD is proposing. It isn't logical to say "all Soviet missiles are Cold War missiles so they should be taken out of the Cold War category". DexDor (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This (unlike the Falklands War categories for example) isn't just a "weapons by conflict" category; "Weapons of the Cold War" can be interpreted as "Weapons introduced during the Cold War period" and indeed the category is in both the "Military equipment by conflict" and "Weapons by period" trees. Currently any articles in the Cold War weapons category should not also be in Category:Weapons post-1945 as that category would be redundant. Therefore we shouldn't delete Cold War categories without upmerging most/all of the articles to a post-1945 or 20th-century category (incidentally, that overlap needs sorting out as well). DexDor (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I guess I can see that point - rather like the "Napoleonic period". In that case the category needs to be taken out of "Military equipment by conflict" (which it really shouldn't have been in per se anyway). This particular set of categories though is redundant, as mentioned - and I would argue that upmerging to the post-1945 category (which should be divided from "pre-1945" in the 20th Century as the rocket/missile/jet era weapons are quite distinct from the previous ones) would be better than keeping. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerging Cold War categories to post-1945 categories is a step we might take in the future, but that should be done separately from this nom which only covers a few of the Cold War categories. DexDor (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An ICBM is (by definition) a missile with certain characteristics (e.g. range). Having entered service during the Cold War is not part of that definition; the next ICBM type to be fielded by any country (DPRK?) will be an ICBM, but not a Cold War ICBM. Even if we knew there would never be another type of ICBM that's no reason to remove articles (e.g. R-29 Vysota) from the "weapons by period" tree. DexDor (talk) 19:44, 15 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:LGBT scientists

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 by nominator. I forgot about the very recent discussion and it's clear that this nomination isn't going to go through. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There appears to be a growing consensus, as expressed in several recent deletion discussions, that many if not most LGBT by occupation categories are not notable intersections. Some subcats of this have already been deleted. It seems to me hard to argue that there is some connection between sexuality and scientific inquiry in general. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 23 January 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:Passenger train by highest speed in commercial operations

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:Passenger trains by operating speed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Passenger train by highest speed in commercial operations to Category:Passenger trains by highest speed in commercial operations
Nominator's rationale: These should be plural Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:24, 23 January 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