< November 17 November 19 >

November 18

Category:Fat athletes

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 per WP:IAR and WP:G10. As noted this is subjective and, even if we assume it wasn't created deliberately as an attack category (which given its single occupant and the editing history of its creator, seems rather possible) it would become bait for such without any siginificant encyclopedic value. The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Whether or not someone is "fat" is subjective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 18 November 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:House arrest

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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 2. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is not about house arrest but rather groups a number of articles about Iranian people. Presumably they are individuals that were placed under house arrest at some point, though many of the articles do not say anything like that. For articles of these people, if they are notable for having been under house arrest, Category:Iranian prisoners and detainees and/or Category:Prisoners and detainees of Iran would be more appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 18 November 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:Microsoft woman employees

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm not sure why we would want to separate the female Microsoft employees from the male ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry Pepsi if there are no fundamental differences between the genders then why are there only 15 woman employees out of a total of 207 (189+9+9) MS employees? XOttawahitech (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have just answered your own question? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft has around 25% of female employees overall, which is aligned more or less with the tech sector more generally [1]. There are also around this many CS graduates that are women. In any case, we don't need to divide this at the company level, and I'm not aware of other companies where we've divided employees by gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:13, 21 November 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.

Toronto Blizzard

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/merge as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match parent articles Toronto Blizzard (1971–84) and Toronto Blizzard (1986–93) and also per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not gonna work that way. Like a few other previous teams including Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, Tampa Bay Rowdies, Fort Lauderdale Strikers, etc., these are two separate franchises so we need separate cats to match each article. If they were on hiatus, then I would've considered moving all the categories to Toronto Blizzard players. But they ceased operations after the 84' season before getting back to business in 1986. So yeah, merging all of them to one single category despite the fact that they're two separate franchises doesn't make any sense. – Michael (talk) 19:16, 22 November 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:Spawn villains

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 both parents. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Spawn villains to Category:BOTH PARENTS
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It does not appear that we categorize comic book characters on their status as being villains in relation to one protagonist for another. I can find no other similar categories except for two that are category redirects to other categories for the franchise. Merger to both parents keeps them within the Spawn character structure and the supervillains character structure, which we do appear to allow. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:34, 18 November 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:Lutheran linguists

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, without prejudice to creating a new category whose title better reflects the intended scope. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't typically categorize for cross-sections of occupation and religion when those two characteristics are unrelated. This is a member of Category:Lutherans by occupation, which is appropriate for occupations such as chaplains and theologians, but not so much for non-religious occupations such as linguists. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we have such categories as Canadian beekeepers. What's the relation between these two characteristics? As to the claim about the assertion that their linguistic endeavours were directly tied to their translating religious texts, this is an intersection that is supported by several reliable sources, some of them available here (at Google Books). --Eleassar my talk 09:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took a closer look at the 8 articles in the category based on your concern. Johann Phillip Fabricius and Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg fit your model of being linguists for explicitly religious reasons. In the other 6 articles, there is not such a connection or, at least, it's not made explicit in the article by my reading.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll try to provide a reliable source for the rest of them (tomorrow, I don't have time right now). --Eleassar my talk 14:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at the Category:Bible translators tree as well to see if these articles belong there. That may capture part of what you're looking for. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some of the rest of these people (with additional effort more about this may be found):
Adam Bohorič - you may read here: "Also arising from this biblicistic activity was the first attempt at compiling a grammar of Slovene, by Adam Bohorič".
Daniel Klein (grammarian) - "Klein writes in the foreword that his grammar is designed so that those desiring ecclesiastical service and wishing to instruct the benighted people in their native language may with its (the grammar's) help more easily and correctly acquire it."[2]
Samuel Kleinschmidt - [3] states for Hans Egede (also a Lutheran): "He took contact with the Inuit immediately in order to convert them to Christianity. For this purpose, he learnt the language, and wrote descriptions of it and translations of religious works into Greenlandic. He was the initiator of a tradition of Greenlandic studies, his sons Paul and Niels following him. This ultimately resulted in Samuel Kleinschmidt's Greenlandic grammar of 1851."
Lars Olsen Skrefsrud - became interested in Santali language and culture because he was sent as a missionary to India.
Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg - see below. --Eleassar my talk 09:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These people were more than translators. For example, you may read here: "Also arising from this biblicistic activity was the first attempt at compiling a grammar of Slovene, by Adam Bohorič". The intersection is therefore more than trivial: due to their Lutheran beliefs, these people translated Biblical and other religious texts, which led them to compile grammar books of the local languages they were translating into. See also Berlin Missionary Society: "The BMS focused on providing schooling and bringing the gospel to people in their own language. Hence the Society’s missionaries were often at the forefront of publishing Bible translations, dictionaries and grammars in indigenous languages." or here: "All Flacianist writings, which Sebastian Krelj strove to assert, were removed from the official repertoire of the Slovenian church under the elegantly contrived pretext that their orthography was inappropriate." The relation is direct. --Eleassar my talk 09:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page describes the relationship very well: "Protestant missionaries believed in the power of the gospel in people's own language to save them for heaven, and by Ziegenbalg to improve life on earth. Following in the footsteps of Cyril and Methodius, Luther and Tyndale, this meant that the fundamental priority for missionaries was to produce a Bible in common languages so that people could understand it for themselves. The vernacularisation process required an insider's knowledge of the local language and customs of the people. If necessary, it required putting the language into written form and creating a grammar." --Eleassar my talk 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that helpful explanation. However, a category of people who used language in that way needs a more specific title than "Lutheran linguists", because that title does not convey the crucial factor that these people used their lingustics in pursuit of Lutheranism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title can be negotiated, of course. What better alternative do you suggest? --Eleassar my talk 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the group here is roughly described as "Lutherans who translated the bible into vernacular languages". If that description is OK with you, then we need a short form of it. The best I can think of so far is "Bible vernacularisers", but the neologism is so ugly that I couldn't recommend it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been clearly explained above that these people were not only (or were not at all) Bible translators, but translated other texts and wrote dictionaries and grammar books. This is typical linguistic work, and as such they qualify as linguists. They did all this exactly because they were of the Lutheran faith, so they are rightly regarded as Lutheran linguists. --Eleassar my talk 15:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely Lutherans who became linguists because of their faith. But there must also be a significant number of linguists who just coincidentally are Lutherans just based on their percentage in the general population, right? Ernst Oswald Johannes Westphal would be one. I'm not convinced a category is needed here outside the Bible translators and Lutheran missionary ones but, if so, it should be a sub-cat of Category:Translators by work or Category:Bible translators along the lines suggested by BRG rather than just an intersection of career and religion. I hope that helps. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is ok. We can make this category part of Category:Translators by work, and we can be selective about whom we include in this category: those who are Lutherans just coincidentally should therefore be left out. --Eleassar my talk 13:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar:, "we can be selective" is a bad basis for a category. The scope of a category should be evident from its title, because otherwise good faith editors will populate it with articles which do not meet any narrower definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realise this, but in the lack of a better title I think we'll have to make a compromise and regularly remove those who should not be included. It's probably not the first such category. --Eleassar my talk 11:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categories which require such regular maintenance are rarely maintained with enough vigour, or for long enough ... and even if they are maintained, the subjectivity of who to include leads to disputes. So it's much better to delete the category unless it is renamed to a title which accurately conveys its intended scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BHG here. Instead of having an intersection category (Lutherans and Linguists) and hope/infer the importance of that overlap, the category should be renamed for whatever it is you're trying to capture directly. Category:Translators of Lutheran texts or whatever.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Category:Writers of Lutheran linguistic texts would be worth considering. As stated, they wrote dictionaries and grammar books, they were not only translators or were not at all translators. However, I find the title 'Lutheran linguists' much more fluent. --Eleassar my talk 18:49, 1 December 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.

Eponymous categories for musicians/musical groups

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 Category:NMB48; delete the rest. On the question of group-versus-individual nominations, there is a degree of discretion that applies and not everyone will agree. Personally, I do not recommend grouping eponymous categories into one nomination, since it is necessary to evaluate for each category whether there exists sufficient content to warrant an eponymous category. It is best to avoid a situation where participants might say "keep these ones, but delete the rest"—that is a sign that the same reasoning did not apply to all categories equally (at least in the eyes of certain participants). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: All of these eponymous categories contain no more than subcategories for the artists' albums and songs, a discography page and a navbox template (some may have templates that haven't been categorized in their eponymous cat, but no matter). This is about the level I've seen that these types of categories have regularly been deleted via the CfD process; typically per WP:OC#Eponymous as nearly all content are works of the artists already in appropriate subcategories of Category:Albums by artist or Category:Songs by artist, and navigation isn't much more difficult from the eponymous article. The songs/albums categories can link to one another using a hatnote and even the discography page can be placed in one or both of those if so desired. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:01, 18 November 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:Cybertron

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Cybertron to Category:BOTH PARENTS
Nominator's rationale: Merge. unnecessary single-entry category that will likely never expand. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:44, 18 November 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:Tribe of Heaven albums

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tribe of Heaven only created one album, whose page redirects to the article of the group itself. There are no other article pages that fit in this category. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:32, 18 November 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:Stabbing victims

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) 00:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No longer needed as one of its two sub-cats has been deleted following CFD Sept 7. The remaining sub-cat Category:Deaths by stabbing is suitably categorised in the "deaths" tree, and does not need to be categorised under Category:Victims. – Fayenatic London 14:59, 18 November 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:Suspicious deaths

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) 17:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Liable to POV-pushing. We already have Category:Unsolved murders, which is fine, and the sole page currently in the nominated category is in a national sub-cat of that one, so there is no need for a merger. (Note: This was created as Category:Suspicious Deaths on 15 November, then speedily renamed.) – Fayenatic London 14:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: Other articles had been added (here) but have already been removed by other editors as the category was considered unnecessary or inappropriate. – Fayenatic London 14:53, 18 November 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 Franklin Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 1 entry. ...William 13:54, 18 November 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 Belle Vernon, Pennsylvania

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with 4 entries. ...William 13:36, 18 November 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 Fayette City, Pennsylvania

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 13:22, 18 November 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:Alltel

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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 2#Category:Alltel. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only includes the company page and a racing driver who was sponsored by the company for a few years, and doesn't appear to have a reasonable potential for expansion. The Bushranger One ping only 07:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, this category should be merged, presumably the a Verizon category, as it appears that was the main beneficiary of the takeover and break up. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except Ryan Newman doesn't belong in either of those categories, and Alltel is already in Category:Verizon Communications. There is nothing to merge here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Wikipedia:Merge what? applies to CfD too! --BDD (talk) 00:33, 22 November 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.

Typhoons in the Philippines by year

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: Option B. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option A
Propose merging:
Option B
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: This is the only instance that tropical cyclones are subdivided by country and year. Whereas subdivision by either country or year is logical from the standpoint of navigation, intersecting the two characteristics leads to a proliferation of categories that are either small and lacking potential for growth or overlap significantly with the corresponding YYYY Region tropical cyclone season category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nomination - the Philippines are the only country in the world to face 20 tropical depressions per year on average, with at a guess 10 - 15 of those requiring articles. As a result i think it is quite logical to have these subcategories since we dont want Typhoons in the Philippines, Category:XXXX disasters in the Philippines to be over crowded or to be predominately taken up by typhoon artcles.Jason Rees (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming all notable storms since 1963 when PAGASA started naming them get articles in the end we are talking about >500 articles in one category which makes it harder to find the article you are looking for.Jason Rees (talk) 12:42, 18 November 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