< March 31 April 2 >

April 1

Categories: Actors by ethnicity

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 05:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. - I'm really scratching my head over this one. No idea why it was created, since it is entirely redundant to Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent. (Looking into the history, I see that this category was originally called Category:Actors by ethnic group, but was later renamed. Not sure when it was created or by whom, perhaps it predated the category that it's redundant to.) Cgingold (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While we're on a similar topic here we should also delete Category:Actors of European descent; it has a population of one and makes no sense. Noticed while perusing general category (Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent), and thought I could piggy back it; see 4 April CFD. Quis separabit? 23:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That is an entirely separate question, and should not be shoehorned into this discussion. Cgingold (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COLLOQUY BETWEEN TWO EDITORS OVER UNFOUNDED ACCUSATION
  • AHEM - Listen up, User:Rms125a, AKA Quis separabit. DO NOT EVER REMOVE ANOTHER EDITOR'S COMMENT -- as you did with my comment, immediately above (which I have restored). That is a serious violation. I cut you some slack for your initial mistake of adding a separate issue to the CFD, which I chalked up to your not being familiar with proper CFD protocol. But there is no excuse for removing another editor's posted comment, and it doesn't require an advanced degree to know that. As for any other categories that you wish to deal with, you will need to create a separate CFD to discuss them. Cgingold (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • AHEM -- While we are clearing our throats, could Cgingold tell me what comment I deleted. I certainly would not be foolish enough to intentionally delete another editor's comments on a public forum like a CFD or AFD. These ([1], [2], [3], [4]) are the diffs surrounding my last edit, which should show that. I studied them and have no idea what you are talking about. I did not intentionally (or otherwise as far as I know) delete your little "That is an entirely separate question, and should not be shoehorned into this discussion" comment. Why would I? Please explain why you think I did. Quis separabit? 15:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Um, you might want to have a look at your FIRST edit following my comment/response, which you somehow managed to skip over in your list. As to Why? you would remove my comment, I think that's for you to answer. Cgingold (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh... I just noticed that while you were at it, you also removed the following comment by another editor (which I am now restoring) )Cgingold (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know how it happened. Obviously it was unintentional, either through a mistake editing or maybe using a wrong version. Whatever, I don't know. You should have realized that. And if you felt that strongly you should have raised the point on my talk page (AGF) rather than adopting an obnoxious and threatening tone here. If I did delete Obi-Wan Kenobi's comment, I apologize to him directly. And the answer to my (rhetorical) question is that I would have had no reason and would not have intentionally deleted your little comment or Obi-Wan's delete vote. I restored the comments chronologically. Quis separabit? 16:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Excuse me, but it's quite absurd for you to now declare, "Obviously it was unintentional" and "You should have realized that." My "little comment" went suddenly missing smack in the middle of your out-of-protocol attempt to modify the scope of this CFD. (You inserted a new category, to be deleted for entirely different reasons, and while you were at it, you also changed the section heading.) Under the circumstances, why would I assume that it was anything but intentional? However, since you insist that it was in fact entirely UN-intentional, I will take your word for it. That said, it was frightfully sloppy editing on your part. And your oversight in somehow missing that edit -- followed by your insistence that you hadn't done it -- was pretty darn sloppy, too. Cgingold (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I know I have seen instances in the past in which a related article is added to an existing AFD or CFD action, which I colloquially call "piggybacking", so I do not consider it "out of protocol". I don't know how common or uncommon a practice it is. I checked and have found no rules prohibiting such usually innocuous actions, either. So I had no reason to remove your little comment unless you are employing synthesis to imply that your objection to the piggybacking somehow was sufficiently important for me to try to delete it, which is absurd. And I deleted Obi-Wan's vote too, because, despite editing since 2005, I somehow thought that these deletions on an active CFD thread would go unnoticed. You didn't even notice yourself until a few minutes ago about the Obi-Wan vote being deleted also, two full days ago, which I had no reason to do since I support deletion in this case, although obviously even if I didn't I would never delete anything on an AFD or CFD thread, or almost anywhere else, except perhaps my own talk page, as Wikipedia is transparent. And again, "... if you felt that strongly you should have raised the point on my talk page (AGF) rather than adopting an obnoxious and threatening tone here", because I am guilty of, at most, carelessness in this case, to which I am willing to man up. I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. Quis separabit? 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I really have nothing further to say, other than to note one last bit of appalling sloppiness on your part, which I was forced to clean up. This took place when you "restored the comments chronologically" by inserting them smack in the midst of our back-and-forth comments. I had to remove those two comments and place them in a more appropriate location (below). Cgingold (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chronological means chronological. And Obi-Wan Kenobi's comment/vote necessarily precedes your first comment to me, which means I placed it exactly where it belongs. Quis separabit? 21:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Fulbright Scholars

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)Reply[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Fulbright Scholars to Category:Fulbright scholars
Nominator's rationale: unnecessary capitalization Greg Bard (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Niccolò Cusano University of Rome

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:Università degli Studi Niccolò Cusano. The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only content is one subcategory for faculty. That can probably also be deleted, unless we have an article for the school. I could not find it. Maybe someone with knowledge of Italy can figure it out. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support deletion as per Vegaswikian's rationale. Quis separabit? 00:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Marconi University of Rome

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:Marconi University. The Bushranger One ping only 05:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found doing cleanup from February. Appears to be an incomplete nomination for deletion. Only has the main article and one for faculty, so probably deletion was as a small category. If kept, rename to Category:Marconi University. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: this is basically a circular redirect. Quis separabit? 00:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Computer magazine disambiguations

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) 03:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation pages are not encyclopedia content (articles), they are just a navigation aid to articles. As such they shouldn't be in topic-based categories. CAT:DABP#Notes says such dab page categories (populated by category tags rather than by a dab template) should not be used. DexDor (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)----Reply[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.

4th and 6th centuries in Israel

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. To rather loosely paraphrase/summarise - there were decent points made both for (" mass cleanup is in process") and against ("...that may be, but quite a bit of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and there is less-than-clarity in naming (presumably due to Wikipedia's usage of COMMONNAME, among other things) when differentiating between a political entity and a region"). All that said, I'd like to suggest all commenters should read Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement. What I read below could very well have resulted in warnings/sanctions per that (not to mention existing Wikipedia policy). I strongly suggest that we not see any repeat of this at CfD. - jc37 23:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 05:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why we need to apply the actual political name for that period (Byzantine Empire - Diocese of the East) and avoid "region" disputes (for which we have a dozen of POV names).GreyShark (dibra) 15:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed so. We can often get to ridiculous examples with anachronistic applications, such as 19th century in Pakistan, whereas Pakistan obviously hadn't existed until the split of India in 1940s (not even the name "Pakistan"). With the case of Turkey it is also rather amusing, and if applying retro-actively, someone might have said that Turkmen invaded into "15th century Turkey" and defeated Byzantium...GreyShark (dibra) 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the wikipedians who participated in such discussions, and who don't care for only one spot on the globe, can attest that previous moves have usually been in the right direction, this makes the case. trespassers william (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. trespassers william (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that a few other categories of centuries in other countries have been merged is simply not a reason to merge this one as well. Look at some current examples at Category:Centuries by country. So unless all of these X-century in X-country categories (of centuries before the countries' independence) are merged into other related categories properly, this one should remain as is. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, Vegaswikian supported the move. Do you?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meant to say Shuki. Brain fart.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Football at the 2011 Military World Games

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: deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty unused category JMHamo (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:National military association football teams

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: deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category JMHamo (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Nair's in Indian Police Service

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) 03:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The value of categorisation by caste has been questioned before (see, for example, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 10#Category:Rajput people). This particular category is a narrow intersection of caste and occupation. Its use seems difficult to justify considering that the parent, Category:Nair people, has been deleted. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 19:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:British companies established in 2008

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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, we don't categorize at the triple intersection of type of entity (company), place (British), and year of establishment (2008/2007). I recommend deleting these and upmerging to Category:Companies established in 2008 and Category:2008 establishments in the United Kingdom. If they are kept, this is a categorization scheme we'll want to expand instead. BDD (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, good find, Category:Companies established in 2007 by country and Category:Companies established in 2008 by country exist, though again, not for any other year as far as I can see. Perhaps I should start a new discussion for those two. I do hope I wouldn't have to tag all of the subcats. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you would need to tag all the subcats to be deleted/upmerged. If you need help, ping me, as I can probably do it using WP:AWB. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I had initially written out that the 2007 category should be upmerged to the appropriate 2007 category, but I thought that obvious. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ottawa, I and I'm sure the vast majority here would welcome more informed participation here. If you have ideas on how to get more editors to vote here id welcome it. Secondly, did you get consensus from those projects before starting this new scheme, which would lead to hundreds of more categories to create and maintain? If not, why should we ask them if they want to keep, as they weren't consulted before creation? Feel free to notify them but projects are expected to tag and monitor alerts for articles and cats of interest and it's only rarely that projects are informed, it's totally optional and if you see a discussion that you feel would benefit from contribs by a project please notify them - no need to ask permission here nor complain about it - just fix it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Holy Land during Byzantine rule

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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a general perception by many users that Holy Land may be a very religiously sensitive and geographically non-precise. However, the previous rename proposal into "Palestine during Byzantine rule" didn't get majority support. To resolve the issue i propose to refer to "Holy Land" during Byzantine rule for its encompassing administrative region - Diocese of the East, which is the most correct term for that area at the time, not going into too much details with borders of subprovinces Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, Palaestina Salutaris, Arabia Petraea and Phoenice (Roman province) (all comprising Holy Land in some way).GreyShark (dibra) 17:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diocese was indeed larger than Holy Land alone, but during Byzantine times there was no "Holy Land" unit - the region was a part of the Oriens diocese, and included a number of subprovinces as described above. This is the best descriptive concept for that period for that area - similar to Ottoman Syria in Ottoman period.GreyShark (dibra) 19:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I categorically oppose replacing something which is not ideal but at least very clear, by something is definitely not correct, and is in addition not readily understandable for the average reader. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The average reader should be inclined to use an encyclopedia. They have mice for that... trespassers william (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the proposed category is not a correct description of that area, as the nominator admitted himself in his reply to me above. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One question: If it was disestablished on 535, and the area changed hands early in the7th C, will the cat be relevant for the decades in between? trespassers william (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Answer - actually when reading the J.B.Bury [5] source, there is no indication of abolishment of the diocese in 535 CE. It says that "The Count of the East was deprived of his jurisdiction over the Orient diocese and, retaining his title, rank, and emoluments, became the civil governor of the province of Syria Prima." Thus there was a rotation of military and civil governors, but it doesn't say the diocese was abolished.GreyShark (dibra) 04:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems you are confused - Diocese of the East (Oriens) was a super-province, or Roman diocese, within Byzantine Empire, covering the Levant. This administrative region doesn't have much to do with Christian concept of Diocese, which only distantly refers to administrative organizations of the Byzantine Empire. Furthermore, actually Holy Land is a typical Christian-associated term, which is rarely used in Jewish or Muslim lexicons.GreyShark (dibra) 16:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Greyshark, sorry to say but you are the one creating the confusion by using the ambiguous unclear term "Diocese". If you wish to create a category that will focus on your hobby horse then feel free to create Category:Diocese of the East (Byzantine Empire) that focuses on a Byzantine POV feel free to do so, otherwise we must assume that the current name is a far better general name because it creates no confusion. Merely not to like the well-known and widely-used name Holy Land and replace it with an obscure name that causes confusion (Christian versus Byzantine/Roman) and that only you know about is not a good enough reason for this nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no confusion, because Diocese of the East was a Byzantine super-province and we should refer to its border at the time. There is no modern "diocese of the East" in politics or in Christian Churches. If you want to discuss borders of current entities in the Levant, please refer to Template:Location map Israel (which has recently been heavily POV-edited indeed), Module:Location map/data/Syria, template:Location map Lebanon and Template:Location map Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 15:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If renaming to Category:Diocese of the East (Byzantine Empire) will solve it in your opinion, i would agree.GreyShark (dibra) 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what are the exact borders of Holy Land in Byzantine times if i may ask? Do we include Acre in the Holy Land? How about Tyre (now in Lebanon)? St. Katarina in the Sinai peninsula?GreyShark (dibra) 19:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's another discussion, that is irrelevant to this AfD, but is discussed at other articles/images such as Holy Land and File:1759 map Holy Land and 12 Tribes.jpg. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is that another discussion? A category like this is used as an anchor, it helps editors to agree where certain information should be sought for or be placed, where a certain mistake might have snuck in, where coverage is lacking. Moreover, it tells readers where a question might be answered, what they might want to compare, and so work to streamline expectations.
If we first pick the term by which to delineate the scope of a category, and then go to define what this term means, all parties are at loss. Each will seek their own guide. Those imagined lands like Holy Land, have neither definite borders or physical reality, nor a definite body of scholarly work. If you hope to find a definition in the articles, please look at them; Islam has five definitions, Christianity has all these maps, but for other purposes focus on the travels of Jesus, and Judasim talks about Promised land, with two wide ranging versions, and Land of Israel, with its many ancient shifts and halakhic and academic interpretations. BTW, it is transparent that some editors here wish to keep Holy Land because this is their best chance to imagine that the entire history of the land is about the biblical Land of Israel in its fuzzy widest.
The map you linked is from 1759 and like many parallel ones is, errgh a little speculative. At any rate the land of the twelve tribes is far form trivial definition of Holy Land under Byzantine Rule, None of them purports to show any reality of that time. trespassers william (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. In the early period, as Debresser hints, the 'diocese of the east' overwrote in ecclesiastical terms the Roman prefecture, which included Iran. No English speaker thinks of the Holy Land in that unfocused and immensely generic sense. trespasser william's comments are spot-on, also, except for the remark re the fuzziness of 'Holy Land'. In the literature, Palestine means the Holy Land, and the Holy Land Palestine. Historians use Palestine because it is not sectarian and over time administrative divisions change, but an area has an historical and cultural continuity There are too many category disputes in this area, caused by ephemeral political problems over perceived implications that the world of historians has no problems with. The Holy Land is unnecessary as a cat, just as the Land of Israel is unncessary. Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Wainwrights

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) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "A Wainwright is a fell in the English Lake District given a chapter by Alfred Wainwright in his Pictorial Guides to the Lakeland Fells. See list of Wainwrights." Poor basis for a category and redundant with the list. Tim! (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Recreational mathematics experts

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) 03:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A much more common way of describing these folks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, it could be a bit fuzzy, but I would say it's math that is described as such, or mathematical content which is principally produced for consumption by the general public or requiring no advanced training in mathematics. If someone does this for their friends at the dinner table they're not a "recreational mathematician", but if they regularly publish such works, videos, etc that are mentioned in RS, or if they are paid for the creation of such content/puzzles/etc (eg. Marvin Gardner), then they are RMs. Remember, categories are not intended to cover every job a person has done, it's really intended to cover things that are WP:DEFINING about them. i'm gonna have to go read some of your rec math pages it looks fun! :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ones I think are recreational are listed here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[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