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) 05:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Family Matters characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL; Urkel is the only character with a standalone article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 13:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough contents to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2014 (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.

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) 01:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American researchers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is the only nationality-level subcat of Category:Researchers; these people are better placed in the subcategories like Category:Scholars_by_specialty_or_field_of_research,Category:Investigative_journalists,Category:Medical_researchers, which all have well developed by-nationality trees. Grouping together "American" + the amorphous term "researcher" adds no navigational value. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have misgivings about "researcher", just like I do over "scholar", "writer" and "academic". All four have been applied to individuals with advanced degrees that are affiliated with universities. Most often, they hold the position of "Professor" (which is a specific occupation and job title) but there are PhD scholars who work at university institutes, centers, medical schools, think tanks that are not professors and focus on research, writing, public speaking and/or grants. I'm not sure where this discussion should be held but there should be a decision on how to identify such people and I don't have a preference with those four titles.

Of course, one can identify some based on their discipline (anthropologist, physicists, political scientists, etc.) but this is not always true. In both medical, political and media research, scholars with a variety of different degrees can participate in research projects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We sub-categorize researchers by field, not by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I see no coherence within the category, after checking three of the four bio-articles. Some of them need to be categorised according to their field of research. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Women collectors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Women have always been involved in collections (here, usually meant to be collectors of art), and I don't think there's much value in splitting the tree with this non-diffusing category. Many female members of the nobility have been involved in patronage of arts, for example, but I don't think such a split helps navigation. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The role of women as collectors meets WP:CATGRS, because it is a notable cultural topic in its own right, on which an encyclopedic head article could be written. See a Google Books search and a Google Scholar search. Both searches include quite a lot of irrelevant hits, but there are plenty of relevant results which show that there are plenty of reliable sources with which to create such an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being a collector is a defining characteristic that is easily applied to an individual without any subjective decision making required. This will actually be quite interesting to browse one day. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's an argument to keep Category:Collectors, not the gendered sub-category. While I agree with BHG that people have written articles about female collectors they have also written articles about male collectors - but this isn't a role that women have traditionally been excluded from in a significant fashion, rather to be a collector required either a certain eye for art or a fair amount of money, and perhaps for the latter women have had less control over money - but I generally take a dim view of gendered categories unless it is truly defining of the people in question, and I think when people talk about art collectors they don't focus so much on gender but rather on their collections. If we take a broader view, beyond collectors of expensive art, I don't think anything has held women back in building collections of one sort or another.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obi, of course people have written about male collectors. My point is not that women collectors have been written about as individuals, but that the gendered relationship between being a woman and being a collector is itself an encyclopedic topic, where scholars have treated gender as a defining characteristic of the woman collector. The point is not under-representation (tho that may also be the case), but that women do it in a way which is different enough to be subject of scholarly research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My bigger concern is that the collector categories have been flooded by people who it is trivial to categorize them as such. I am not at all sure Michelle Burke should be so categorized. It more seems like she is notable (if at all) as an actress, not a collector.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Distribute contents then delete -- This is far too diverse to make a useful category. This is not an area where gneder is significant. Collecting is far too common for collecting in general to make a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 22:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Woman innovators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: the parent category of Category:Innovators is essentially a container category, since "Innovator" is not a specific enough job title, so we separate. I don't think we need this top-level grouping of "someone in a sub-class of innovator + female" - instead, when appropriate we could create female non-diffusing sub-categories, but having a top-level "woman innovators" (which should be "Women innovators" but I digress) doesn't add much value. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Category:Women innovators. There is plenty of scholarly literature on women innovators, so an encyclopedic head article could be written on the topic, which satisfies WP:CATGRS.
  As a container category, this bone causes no category clutter and no ghettoisation. Why not group women innovators in this way when we group all innovators in this way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BHG. I think that this would be a very useful category although I understand that this is not considered good justification for a category to exist. To be honest, I think "innovators" itself is a vague category and seems subjective to me. But if it exists, I can see readers wanting to focus on innovators of specific genders or ethnicities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Weak delete because what defines an innovator? It is really a subjective term without any constraint on what defines the term. Inventors, business leaders, product developers, physicians, scientists etc are all innovators. It seems like the defining characteristic of the category is muddy. If anyone can answer those questions i will happy change my opinion! Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an argument for deleting both Category:Innovators and Category:Woman innovators. However, it offers no reason to delete Category:Woman innovators while keeping Category:Innovators. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a discussion about Category:Woman innovators not Category:Innovators it wouldn't be appropriate for me to start including other categories. That being said my rationale applies to Category:Innovators as well, it is poorly defined and should probably be deleted as well. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your rationale applies to both categories, then it should be applied to both of them or neither. Selectively applying a principle to only of two similar categories leads to inconsistent decisions and long-term wrangles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The parent Category:Innovators is a container category and this one-article category does nothing in terms of navigation. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Alansohn: @Peterkingiron: this category now contains 15 entries + a category populated with another 29 entries. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Category:Innovators is a container for remarkably diverse groups of otherwise unrelated people including Category:Discoverers, Category:Founders, Category:Game designers, Category:Inventors, Category:Pioneers by field, Category:Researchers, Category:Sports inventors and innovators and Category:Theorists. There are multiple articles in the Category:Woman innovators, but they are a hodgepodge of discoverers, founders, inventors and pioneers in a range too wide to form a cohesive category. Alansohn (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A look at Category:Innovators shows it is a linking category of several extremely unlike things. Some of these may well be justified in having female sub-categories, but I do not think this super-generalized category is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the only problem you identify is a lack of subcats, the solution is to create the subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The one article is already adequately categorised, but it might possibly be moved to some appropriate subcategory of Category:Innovators. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Mrfrobinson that "Innovator" is poorly defined. I also agree with BrownHairedGirl that this is an argument for deleting Category:Innovators, which is also something I support. Innovation is poorly defined but has a positive connotation, so I'd consider it at least similar to a contentious label in that you should be very careful when using it. It's not really good for categorization, because you could be getting anyone in any field in any place, it's like if we had a category for "Visionaries". I'd say, though, that even if Innovators is a useful category Women/Woman Innovators is not, per Johnpacklambert - to the extent that it's a container for subcategories by field (Inventors, Business Founders, etc), Woman Innovators is just a "miscellaneous" category. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:15, 20 February 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Female accountants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Women make up at least 60% of accountants and auditors in the US, and I don't think that there is any special relation women have with accounting, nor is it rare that a woman would be an accountant. As such per WP:EGRS, I don't think we need this gendered division. Another quote from I found: "The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) says that women have made up the majority of accounting graduates since the mid-1990s."

All of the current contents are already categorized in the parent or in subcategories thereof, so deletion is fine for now. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Fundamentally flawed rationale. The pattern in many professions has been that in recent decades women enter in large numbers, but do not reach they higher levels in significant numbers (see the glass ceiling). That lack of promotion, after a long history of women being seriously under-represented even at entry level in professions, means that the latest entry figures are no guide to the number of wikipedia articles on notable women in a profession. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is not Category:Female partners at accounting firms though. If the argument is that any field where women were at any point underrepresented should have a gendered category then you might have a case but I don't think that's our standard - we should have a higher bar. When the majority, since at least 20 years, of people in this profession are women then we don't need to split them as a special type of accountant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my case. The overwhelming majority of people in any profession don't meet our notability criteria, and the overwhelming majority of partners at accounting firms don't meet our notability criteria. My point in that respect is that women remain a small minority of notable accountants.

You also seem determined to take a WP:RECENTIST view of under-representation, contrary to policy. WP:CATGRS#Gender: notes that "historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male". The principle is to focus on the whole history of the topic, rather than pretend that only the last 20 years matters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion. The fact that this list doesn't look like it's 60% women should be argument enough that we need a navigational aid to find notable examples of people in a statistical majority who don't get majority coverage. I would put in a general preference for "Women accountants". (This nomination also highlights how we're missing out on interesting stories like this.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No one has made an argument to keep that refers to our actual inclusion criteria. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right past wrong. We do not create categories to help people feel less aggrieved. No one has cited any proof that a head article that is more than a list could be written on this subject. There is no evidence that women in accounting is a distinct, cultural phenomenon, so we should delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category like this does not make any judgement on whether things are right or wrong, let alone to help anyone feel more aggrieved or less aggrieved. It just notes something worthy of study because of its exceptionality, like a blue moon or a black swan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Category:Accountants. This is not an area where gender is significant, any more than for female lawyers, where we habitually get rid of gender-based categories. Plain deletion is liable to lead to a loss of useful data. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (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.

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; without prejudice to further purging and a nomination of one or more of the categories for merging/deletion, as discussed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pet mammals to Category:Mammals as pets
• Propose renaming Category:Pet rabbits to Category:Rabbits as pets
• Propose renaming Category:Pet rodents to Category:Rodents as pets
• Propose renaming Category:Pet rats to Category:Rats as pets

Nominator's rationale: Clarity of category meaning (i.e. that these categories are not for articles about species that have been kept as pets) and consistency with Category:Cats as pets etc. These categories should be purged of articles about species etc (before or after the rename). For info: A related previous CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_22#Category:Pet_reptiles. DexDor (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Straightforward application of principles from previous CfD. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• selective upmerge/purge and then delete, keeping only Category:Mammals as pets once purged there won't be need for the various by-specifies splits. Some of these need to be upmerged to things like Category:Rabbit breeds. I also note that we have Category:Domesticated_animals, which is a reasonable category, as these species are indeed defined by having been domesticated by humans. and is more comprehensive than the 'pets' category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obi-Wan, can I take it that you're in favour of the rename/purge as proposed in the nom, but you would like to go a step further? The reason I didn't propose such an upmerge is that some of these categories (e.g. the rabbits one) may still have a reasonable number of articles. DexDor (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rabbit articles are all about rabbit breeds, and there is already a category for them. The vast majority of rabbit breeds are breeds that we have created for keeping as pets (or, I suppose, food). that's why we should just selectively upmerge to the rabbit breeds for the rabbits; I don't think we have that many articles that are specifically about these mammals as pets - most are about "X is a breed of domesticated rabbit" - and is thus more of a "breed" article than a "animal as a pet" article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with "selective upmerge/purge and then delete, keeping only Category:Mammals as pets" (I'd have considered that after this CFD). Note: I've removed many species articles from these cats (using the previous CFD result as precedent). DexDor (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Domesticated animals and renmame subcats to match -- While I am not sure that some of the other animals are domesticated other than as pets, rabbits are also reared for their meat. Accordingly this provides a more satisfactory tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not every article in the pets categories should be moved under Category:Domesticated animals - e.g. Skunks as pets. I suggest we complete the tidyup of the pets categories and then look at any overlap with domesticated animals categories. DexDor (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Caio Duilio-class battleships to Category:Caio Duilio-class ironclads

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Caio Duilio-class ironclad. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. This is a misleading nomination. I have copied in the speedy discussion above (as the nominator should have done) to show that the reason why I oppose the speedy was that the head article was recrently renamed without a move discussion, so it fails WP:C2D.
  I have no opinion either way on this, but we need some evidence that the head article is now correctly named. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – subcat of Category:Battleships, there is no category Category:Ironclads, no article Ironclad, the article Ironclad warship states that the term 'ironclad' went out in the 1890s, and battleship is a much more familiar word. Oculi (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. November is not "recently", and there is no requirement that a RM be peformed before a move - a move that is WP:BOLDly done and then for three months has no dissent is not "controversial or ambiguous in any way" and, therfore, does not fail criterion C2D. The use of the term "ironclad" for "ironclad warship" is the standard short-form WP:COMMONNAME so objecting on that grounds is somewhat perplexing. The fact that this is a subcategory of Category:Battleships is nothing more than miscategorisation and objection on that grounds is "we should keep it even though it's wrong for the sake of keeping it". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but do not reparent -- The description in Caio Duilio-class ironclad makes it clear that these were battleships, in role if not in name, so that the parent should remain as Category:Battleships. The term, 'ironclad' applies to a phase in warship development, when ironplates were attached to ships. It disappeared becasue (1) iron was replaced by steel (2) the ships were not merely clad in iron plates, but had a frame of iron or steel. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2014 (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.

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) 22:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pseudoscience petitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Small category, extremely contentious category name. Most entries are to organizations which have made petitions, not to the petitions themselves (which are probably not notable). Additionally, I'm not sure it's distinguishable from any other kind of "science petition", as any scientific petition would be pseudoscience, even if it was a petition to declare the sky blue. It seems unlikely that anyone is using this for navigation rather than as a way to put a value judgement on pages. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• unsure I removed the orgs and put redirects in their place, as the orgs themselves aren't petitions. I agree it seems a bit contentious, but the remaining petitions are all petitions or statements of some sort that contradict mainstream science it seems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I have with it is that it sounds as if the petition itself is supposed to be pseudoscientific, which doesn't make much sense, since petitions aren't any part of science either way. It could be that the reason for starting the petition was based on pseudoscience, but I don't think I'd call that a "Pseudoscience petition". I think at the very least it should be moved to something like, "Petitions on a scientific topic" or something of that nature. Neutral category name, widens the category a bit and given the nature of petitioning about science it'll probably amount to the same set of articles going in there anyway. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename It was intended as a reference to the scientific argument the petition itself is based upon. In response to the removal of this category from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (diff) may I propose Pseudoscientific petitions as an alternative. — TPX 23:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really solve the problem of the fact that petitions are unrelated to science, and in general doesn't change anything. If presented as such, then ALL scientific petitions are pseudoscientific, and so the more neutral "Scientific petitions" would be a better category. Also, in any case it doesn't seem appropriate for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth because that is not an article about a petition. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as blatant, purpose-built, attack category.
  I would not sign any of the petitions in the articles I looked at in this category, but I deplore this attempt to use the category system to attach stigmatising labels to topics which editors disapprove of.
  In each case, the scientific view of the arguments put forward in these petitions can be covered in the text of the article, including any reliably-sourced depictions of them as pseudo-science. However, it's going a whole step further to put them in a category, which attaches that label without qualification or atttribution. That is an open invitation to use them as an attack category ... which is exactly what was done by the category's creator with Cornwall Alliance.
  There is no mention of pseudoscience in the body text of the Cornwall Alliance article, let alone a reliable source for it, never mind the third necessary test: evidence that this assessment represents a balance of the views in reliable sources. It is also plainly a misreading of the group's purpose: its purpose is not pseudo-science, but non-science, or maybe even anti-science. These article says nothing about the Cornwall Alliance trying to critique science; it's all about how they reject environmental science in favour of their view that the bible answers everything. But that didn't deter the category's creator from adding Cornwall Alliance to the category just 4 minutes after he created it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Alliance members do critique science. Again, the petition was publicised together with a briefing document that meets precisely that aim. Here is a link The very same technical paper is mentioned in the body of the article. Perhaps you missed it. But if your argument is that I have jumped ahead too quickly (i) before providing adequate sourcing (ii) not including responses from 9/11 theorists or theologians that their efforts to gather support is not founded upon pseudoscience, then I cannot defend that. — TPX 18:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing BHG's point about Cornwall Alliance - anti-science is different from pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is when you are doing something else and pretending it's science. Cornwall alliance members are not saying they are doing science based on the Bible, they're saying that you should trust God rather than science. Additionally, categories apply to articles, they aren't tags, so you wouldn't put Carl Douglas in Category:Novelty songs even though he's primarily known for the song Kung Fu Fighting. Cornwall Alliance is not a petition, it's an organization that, I guess, occasionally creates them.

I think you're also missing the point about the "attack category" thing. This category is being used to circumvent the need to show, using reliable sources that these petitions are pseudoscientific in nature (see WP:LABEL), since the rules for adding something to a category are different than in the text of the article. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have adopted multiple approaches: expressly saying we should trust God's design of earth while assembling as list of scientists who say the science supports the view that mankind's impact on the environment is negligible. I did acknowledge the sourcing problem in my reply preceding this one. — TPX 10:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/upmerge per arguments of BHG plus there is only actually one article here about a petition (a request to do something). DexDor (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The current name is clearly an attack name. Every statement that disagrees with the finds of "mainstream" science is not pseudoscience". Otherwise we would be labeling lots more people with this label. The Cornwall Institute clearly states their position from a non-scientific, religious view. This is an attack category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename. I good deal of this is about the global warming controversy. There is certainly a fringe who reject science and prefer (for example, the Bible or Quran - or rather their interpretation of them), but two of the petitions are by scientists, who do not (or did not) accept the conclusions of the majority. As currently structured this is an ATTACK category, which cannot be allowed. I think something like Category:Scientific skeptic petioners might be a better NPOV name. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, though that's a problem because their opponents also call themselves "skeptics", so I don't know if there's a good NPOV name for the whole thing. Honestly, I think that to the degree to which this even needs a category there's no need to distinguish between petitioners in favor of or against the scientific consensus. They're mostly going to be against the mainstream anyway and the ones that are in favor of it like Project Steve are relevant anyway. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:28, 24 February 2014 (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.

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, without prejudice to re-creating the sub-cats if the number of articles ever justifies it. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per a similar CfD for Russia that ended in upmerge, these are all small categories with little room for expansion. Each one has 1 or 2 entries. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. The nom offers no evidence that these categories have little room for expansion, just an assertion. However, Great Purge#Number_of_people_executed says "during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot - an average of 1,000 executions a day". Great Purge#Stalin.27s_role notes that Stalin personally signed lists authorising the execution of 40,000 people 1937 and 1938.
  The Great Purge lasted from 1934 to 1939, so the total tally is much higher. So why does the nom reckon that there is "little room" for expanding these categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how many of those "1,000 a day" would be notable for articles? Not that many, I suspect. And also per the previous CfD "but also because many of the entities by which categorization is done did not even exist during the Great Purge". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds do you suspect few would be notable? The purges reached senior ranks of the Soviet Union, and if even one in a thousand of those killed was notable (one per day out the thousand killed each day), that's over 1500 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than 1500 articles. Fine, if/when it hits high numbers, then recreate them, but right now, these are pointless categories. And per the point that they didn't exist at the time ever. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was based on the premise that they had "little room for expansion". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I don't think at this stage it's terribly helpful to divide these people by current oblast. I'd much rather see them all in the parent Category:Great Purge victims from Ukraine, whether or not there is (in practical terms) any potential for expansion. And since we upmerged the parallel Russian oblast categories, we should probably merge these too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge without bias against recreation if we get more articles in the future. There are fewer than 10 articles in all these categories, and only one in several of them. Having this many small categories is not helpful to anyone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- While there were 1000s of victims, many were ordinary (NN) people. I expect that there is room for expansion in pronciple, but for the moment. with 39 articles in subcategories and perhaps 15 in the parent, the category is just not large enough to need to be split by oblast. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: I see no reason to sub-categorize by oblast, nevermind the fact that current oblasts were used. If the category does become too full, there might be better ways to categorize anyway (year, political/military rank, etc). Cross that bridge when we come to it. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2014 (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.

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) 02:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Health insurance marketplace government officials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a defining characteristic. Also, the present members (Todd Park, Kathleen Sebelius, and Jeffrey Zients) are neither government officials nor associated with (a) Health insurance marketplace. If one were associated with a Health insurance marketplace, and it was a defining characteristic of the person, the person might be added to the parent category, Category:Health insurance marketplaces. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, at least with the current contents, this is not a defining job of the people involved. Seems more of a catchall for all government officials who were somehow involved in building the health insurance marketplace. Better to categorize people by where they work, vs what they worked on (such projects regularly cross organizational boundaries)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm agnostic on the deletion, but it's not clear to me why those three are not government officials. They all hold executive positions in the US government, so the "government official" label seems appropriate. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they are all government officials, but "Health insurance marketplace" is not a government entity or agency, it is a project.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think I tend towards delete, because of how it reads, e.g. that they are officials of the Health Insurance Marketplace. I figure it should be renamed at the very least, but I don't have a strong opinion. I was just puzzled by Arthur Rubin's claim that none of the three are government officials. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the definition of "government official". They all work(ed) for the US government, but the first one I checked seemed to be a congressperson. My bad. If they are to be kept as associated with (a) "Health insurance marketplace" (i.e., it is a defining characteristic of the individual), then it should be upmerged, or possibly renamed to Category:People responsible for the healthcare.gov debacle. (1/2 serious). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While yes they are government officials they are involved in more than the health insurance marketplace. While mention should be made of them I feel like the category's attempt to make this a defining characteristic lacking. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2014 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Information technology and development to Category:Information and communication technologies for development

Nominator's rationale: The common name of this field is ICT4D (or, Information and communication technologies for development), I don't see any value in breaking out just the "Information technology" piece here, these categories have the same scope and should be merged to the more common name and for which a head article exists. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:African-American female rappers to Category:American female rappers, Category:African-American female singers, Category:African-American rappers

Nominator's rationale: Another classic example of ghettoization in action. the vast majority of pages in this category are not in the Category:American female rappers parent category. Per WP:EGRS, this should be upmerged to all parents. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I just realized we also have Category:African-American male rappers, so they aren't necessarily ghettoized by male/female. However, I would not be against deleting that one as well, since it is also a last-rung violation. We could keep the division as male/female rappers, and then mark whether they're african-American or not. We don't need to categorize on the intersection, as there's no way to do that without creating a last rung category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand the desire to get rid of categorization based on gender and ethnicity. It seems like there is an additional burden to justify their existence that regular categories aren't required to have (and, yes, I have read WP:EGRS several times).

Rappers are not singers so it doesn't make sense to place them in Category:African-American female singers. If that category exists, then why can't Category:African-American female rappers? Rapping is just as a distinctive artistic skill as singing or acting and it has its history based in the African-American community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a reply - 1. although your point is valid that rappers aren't singers, some rappers are also singers. 2. According to WP:EGRS (which I just read), you're supposed to create a subcategory only if it's a specific identifiable subcategory. I'm not convinced that there's any robust tradition of African-American female rapping that is distinct from rapping done by other Americans. On the other hand, I'd say there's a stronger case to be made for there being a distinctive tradition of specifically African American female singers. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually thinking we should delete African American rappers as well, since the majority of rappers are African American. More defining and worthy of differentiation would be Category:Rappers of white European descent or something... Also Liz the reason we don't have most gender + ethnicity + job categories is because it's a triple intersection which is generally frowned upon, and it creates these last rung problems and leads to proliferation of categories, because for any arbitrary ethnicity+job you could add a gender subcat, so we'd have things like female journalists of asian descent and Jewish women novelists and lesbian Native American poets and so on - that third intersection just creates a combinatorial nightmare. Any pair is fine, but not all three - so it's not fair to say we're getting rid of gender + ethnicity, we're getting rid of gender + ethnicity + job. For the singers, that's a nom for another day, but I will likely try to eliminate that one as well if this one passes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The majority of American rappers are of African descent, you mean. Remember hip hop is global now and I doubt African Americans are actually the majority of active rappers worldwide in 2014.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course; I was suggesting possibly merging Category:African-American rappers to Category:American rappers for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a strong defining characteristic that is the predominant manner of describing the individuals included here and which serves as an effective aid to navigation across the articles sharing this characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually AS, that's not true. I looked at a random sample of articles, and none of them described the person as an "African-American female rapper" - most simply said "X is an American rapper, she was born on X", etc. So your boilerplate doesn't hold water here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Obiwankenobi: It is trivial to find reliable sources on Google Books that discuss "black female rappers" as a culturally distinct and significant group within the profession/artform. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True; it is also trivial to find sources discussing Jewish lesbian writers, or Chinese-American women feminist novelists, as well as tons of other triple/quadruple intersections, but as a rule, we don't create categories for such intersections, because the number of potential triple intersections is massive. It's a combinatorial problem. If we start letting triple intersections like this survive, per NPOV we would have to create many many others, as long as a few people have written scholarly articles on them, and the scholarly literature looking at different people of color + all of their jobs intersected with their sexuality or religion etc is quite deep - but it's a rabbit hole we don't want to go down. Remember, categories are not articles. All characteristics of the subjects are sufficiently covered, and the reason WP:EGRS prohibits last-rung categories is exactly to avoid categories like this one, where the leaf article further subdivides a group. The result in almost every case I've looked at is ghettoization, and given our poor track record on solving ghettoization, deletion is better - no-one is bemoaning the lack of Category:African-American female accountants, and no one will mourn the passing of this one either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Upmerge Was neutral before, but I think I'm convinced now. I really don't think that this is a distinct subgroup. In terms of American rappers, I'd say female rappers are a distinct subgroup of rappers (different themes, different styles, etc), but I don't think African-American female rappers are a specific subgroup of female rappers. I don't really see this dividing along racial/ethnic lines in this way. Even to the extent that non-black American female rappers are distinct from African-American female rappers, they are outside the norm - which is to say that most white/hispanic/asian female rappers will make roughly the same kind of music with the same themes and styles that are most associated with black female rappers. To the extent that a distinct subgroup exists, it would be something like "white girl rap", where most black female rappers are in the mainstream of American rap and American female rap, and the culture around some fraction of white female rap is defined in opposition to that. Obviously these are my perceptions of American rap, since I'm not proposing that the "American" label be removed. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not sure that the lack of mention of the people being African-American in the lead is convincing. There seems to have been a desire by some writers of Wikipedia to suppress mention of ethnicity even when this is a point of information normally brought up about the subject. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so how the leads of the articles are written is not actually a good way to prove the ethnicity of these people is not regularly mentioned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In this case, I believe that the intersection of gender and ethnicity do have a significant relevance to the profession/artform (unlike African-American female guitarists). Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge This category is largely built on ignoring the fact that ethnic distinctions need to be built on a case by case basis, in rap, African-Americans are perceived to be in the majority among American creators, and so cannot be treated as a distinct cultural group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2014 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:African-American female guitarists to Category:African-American guitarists, Category:African-American women, Category:American female guitarists

Nominator's rationale: For the same reason argued in the lawyers category below, this category would tend to ghettoize these women, as a last rung category. Triple upmerge to all parents. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge This is a narrow intersect category. That African-American musicians are a distinct group is easy to demonstrate. Even if it might apply to specific instruments, the desire to have broad categories I think should be held to here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Obi-Wan Kenobi and John Pack Lambert. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2014 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:African-American female lawyers to Category:African-American lawyers, Category:African-American women, Category:American female lawyers

Nominator's rationale: Violation of last-rung rule of WP:EGRS, since American female lawyers can't be otherwise divided, this would tend to ghettoize African-American women away from their non-black counterparts. the same would apply for the African-American lawyers category, this would tend to ghettoize the African-American women away from the men. Per precedent at Category:African-American women poets CFD, this category should be merged up to all parents. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. We really try to avoid categories that mix both ethnicity and gender, unless we are dealing with a profession where gender is clearly defining. While there is much work on female lawyers as a group, and it is clearly a top worth having a category for, it is not clear this should be carried on the by-ethnicity sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- This is not a profession where gender is significant. I thought we had got rid of "female lawyers" categories (by merger back to lawyers), and am sorry to find that gender-based categorisation is continuing. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we did get rid of the female lawyers categories, they have been recreated. However, I would question getting rid of them. I strongly suspect we could write a lead article on women in the law that has reliable sources and is more than just a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2014 (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.

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) 22:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Trials by location to Category:Trials by country

Nominator's rationale: The standard is to group things by country, and I don't think there's any reason to deviate from that here, especially since a trial is a matter for a government in most cases. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to more accurately describe the scope. There are other categories by location, e.g. Category:Organizations by location. They are container categs for foo-by-city/foo-by-country/etc.
  This category is just a set of categories by country, so it should have the conventional foo-by-country title for such categs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the sub-cats are all countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2014 (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.

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. I have added "see also" links to the articles on the two trials instead. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Trials by justiciary of foreign nation to Category:Trials by judiciary of a foreign nation

Nominator's rationale: I think this is misnamed, but I'm not quite sure. Justiciary exists, but I think we mean judiciary here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This category could hordes of trials of ppl who were extradited to face trial for crimes allegedly committed outside the country of which they were citizens. I am not that we should be categorising trials in this way, but if this is to be kept it needs a much less clumsy title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what this category is meant to encompass is trials that were held in one country (country A) but tried by the judiciary of a foreign country (country B). The classic example is the Lockerbie bombing trial, which was held in the Netherlands (country A) but tried by the judiciary of Scotland (country B). (I guess the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials would be another reasonably famous example, with Germany=A, USA=B.) There might be a more elegant way to name the category to make this clear. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion. I'm having a hard time coming up with anything short, but I think the following would at least do the job: Category:Trials by a judiciary sitting outside its natural jurisdiction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one of the three articles is on a trial. There is no reason for a one entry category. It is best to categorize trials by the country where they were held, even if it is at times not exactly what people want to categorize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what's being captured here is in fact defining, though I'm not totally opposed to deletion since we're dealing with quite a small number of instances. The various articles about some (not all) of the Holocaust trials post-WWII could perhaps be included here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:De-nazification trials in Germany or Category:War-crime trials in Germany. All the content concerns the actions of British and American military government in Germany. The present name is wrong: while the judges may have been foreign nationals, they were certainly nationals of the current governing authorities, namely the post WWII occupying powers. I am not sure that all the content is accurate: some (at least) of the Nuremberg trials had British as well as American judges and prosecutors. They were for war crimes The Lockerbie trial is slightly different: the post WWII war-crime trials were for offences committed (largely) by Germans in Germany. Lockerbie was a trial by Scottish judges of an offence that happened in Scotland, but (for diplomatic reasons) conducted outside Scotland. The category name here might make an interesting article, but in its present form it does not work as a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, no—that's not what this category is for at all! Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial is not a de-Nazification war crimes trial in Germany. We already have Category:Holocaust trials. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Of course the Lockerbie trial is not a de-nazification, but the circumstancers were very different from the post-WWII war crimes trials. Lockerbie was a Scottish offence, tried by Scottish judges under Scottish law in the Netherlands. The Post-WWII war crimes trials were for offences in Germany (or occupied territories) conducted in Germany under international law. These belong in different categories, though they might have a common parent. When I looked at the category, most of the content seemed to be related to German war crimes. This is slightly wider than holocaust, as I think there were some convictions for battlefield attrocities. If the closing admin is convinced that they are already adequately categorised, then plain deletion would be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just don't understand why you would suggest renaming a category that has a fairly clear meaning to a completely different meaning without also suggesting the removal of the articles that don't meet your proposed meaning. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the fact that the Pan-Am trial is not at all like the Nazi War Crimes trials (they were not primarily over perpetrating the Holocaust, in many ways at least at Nuremburg that was hardly an issue at all), so I think grouping it with them would be unwise. So we have one trial that is fairly unique, so I don't see the point in creating a category for it like this. If the trial deserves a category, make a category for it, not some broad sounding category that just contains articles related to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the trials you mention were alike in that they were conducted in a particular country by the judiciary of a completely different country, which seems to be the purpose of the category. They may not have been alike in other ways, but they certainly were in this way. Ultimately, though, it may be too much of a technical issue for categorization, and I'm not opposed to deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 24 February 2014 (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.

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. DexDor and Necrothesp (or anyone else), feel free to purge and re-nominate if appropriate. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Decorations of the Royal Navy to Category:Military awards and decorations of the United Kingdom
• Propose merging Category:Decorations of the British Army to Category:Military awards and decorations of the United Kingdom
• Propose merging Category:Decorations of the Royal Air Force to Category:Military awards and decorations of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I really don't see the point of these three individual categories. Most of the decorations can be and have been awarded to members of any of the three services. It depends where they are at the time (land, sea or air), not which service they belong to. This is pure overcategorisation. The few that are specific to one service can also be added to the appropriate service category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- if this merge goes ahead, it will be necessary to have split recipient lists by service. A plain merge will thus be unsatisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't get what you are saying. What is the connection between this category and recipient lists by service? With the exception of the VC subcats (which don't really need to be here in any case, since they are already subcats of Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross and can also be subcats of the individual service categories), this category is for the decorations themselves, not for the recipients of decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2014 February 4 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge and see what's left. Go through these categories and re-categorize articles where appropriate. E.g. the Mentioned in dispatches article is currently in categories for UK, RN, BA, RAF, MN, Aus, India, and SA (and the article also covers other countries e.g. US and Canada). That article should be moved up to Category:Military awards and decorations (alongside the Unit citation article). If such a purge results in any of these categories being empty then CSD them. The purge will not empty all these categories (e.g. Naval Gold Medal belongs in the RN category). DexDor (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2014 (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.

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) 22:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tram routes to Category:Tram lines

Nominator's rationale: Specialist publications use the word "line" to convey the meaning that the word "route" is intended to convey here. For a more detailed explanation, see Network length (transport)#Lines and routes. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to follow standard terminology in the field. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. With the heavy rail articles we've understood a "line" to be physical infrastructure, with services or routes operating on it (sometimes there's a one-to-one relationship). The sub-categories of this category use route and line interchangeably, are they going to be renamed and/or moved? Mackensen (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Answer You've effectively asked two questions. My answer to the first one is that for trams, an expression suitable for describing, and commonly used to describe, the physical infrastructure is "tramway". My answer to the second question is that it depends upon local usage. For Antwerp, Basel, Bordeaux, Brussels and Île-de-France‎ (and Amsterdam, for which there isn't a category yet, but will be soon), the appropriate word is "line", which is the direct translation of the word used in Dutch ("lijn"), French ("ligne") or German ("Linie"), as applicable. Philadelphia, Toronto and Melbourne officially use the word "route", so I'd leave the relevant categories as they are, although perhaps "Route" should be capitalised (as it is in the names of the Philadelphia articles). I'm not yet sure about Saint Petersburg, but at the moment there's only one stub article in that category. I know this means that I seem to be advocating a change from a word used in Anglosphere cities to a word used mainly to describe operations in non-Anglosphere cities, but the sources cited in Network length (transport)#Lines and routes (see above) are published in four different countries, three of them in the Anglosphere, and the other one, published in Norway, demonstrates English language usage on the European continent and in Scandinavia. Also, the word used in New York to describe the bus-operated replacements for the former streetcar lines appears to be "service", not "route", so in the USA at least it appears that the word "route" is not always used to mean "line" as defined in the specialist publications. Bahnfrend (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2014 (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.

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, because I can't find a recipients list. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Recipients of the Order of the Banner of Work, twice to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Banner of Work

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#SMALL. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. WP:OC#SMALL is entitled "Small with no potential for growth". It says to "avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
  The nomination offer no evidence that this category lacks potentail for growth.
  Secondly, the category is part of a long series of categories for people who have notably won the same medal twice. See e.g. Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal and bar (United Kingdom), Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross and two Bars (United Kingdom), Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross and Bar (United Kingdom), Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross and two Bars (United Kingdom), Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross and Bar (United Kingdom). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment' According to the articles Distinguished Service Medal (United Kingdom) and Distinguished Flying Cross (United Kingdom) the "two bars" part in the title of these categories doesn't mean, that they won the same medal twice. These are just different grades of the same award. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Distinguished Service Medal (United Kingdom): "Bars authorised for subsequent awards".
  See also Military awards and decorations of the United_Kingdom#Devices: "Medal bar: A bar is worn on the riband of a decoration (when worn with full or miniature medals) to denote each additional award of the decoration. Bars are positioned with even spacing between the top and the bottom of the ribbon." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 12 February 2014 (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.

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) 22:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Musicians from Okinawa to Category:Musicians from Okinawa Prefecture
• Propose renaming Category:Musical groups from Okinawa to Category:Musical groups from Okinawa Prefecture

Nominator's rationale: To be inline with Category:People from Okinawa Prefecture and Category:People by prefecture in Japan Prosperosity (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: This was 2 separate nominations. The rationale was identical and the change identical, so I have merged them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. The parent is Category:Okinawan music, and I am unsure of the scope of that category. Does this category relate to musicians from the whole of the prefecture, or only to those from the smaller area of the Okinawa Islands? I know nothing about the culture of the area, but there may be a cultural distinction which would justify separate categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's several even smaller regions it could refer to ... Okinawa Island, Okinawa City -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. We categorize by the Prefecture.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2014 (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.