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: split into Category:1st-millennium earthquakes and Category:1st-millennium BC earthquakes. I'm leaving Mount Tai earthquake out of the scheme for now, but will leave it to the editors involved here to decide whether to nominate Category:1st-millennium BC earthquakes for a renaming to Category:1st-millennium BC and earlier earthquakes so that that one article can also be included in it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Category:Ancient earthquakes to Category:1st millenia earthquakes

Nominator's rationale: As stated here, the term "ancient" makes absolutely no sense in this context. HeatIsCool (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rationale, but I guess the category has to be split between 1st millennium BC and 1st millennium AD. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and split per Marcocapelle and nom; [[Category:1st millenia earthquakes]] and [[Category: Pre-1 AD earthquakes]] to cover the rest -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we ever use categories of Pre-1 AD format. If I'm right, we should have a Category:1st millenium earthquakes and Category:1st millenium BC earthquakes and leave the one even older earthquake uncategorized in this tree (while I've just added the latter article to Category:19th century BC). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Ancient is usually taken to end about 500 AD, though Byzantine late antique is arguably also ancient. About the next 1000 years is medieval. These are essentially periods in European history. I am concerned about leaving one item orphaned. Is the solution to have Category:1st millenium BC and earlier earthquakes. We are dealing with very remote periods when few areas of the world have any written history as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, you had a point there. Adding Category:1st millenia BC earthquakes will also be beneficial. HeatIsCool (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't object against having Category:1st millenium BC and earlier earthquakes per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and split per Marcocapelle (not per the anon). Seems the most obvious solution.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:21, 13 September 2015 (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. (All of the articles are already in Category:Indian pornographic film actresses.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Punjabi pornstars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Category names#Heritage states "Categories that intersect heritage with occupation or other such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right", which is a criteria that "Punjabi pornstars" does not meet. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to parent category Category:Indian pornographic film actresses which is already too small to require subdivision. In any case we don't use the term "pornstar" for categories. Dimadick (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ambiguous category that does not have any clear merger targets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2015 (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. Those in favour of deletion have the stronger guideline-based arguments here. Incidentally, the closing of the previous discussion was not intended to be interpreted as meaning that we should take all of the articles that were previously categorised in Category:Welsh-speaking people and create subcategories by occupation. It was intended to reflect the consensus of that discussion, which was that the category should only contain subcategories for occupations in which speaking Welsh is integral to it, such as Category:Welsh-language singers or Category:Welsh-language poets. There are now quite a few subcategories of Category:Welsh-speaking people that are questionable under this standard. I apologise that the previous close did not make this crystal clear; I had thought that it would have been understood by the context of the discussion as a whole. I'm assuming here that the creation of the subcategories was an honest misinterpretation and not a back-alley attempt to get around the result of the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Following on from the containering of the category Welsh-speaking people to appropriate subcategories, this subcategory is not appropriate. The language a sportsperson speaks (as opposed one the one a poet writes in or a singer sings in) is not a what makes the sportsperson notable. Moreover, there is no indication of how well a sportsperson must speak the language, unlike the Welsh-language authors, tv presenters, and singers are well-defined to be those who write, present, or sing in Welsh. Moreover, I couldn't find any parallel categories and I can only dread a tree Category:Sportspeople by language spoken that keeping this would invite. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Note also that many/most of the articles in this category make no mention of what language(s) the sportsperson speaks. This is the only "<Fooish>-speaking sportspeople" category in en wp. DexDor ^(talk) 20:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain or Re-establish Category:Welsh-speaking people without sub-categorisation. Firstly, I would like to ask @DexDor: what do you mean by "<Fooish>-speaking sportspeople"? Do you mean to suggest that the Welsh-language is in any way "Fooish"? Whilst the language may appear vapid to you, your comment is disrespectful, derogatory and wholly unacceptable. May I remind @Carlossuarez46, @DexDor, and any other would-be supporters of this proposed deletion that were it not for the unnecessary deletion of the original category 'Welsh-speaking people' and its replacement with the new container category 'Welsh-speaking people' this debate would not exist. As I have stated elsewhere, whilst some may argue that whichever language one speaks is irrelevant, this viewpoint is characteristic of that of an individual with a limited understanding of minority languages, and a lack of empathy with minority cultures and ethnic groups. Again, whilst the fact that a notable person can speak English may not be necessarily of interest - mainly due to the fact that English is the third most widely-spoken language in the world - by contrast, when a notable person who happens also to speak Welsh is not acknowledged as a Welsh-speaker, then that missing a very important point regarding the identity of that individual, simply because Welsh is much less prevalent than English, or Spanish, for example. Just as the existing category 'Black British people' is of interest, and is important, equally important is the need to re-establish the 'Welsh-speaking people' category, whereas the possible establishment of a category entitled 'English-speaking people', for example, would by contrast, not be called for, and with good reason. It is the scarcity of a given minority population such as Welsh-speaking people that makes it worthy of inclusion.

If it is undesirable, in your mind, to retain the category 'Welsh-speaking sportsmen', then the simple answer would be to delete the existing container category and revert back to the original 'Welsh-speaking people' category, which was a convenient and effective way to allow the acknowledgement of a notable person as possessing the notable ability to speak Welsh, while concomitantly eliminating the need to subcategorise further.

Regarding the provision of evidence that a given person speaks Welsh, unfortunately that kind of evidence is not always freely available online. May I ask @DexDor if one should trouble oneself to search for evidence of the use of this vacant, senseless, simple, witless tongue outside of the realms of the World-wide web? Perhaps one could cite a television interview on S4C? Haul~cywiki (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that everything here on Wikipedia should be verifiable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• That's WP:TLDR and doesn't answer the points in the deletion rationale (e.g. being subjective and unrelated to notability). Re "It is the scarcity of a given minority population such as Welsh-speaking people that makes it worthy of inclusion.": being scarce may make the information worthy of inclusion in the text of the article (if it can be referenced), but does not mean it is a good way to categorise sportspeople. If we categorised sportspeople by what unrelated (or very tenuously connected) skills they have then we could have categories for sportspeople who have a HGV driving licence etc. DexDor ^(talk) 06:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / retain. Quite a handy Category, and the world won't come to an end if kept as it is. Agree with Haul~cywiki. Of course the language doesn't make them notable and this is an attempt to cloud the issue. I certainly would like User:DexDor to explain his use of "<Fooish>-speaking sportspeople". Llywelyn2000 (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In this context "Fooish" means "any language" - for info about use of the word "foo" as a placeholder see Foobar. That this is the only such category in en wp is simply a statement of fact. Re "the world won't come to an end" - that's true, but irrelevant and would apply to every CFD discussion. DexDor ^(talk) 06:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. If there aren't any similar categories in other languages, then let's get them going! I would love a category on Catalan, Occitan, Gaelic etc speakers. Maybe not relevant for languages such as Mandarin, Hindi, Spanish, Portugese and other large-ish languages, though. Don't paint everything with red-white-and-blue paint! John Jones (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)— John Jones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The purpose of categories to to group together similar articles (e.g. people notable for playing a particular sport) for the benefit of readers/editors - not to promote anything (e.g. particular languages). Do you have any reasons (apart from WP:ILIKEIT) why you think this is a good way to categorize sportspeople? Would you support other "people by skills unrelated to their notability" categories (actors with a PPL, lawyers with a low golf handicap, musicians who can ride a motorbike...)? Why should, for example, a sportsperson who normally speaks English, but also learnt some Welsh as a child and has a Spanish home/spouse (so probably speaks a bit of that language) be placed in Category:Welsh language, but not in the English/Spanish equivalents? Do you have any answer to the noms point about it being subjective (presumably you wouldn't count someone who's learnt a few words of Welsh from roadsigns etc so where would you draw the line)? Do you agree with WP:DNWAUC? Do you think that adding a category tag to an article (especially a BLP) where the characteristic is not mentioned in the text of the article (and hence is unreferenced) is ever appropriate? DexDor ^(talk) 06:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:DexDor. Given your strong opinions, and apparent expertise in these matters, do you feel that Category:Black British sportspeople is a good way to categorize sportspeople? Why is the fact that they are Black of any significance here? I'll tell you why: it is because it forms an important part of their identity. In the same way, whether you like it or not, the ability to speak Welsh forms an important part of a Welsh-speaker's identity, regardless of their profession. Evidence of the ability to speak Welsh should be referenced, and this may include links to Welsh-language webpages or newspaper articles and Welsh-language television programmes.Haul~cywiki (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Category:Black_British_sportspeople: The ethnicity of a person is (IMO) more defining than their native language and is definately more defining than any second language(s) (or other skills) the person has. A person only has one ethnicity, but could speak several languages and have dozens of other skills which could lead to lots of category tags on a page - especially because we often categorize on combinations of characteristics - the list of categories on a page could be longer than the text of the page. Another difference is that ethnicity is more permanent than skills - for example if a person was a notable sportsplayer in their 20s and spoke Welsh in their 40s (ignoring the issue of how fluent one needs to speak to be considered a Welsh speaker) then do they belong in the category?

Re "the ability to speak Welsh forms an important part of a Welsh-speaker's identity" - that may be true in some cases, but many other things (being brought up by a single parent, being married, having children, having an identical twin, ...) may also be important to a persons identity, but we wouldn't categorize articles about sportspeople based on those characteristics. The Phil Bennett article, for example, belongs in Category:Rugby union (in a sense, Phil Bennett is a subtopic of the topic of rugby union), but does not belong in Category:Welsh language. DexDor ^(talk) 18:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DexDor states that: "The ethnicity of a person is (IMO) more defining than their native language". This is Ipse dixit, and this trivialises the importance of the subject. Users should remain impartial, and avoid giving their own opinion in such discussions. The subcatagorization of the category 'Welsh-speaking people' appears to be an example of a Divide and rule policy. In other words, a group of people decide that Wikipedia:I just don't like it regarding the original Category:Welsh-speaking people, then create a small-number of categories that they feel represent all that people need to know about the Welsh-language, namely categories directly related to poetry, academia, singing, television, music and literature. In other words, any other non arts-related discipline as far as the Welsh-language goes is irrelevant. In order to avoid such scenarios, it is necessary to reinstate the original category, especially when other categories such as Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people remain. Needless to say, until such time arises when Category:Welsh-speaking people can be restored, keep the existing page.Haul~cywiki (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't an arts-vs-sports issue; if there was, for example, a Welsh-speaking-painters category that'd be an equally poor category. Can you not see the difference between someone who is notable for having written Welsh-language poetry (and hence their bio can be considered part of the topic of Welsh language) and someone who is notable for playing rugby and can speak a bit of Welsh? DexDor ^(talk) 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:TRIVIALCAT's description of trivial intersections. I'm sympathetic that language can be defining but I don't see what the language--often 2nd language--a sports person speaks has to do with their playing. (In contrast, I'd be open to Category:Welsh-language sports announcers if it could be populated because there would be a language connection.) I'm open to a list article though, which would also encourage citations, but I think that list should start fresh rather than use the often unverified people in this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:RevelationDirect: It may be difficult for you to understand this, but please try to do so: as I've tried to point out above, whilst the ability to speak Spanish or English or French (for example) may not be noteworthy (due mostly to the fact that these languages are ubiquitous), the ability to speak an endangered language, such as Welsh, forms an integral part of an individual's identity and this should by no means ever be dismissed as 'trivial'. Whether they use the language in their professional life or not is irrelevant - it is part of who they are.Haul~cywiki (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Who they are is Welsh. There is no identity struggle between English- and Welsh-speaking Welsh people and even if there were such a struggle then the categorization problem would easily be solved because it would just fill up Category:Welsh-language activists quickly. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:Marcocapelle How are you qualified to state that: "There is no identity struggle between English- and Welsh-speaking Welsh people"? While many people identify as being Welsh without having the ability to speak the Welsh language, this does not detract from the fact that the ability to speak the Welsh language forms an important part of an individual's identity. Your second argument suggests that all Welsh-speaking people are also 'Welsh-language activists', which is clearly an incorrect assumption on your part.Haul~cywiki (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't get me wrong please. I merely added, if Welsh-speaking would create (i.e. hypothetically speaking) an important division in Welsh-being identity, then there would be much more Welsh-speaking activism. Which would then easily fill up the activists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle. Whilst it does not create a division in a person's Welsh identity, it nevertheless forms a part of a Welsh-speaker's identity. 'Heb iaith, heb ddim'. It seems that an over-simplistic view has been taken on this matter without fully understanding its signiificance.Haul~cywiki (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• English-speaking Welsh people aren't any less people of Welsh identity than Welsh-speaking Welsh people, are they? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they are not any 'less Welsh'; however, the point that I am making is that amongst those who can speak Welsh, the ability to do so forms an important part of their identity, thus the Category: Welsh-speaking sportspeople should not be deleted. For further information please see:^[1] and ^[2].Haul~cywiki (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It requires OR to determine whether individual Welsh-speaking sportspeople feel so strongly about speaking Welsh. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- As a matter of principle an article should not be both in parent and child categories. The containerisation of Welsh speakers should have not effect on the existence of occupational subcategories. There is also the possibility that we will get articles on people who fit none of the existing subcats, so that (pointlessly) they have to be given a special one-member subcat. A much better solution is to tag the category as a container, where articles should be diffused where possible into subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this CFD (and the previous one) is that articles about sportspeople (etc) should not be categorised by what language skills they have. E.g. an article about a rugby player should not be in Category:Welsh language (unless he's also notable as a Welsh-language poet, Welsh-language activist etc). DexDor ^(talk) 20:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Peterkingiron. The subcategorization of the original category 'Welsh-speaking people' has created a significant problem. Due to its creation, several individuals can now be placed in several subcategories to the point of ridiculousness. For example, it is theoretically possible to place an individual into Welsh-speaking actors, Welsh-speaking singers, Welsh-language poets, Welsh-language television presenters and Welsh-speaking writers (as well as others). Previously, the use of 'Welsh-speaking people' alone would have avoided this kind of issue, and it would at the same time prevent the need for the current argument about whether or not to include 'Welsh-speaking sportspeople'. To solve this issue, I call for the reinstatement of the 'Welsh-speaking people' category. Until then, we should keep 'Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople'Haul~cywiki (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @DexDor Again, I must reiterate that this is an argument about a minority language, which is by definition distinct from other more widely-spoken languages. In that context: why should an article about a sportsperson not be categorized according to the minority language that he or she speaks?Haul~cywiki (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Having a minority language is an example of having a minority skill (e.g. being able to play the piano) that's of little (if any) relevance to ones ability to play rugby, football etc. There are dozens/hundreds of languages (Arabic, Urdu...) that are minority languages in the UK, but are spoken by some UK sportspeople. DexDor ^(talk) 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What does a 'minority skill' actually mean? Speaking a minority language should never be trivialised in such a flippant way!. A good example of the importance and advantage of speaking the Welsh language with regard to playing sport has been exemplified by international rugby union player George North^[3].Haul~cywiki (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as trivial intersection. I agree that there should be a category for Welsh-speaking people, but it does not need to be sub-categorized except where the language use is integral to why the person is notable (writer, TV/film personality, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:SMcCandlish In order to avoid sub-categorization to the point of ridiculousness (as discussed above), would you agree that a simple solution to this issue would be to reinstate the 'Welsh-speaking people' category without any sub-categorization?Haul~cywiki (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have other such categories, and they'd be a magnet for more trivial-intersection subcats. The proper solution, which we already have, is the same as we do for all languages (when we have enough articles to categorize them this way): Category:Welsh-language occupations & Category:Occupations by language → Category:Welsh-language occupations → Category:Welsh-language poets, etc. This will prevent nonsense categories like Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople (which is akin to "Category:Pianists who can ride a bicycle" or "Category:Canadian people who can waltz"), but encourage and preserve relevant categories like Categories:Welsh-language television presenters. Several obvious such subcats are missing, including: Category:Welsh-language actors, Category:Welsh-language singers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:SMcCandlish No, that's not actually correct - there are other such categories in existence, for example: Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people (please see my comments above). Also, what makes a language 'trivial'? The Welsh language forms part of a Welsh-speaker's identity, and so is by no means a 'trivial' matter (please see my comments above regarding this); also please refer to: ^[4]. I would argue that Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople is as important as Category:Black British sportspeople. In this regard, can you rationalise why Category:Black British sportspeople is worthy of distinction from Category:British sportspeople? Your suggestion that Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople is equivalent to 'Category:Pianists who can ride a bicycle' is highly offensive and suggests that you lack sufficient knowledge of this subject area to comment. Regarding your second point, there are sub-categories similar to those that you refer to, these are: Category:Welsh-speaking actors and Category:Welsh-language singers. However, categories such as Category:Welsh-language actresses, Category:Welsh-speaking comedians and Category:Welsh-speaking radio presenters are not currently available. Can you establish these please? My central point is that sub-categorization of Category:Welsh-speaking people combined with the exclusion of certain sub-categories will only serve to marginalise the importance of the Welsh language in everyday life. I feel very strongly that Category:Welsh-speaking people should be restored as a category in its own right (i.e. not a 'Container Category'), and that all minority languages should have categories of this kind e.g. Māori, Amharic and Tamil. Would you be able to establish these categories please?Haul~cywiki (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you really find SMcC's comments "highly offensive" that illustrates your lack of perspective on this. Do you think that because we don't have (for example), a category for sportspeople who are trained first aiders that marginalises the importance of first aid? How about sportspeople who understand statistics, sportspeople who have a disabled child, church-going sportspeople, vegetarian sportspeople, teetotal sportspeople, sportspeople brought up in a one-parent family... - is Wikipedia guilty of marginalising the importance of all those characteristics as well? Regarding Black British - see my comments above. DexDor ^(talk) 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your input User:DexDor, but I don't expect you to answer on User:SMcCandlish's behalf: unless you are the same person? I would welcome User:SMcCandlish's response. First aid is not the same as a language, there are some key differences, of which I hope you will already be aware.Haul~cywiki (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I not sure why anyone's offended about anything, but whatever. Possession of a learned skill like a language fluency is not a defining characteristic. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS categories of this sort should also be moved to match the standard "Category:X-language occupations" category structure, so that the language use is tied to what people are notable for, not just to the fact of its existence as a skill they have. I don't need to personally establish categories like Category:Welsh-language comedians (it wouldn't be Category:Welsh-speaking comedians); if we have articles to put in that category, anyone can do that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Welsh-speaking categories should be limited to ones where language matters, such as poets, singers, writers and translators. It does not matter in sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2015 (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) 23:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Uncategorised Australia articles to Category:Australia
• Propose merging Category:Uncategorized Canada articles to Category:Canada
• Propose merging Category:Uncategorised Korea articles to Category:Korea
• Propose merging Category:Uncategorised German articles to Category:Germany
• Propose merging Category:Uncategorised Germany articles to Category:Germany
• Propose merging Category:Uncategorised Denmark articles to Category:Denmark
• Propose merging Category:Uncategorised Brazil articles to Category:Brazil
• Propose merging Category:Uncategorised Czech articles to Category:Czech Republic
• Propose merging Category:Uncategorised China articles to Category:China
• Propose merging Category:Uncategorised Japan articles to Category:Japan
• Propose merging Category:Uncategorised Ireland articles to Category:Ireland

Nominator's rationale: These categories place articles (not talk pages) under Wikiproject categories which is not how we normally categorize articles. Categorizing articles into "Uncategorized <topic> categories" is a flawed concept.

Most of these categories are currently empty, but have not been CSDed because they have a notice "Please do not delete ... This page is emptied and refilled on a regular basis, and should not be considered useless." - however, that does not appear to be the case - e.g. an article such as Dance Research Forum Ireland has been in the "uncategorized" category for 5 years and for the last 2 years has also been categorized. Examples of previous discussions: Italy, Andhra_Pradesh, military.

These categories may also cause confusion with categories such as Category:Uncategorized Degrassi articles (which is categorizing talk pages). DexDor ^(talk) 19:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm conceptually opposed to "uncategorized" categories outside of the administrative categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment these should be using ((hiddencat)) if they are to exist; -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would favor moving these to the talk pages if any WikiProjects find these helpful. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment they ought to be "hidden" categories. However, if an article is wholly uncategorised, it should automatically get a tag as such; and if Australia-related it should be automatically getting Australia as a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it looks like the categories (only checked Germany though) were hidden, but have been made visible after a discussion back in stone-age 2008 - see here. As to the delete proposal, I am not sure - at WP:GER the 2 categories are part of the Category:Germany_articles_needing_attention maintenance structure and this system is still in use (albeit rarely). I would be hesitant to delete such categories, just because they seem rarely used or not standard - unless we can make sure, that the proposed merge doesn't disrupt any project-internal maintenance tasks (on a sidenote, I have no idea why we have both "Germany" and "German" categories - another mystery to research). It would be great, if we could get some of the creators of this specific maintenance structure to comment on the proposal. GermanJoe (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to oppose after some thinking. Frankly, misusing top-level country categories as maintenance categories is a bad idea. Those categories should be empty, except some vital country articles and categories of course. Also the nominator's argument about a flawed concept may be valid (the handling in articles is certainly not perfect), but lacking a better one we should stick to the current solution. Mixing 2 completely unrelated purposes in one category is not an improvement. "Uncategorized articles" are perfectly visible in a clearly named category, in fact they would be less visible in a larger general-purpose category. GermanJoe (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a better solution - it's the solution that's used for 99.9% of the categories that have child categories in en wp. Whilst browsing the normal category tree I frequently come across articles that can be moved down to a lower level category (or are already also in the lower level category). I've been monitoring these categories (i.e. looking at them every week or so) for some time now and it appears that very few articles get placed in them and those articles that do get placed in them tend to stay there for years. DexDor ^(talk) 06:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nomination. I can well understand that these categories were unhided at some point of time, because while hidden nobody would ever take the effort to put the articles in the right category. The same applies however (maybe to slightly lesser extent) to a dedicated "Uncategorized" category. The proposed merge is the only way to clearly show to everyone that cleanup is necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally pointless. If one puts an uncategorized Brazil-related article into Category:Uncategorised Brazil articles you have in fact made it categorized as a Brazil-related article, using exactly as much work as putting it, properly, in Category:Brazil, except you've done so in manner that is pointy and helps no one, much less readers. It's like spending $2,000 on a lawyer to help you use a tax dodge that saves you exactly $2,000.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think that the point of these categories is that articles at CAT:Brazil are in need of further diffusion into the subcategories, and that while they appear at CAT:Brazil, the are also held in CAT:Uncategorized to indicate they need further diffusion. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2015 (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) 23:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sociology index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This very unusual (if not unique in en wp) category places articles (not talk pages) under a Wikiproject category and places pages that are not lists under Category:Lists. The category text includes "A list (as of March 27, 2012) of all main-space articles into which Template:Sociology has been transcluded." which suggests that this category may well no longer be up to date and that what the category creator was trying to do can be done much better by looking at what-links-here for the template. Note: This category was CFDed in 2012 with a "keep for now" result after the category creator said "The category is intended to contain articles on major sociological topics such that older pages such as Index_of_sociology_articles and Outline_of_sociology can be updated. After that, it will likely be deleted.". DexDor ^(talk) 19:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete times up. If someone still wants this, it needs to move to the talk pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as a hidden category) but it should be renamed to reflect its being such and to reflect ownership by a WP project. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being hidden doesn't mean a category can ignore WP:SUBCAT etc - this category, which contains articles (e.g. Achievement ideology) shouldn't be under either of the categories it's currently in (lists and wikiproject) so (if kept) what parent(s) should it have? The existence of such an odd category impedes wikipedia maintenance because it prevents (or at least complicates) the use of category intersection to identify (other) pages that are in incorrect namespace-category combinations. DexDor ^(talk) 05:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or move to talk pages. I'd say "delete", since two years is long enough to do something with this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:25, 13 September 2015 (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. MER-C 06:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Likes engineers more than Scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Bogus category. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Per WP:G1, patent nonsense. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Revelation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy. If there's any place for it to go, it's to the userspace. HeatIsCool (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @MER-C: You mind smiting this one? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2015 (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) 23:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American poets of Ottoman descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. non-defining intersection. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• delete too small and we don't appear to categorize poets this way (wisely, in my opinion). Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete While I would not oppose a category about Americans of Ottoman descent, a subcategorization by occupation seems way too specific. Dimadick (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a small triple intersection. the one article is similarly the only member of Category:American novelists of Ottoman descent, which should also be deleted. He may need to be added to Category:American people of Ottoman descent (as a sort of upmerge) to prevent the loss of data. I do not seem to have found the right target, but there must be such a category somewhere, unless he should be an Category:Lebanese American Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge both the poets and novelists category to a Category:American people of Ottoman descent and see if something useful emerges from that. It's actually probably useful; someone from that era might well have though of themselves as Ottoman, and secondarily as Lebanese or whatever, and this might have been reflected in their political views, etc. It smacks a little of recentist OR to push the Lebanese [in this case] label, at least exclusively.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is too fine an intersection. We cannot reasonably keep the category though. "Ottoman descent" is not an identifier even vaguely used in the real world. People identify as being of Turkish, Arabic, Jewish, Armenian and Greek descents, not Ottoman. Anyway, Khalil Gibran is already in the category Category:Ottoman emigrants to the United States. If we ignored real usage in both 1890, 1980 and 2015 and created the Ottoman descent category, we would still have the non-duplication issue. People in emigrant categories are diffused out of the parent descent category, so we do not pub them in the descent category, so Gibran does not go in the descent category since he is already in a diffusing sub--category. Gibran is also already in Category:20th-century American poets so should not be put directly in Category:American poets because he is already in a diffusing sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2015 (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.