Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 24



Category:Categories named after government agencies

 * 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) 04:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * categories named after government agencies


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Everything listed in this category would be listed elsewhere already. – Zntrip 22:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is an utterly generic argument that could be applied to nearly every single category. Can you provide a reason for deleting this particular category?  Cgingold (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I created this category, in roughly the same spirit as Category:Categories named after companies. I agree wholeheartedly with Cgingold's characterization of this nomination, as well as other nominations like it listed today.  --Eastlaw (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - nom is not convincing. Occuli (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Category:Government agencies. I am growing less and less convinced that the "named after" construction is necessary. The same applies to all of the various "named after" nominations below. Otto4711 (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * merge per Otto. This is where these categories belong under normal circumstances.   What is special that this case should be different?  Category names with the word 'category' should be very rare as they introduce WP structural elements to names when not absolutely necessary. The current situation also added a layer of categorization that seems unnecessary. Hmains (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have yet to see a good reason given why we should delete whole groups of categories within parent Category:Eponymous categories. --Eastlaw (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly any other option would not allow for the proper categorization of the subcategories and articles.  This is a collection category.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um...how is to take one example Category:Bureau of Land Management not properly categorized in Category:Government agencies? Is the Bureau of Land Management not a government agency? If not, then it shouldn't be in its current category either. If so then the "named after" category is an unnecessary layer of categorization and a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Categories named after vehicle manufacturing companies of the United States

 * 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) 04:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * categories named after vehicle manufacturing companies of the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Everything listed in this category would be listed elsewhere already. – Zntrip 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep That is doubtless true, but no reason to delete them. That is not how categories work. Same for the ones below. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all - As I said above, this is an utterly generic argument that could be applied to nearly every single category. In addition, these categories are sub-cats of the gigantic category tree, Category:Categories named after companies. There is no justification for selectively deleting only these sub-cats. The nominator has not made a case for deleting the entire category tree. Cgingold (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - nom is not convincing. Occuli (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies of the United States. No need for a category for companies and a separate category for categories named after companies. Otto4711 (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – Otto does have a point here. How about an upmerge to Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies of the United States and Category:Categories named after vehicle manufacturing companies which is not otherwise subcategorised? This preserves the info that these are eponymous categories. Occuli (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * merge to Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies of the United States or Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of the United States as appropriate. This is where these categories belong under normal circumstances.   What is special that this case should be different?  Category names with the word 'category' should be very rare as they introduce WP structural elements to names when not absolutely necessary.  The current situation also added a layer of categorization that seems unnecessary.  Hmains (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or upmerge to Category:Categories named after companies or an appropriate subcategory there. Upmerging to other company categories will not be appropriate for all of the category contents and since the main articles are ample in the suggested merge targets categories that merge is not needed and probably incorrect.  In fact most of the contained articles are about people, subsidiaries, or products, so being related to the company is the only common trait.  The named after categories are really there to allow categories by companies without the need to try and classify them into a category where they are a really bad fits or miscategorize most entries. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have yet to see a good reason given why we should delete whole groups of categories within parent Category:Eponymous categories. --Eastlaw (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Categories named after media companies of the United States

 * 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) 04:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * categories named after media companies of the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Everything listed in this category would be listed elsewhere already. – Zntrip 22:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - nom is not convincing. Occuli (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Category:Media companies of the United States. No need for a category for companies and a separate category for categories named after companies. Otto4711 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * merge per Otto. This is where these categories belong under normal circumstances.   What is special that this case should be different?  Category names with the word 'category' should be very rare as they introduce WP structural elements to names when not absolutely necessary. The current situation also adds a layer of categorization that seems unnecessary. Hmains (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or upmerge to Category:Categories named after companies or an appropriate subcategory there. Upmerging to other company categories will not be appropriate for all of the category contents and since the main articles are ample in the suggested merge targets categories that merge is not needed and probably incorrect.  In fact most of the contained articles are about people, subsidiaries, or products, so being related to the company is the only common trait.  The named after categories are really there to allow categories by companies without the need to try and classify them into a category where they are a really bad fits or miscategorize most entries. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have yet to see a good reason given why we should delete whole groups of categories within parent Category:Eponymous categories. --Eastlaw (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Categories named after information technology companies of the United States

 * 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) 04:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * categories named after information technology companies of the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Everything listed in this category would be listed elsewhere already. – Zntrip 22:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - nom is not convincing. Occuli (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Category:Information technology companies of the United States. No need for a category for companies and a separate category for categories named after companies. Otto4711 (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * merge per Otto. This is where these categories belong under normal circumstances.   What is special that this case should be different?  Category names with the word 'category' should be very rare as they introduce WP structural elements to names when not absolutely necessary. The current situation also adds a layer of categorization that seems unnecessary. Hmains (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or upmerge to Category:Categories named after companies or an appropriate subcategory there. Upmerging to other company categories will not be appropriate for all of the category contents and since the main articles are ample in the suggested merge targets categories that merge is not needed and probably incorrect.  In fact most of the contained articles are about people, subsidiaries, or products, so being related to the company is the only common trait.  The named after categories are really there to allow categories by companies without the need to try and classify them into a category where they are a really bad fits or miscategorize most entries. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have yet to see a good reason given why we should delete whole groups of categories within parent Category:Eponymous categories. --Eastlaw (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Categories named after companies of the United States

 * 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) 04:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * categories named after companies of the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Everything listed in this category would be listed elsewhere already. – Zntrip 22:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - nom is not convincing. Occuli (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Category:Companies of the United States. No need for a category for companies and a separate category for categories named after companies. Otto4711 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * merge per Otto. This is where these categories belong under normal circumstances.   What is special that this case should be different?  Category names with the word 'category' should be very rare as they introduce WP structural elements to names when not absolutely necessary. The current situation also adds a layer of categorization that seems unnecessary. Hmains (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or upmerge to Category:Categories named after companies or an appropriate subcategory there. Upmerging to other company categories will not be appropriate for all of the category contents and since the main articles are ample in the suggested merge targets categories that merge is not needed and probably incorrect.  In fact most of the contained articles are about people, subsidiaries, or products, so being related to the company is the only common trait.  The named after categories are really there to allow categories by companies without the need to try and classify them into a category where they are a really bad fits or miscategorize most entries. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have yet to see a good reason given why we should delete whole groups of categories within parent Category:Eponymous categories. --Eastlaw (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Categories named after energy companies

 * 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) 04:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * categories named after energy companies


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Everything listed in this category would be listed elsewhere already. – Zntrip 22:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - nom is not convincing. Occuli (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Category:Energy companies. No need for a category for companies and a separate category for categories named after companies. Otto4711 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * merge per Otto. This is where these categories belong under normal circumstances.   What is special that this case should be different?  Category names with the word 'category' should be very rare as they introduce WP structural elements to names when not absolutely necessary. The current situation also adds a layer of categorization that seems unnecessary. Hmains (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or upmerge to Category:Categories named after companies or an appropriate subcategory there. Upmerging to other company categories will not be appropriate for all of the category contents and since the main articles are ample in the suggested merge targets categories that merge is not needed and probably incorrect.  In fact most of the contained articles are about people, subsidiaries, or products, so being related to the company is the only common trait.  The named after categories are really there to allow categories by companies without the need to try and classify them into a category where they are a really bad fits or miscategorize most entries. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not understanding this rationale. The nominated category contains nothing but subcategories. There aren't any articles on people, subsidiaries or products that will end up directly in the merge target. Otto4711 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have yet to see a good reason given why we should delete whole groups of categories within parent Category:Eponymous categories. --Eastlaw (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They are redundant. Otto4711 (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With what? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In this instance, with Category:Energy companies. Is there any category within the nominated category that is not an energy company? If so, then it doesn't belong in the "named after" category either. If not, then interposing the nominated category between the subcats and the "grandparent" is an unnecessary layer of categorization and a barrier to navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs by Howard Barnes

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Songs with lyrics by Howard Barnes and Category:Songs with music by Don Robertson. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Songs by Howard Barnes to Category:Songs written by Howard Barnes
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match other "songs written by" categories. Same with Category:Songs by Don Robertson, can someone add that please? I don't know how to bundle. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Category:Songs with lyrics by Howard Barnes is another possibility, per Category:Songs by lyricist and Category:Songs with music by Don Robertson is another possibility for the other, per Category:Songs by composer (see eg I Really Don't Want to Know). Occuli (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, do it that way then. That works. So long as it's clear that they were composed by said people. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 06:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When I first created the article, I set the categories of I Really Don't Want to Know to Category:Songs with music by Don Robertson and Category:Songs with lyrics by Howard Barnes. Naturally, I'd prefer it done that way; I don't know why anyone changed it. -- BRG (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cornish people

 * 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 (sigh) . Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Cornish people to Category:People from Cornwall
 * Nominator's rationale: These two categories are mcuh too similar. The distinction is supposed to be that one is for people born or raised there and the other for people associated with the county: this is much too "nice" a distinction to be workable.  I am afraid that my solution is somewhat complicated:
 * Category:People from Cornwall has subcategories by place (like many counties). This should be kept
 * Category:Cornish people has several subcategories by occupation (or similar). These should be moved to a new Category:People from Cornwall by occupation.  Its sportspeople subcategory is reasonably populated, despite a complaint in a current discussion that it is overcategorisation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * do per nom. This is a good solution to these categories which are currently confused. Hmains (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with nominator, distinction not workable.  I think its subcategories though, by occupation, need to be upmerged ultimately as there isn t such a schema in place presently for people by English county and occupation (though I can envision a day when there will be)  Mayumashu (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support and agree with Mayumashu re upmerge. (Cornish people is about self-identifying ethnic Cornish persons ... it's difficult enough to decide objectively whether someone is English, let alone Cornish.) Occuli (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Cornish are in fact recognised as an ethnic group on many articles on Wikipedia such as Template:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, Celtic nations etc and are recognised by the Office for National Statistics with a UK national Census ethnic code of '06' ref. United Kingdom Census 2001 Ethnic Codes. This category falls into line with other UK and Irish ethnic group categories such as Category:Welsh people, Category:Ulster Scots people, Category:Manx people, Category:Scottish people, Category:English people and Category:Irish people. Why are non-Cornish people always so keen to pigeonhole Cornish people as English people ? Same applies to the recent suggested name changes of Category:Cornish rugby union footballers and Category:Cornish footballers to Category:English rugby union footballers and Category:English footballers---Kernowyon (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How can we establish that Nigel Martyn say is ethnically Cornish? Occuli (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's a problem, just remove those entries. 76.66.195.190 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep with Bretons, Gaels, Welsh, Scots... and Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Visigoths, etc. It's a notable ethnic group 76.66.195.190 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cornwall is one of those places that people identify with even if they weren't born there. It therefore makes sense to have one category for people who were born or brought up there and one for people who weren't but still self-identified heavily with the duchy. The problem with merging the categories is that the British "people from..." categorisation scheme is defined only as those who were born or brought up in a place, not those who merely lived there or identified with it. If we get rid of the Category:Cornish people then we will start having people incorrectly added to Category:People from Cornwall because editors are desperate to add them to some Cornish category, which will bugger up the whole categorisation scheme. There's nothing wrong with the system as it stands now. Category:Cornish people is not for people who are "ethnically" Cornish, as that's virtually impossible to determine, but for people who self-identify as Cornish or are strongly associated with Cornwall (e.g. John Betjeman, who was not ethnically Cornish in the slightest, but who is still considered by many to be a "Cornish" poet). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom -- I have no view on whether the target should be "Cornish People" or "People from Cornwall", but having both is confusing duplication. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not when the rationale is clearly defined in the category blurb. The onus is on the editor to read it before they add an article to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway

 * 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 (no opposition). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * wheeling and lake erie railway


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete This only has three entries, and anything that would belong in here could instead go to Category:New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad, its lessee. (But don't upmerge; the articles are already in the appropriate other categories.) NE2 21:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ambassadors of England

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Ambassadors of England to Category:British diplomats
 * Nominator's rationale: These seem to be parallel categories. I came across "Ambassadors of England" while going through those listed in List of diplomats from the United Kingdom to the Ottoman Empire.  It is specified as being for those before 1707, but ambassadors were sent by the king, not Parliament, so that I suspect that the relevant date is 1603, the union of the crowns of England and Scotland.  Certainly in the lists of diplomats only in List of Ambassadors from the United Kingdom to Denmark have I noted the mention of Scottish ambassadors and then only up to 1696 1596.  The alternative would be to rename Category:Ambassadors of England to Category:English diplomats and confine its operation to before 1603.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * regrettably I made a typo in my nomination. 82.47.19.178 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The other points remain. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep That there were Scottish ambassadors in 1696 would rather seem to disprove your point. There was in any case no monarch of Great Britain till 1707, and the union of crowns was purely a personal one. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep as historically correct per the inclusion criteria Hmains (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Categories:Bosnia and Herzegovin-born footballers who have played for either Croatia or Serbia/Serbia and Montenegro

 * 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. However there is an expressed need to make sure that information is not lost so this will be handled as a merge.  Category:Serbian footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Serbians of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent and Category:Croatian footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Croatia international footballers and Category:Croatians of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Serbian footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina-born footballers who have played for Serbia or Serbia and Montenegro (If delete, upmerge to Category:Serbians of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent
 * Category:Croatian footballers from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina-born footballers who have played for Croatia (If delete, upmerge to Category:Croatia international footballers and Category:Croatians of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent.)
 * Nominator's rationale: listed are not any 'Serbian footballer' or / 'Croatian footballer' 'from B&H' (whatever that means) but just B&H-born footballers who have represented either Croatia or Serbia/Serbia and Montenegro Mayumashu (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment – I am fairly sure that 'place/country of birth' and 'native of' categories have been routinely deleted in the past (as non-defining) so deletion would seem a good way of avoiding this ethnic and grammatical mine-field. Occuli (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Upmerge). In a country where nationality is as complex as in Serbia/Bosnia/Montenegro/Croatia, it is inevitable that people will play in (or even for) the "wrong" country. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Peterkingiron. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-defining place of birth categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment With a delete, there needs to be an upmerge. Mayumashu (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Categories:Foreign-born footballers who have played for Fooia (national team)

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for Algeria to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for Algeria
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for Australia to Category:Foreign-born soccer players who have played for Australia
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for England to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for England
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for Finland to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for Finland
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for France to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for France
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for Germany to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for Germany
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for the Republic of Ireland
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for Italy to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for Italy
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for the Netherlands to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for the Netherlands
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for Scotland to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for Scotland
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for Serbia to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for Serbia or Serbia and Montenegro
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for Spain to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for Spain
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who played for Turkey to Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for Turkey


 * Nominator's rationale: as with the below nomination, changing 'played' to 'have played' but different in that the disambiguate 'football (soccer)' is unnecessary (because each is in reference to a particular national team) Mayumashu (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all - why is this important? Place/country of birth is not defining. (Switching nationality to represent another country might well be defining, eg Zola Budd, Greg Rusedski.) Occuli (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don t have a problem with a delete, as the nominator. I d recommend listify, but I m not willing at this point to do the work.  Same goes for nomination below Mayumashu (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all as non-defining place of birth categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Place of birth is extremely relevant when it comes to international football or soccer if you prefer. However I agree that the number of subcategories has become ridiculous and would support their deletion. I can also understand that the categories related to the former Yugoslavia are confusing and need to be clarified. I think all these should be discussed on a case by case basis and not nominated together. Deletion should not be the answer to evertthing and is just a cop out. Try working with other editors to improve them instead. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as OCAT and not defining for most of these individuals. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Categories:Fooian-born football (soccer) players who have played for other national teams

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Argentine footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Argentine-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Australian-born soccer players who played for other national teams to Category:Australian-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina-born football (soccer) players who have played for aother national team
 * Category:Brazilian footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Brazilian-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Canadian-born soccer players who played for other national teams to Category:Canadian-born football (soccer) players who have played another national team
 * Category:Cape Verdean-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Cape Verdean-born football (soccer) players who have played for aother national team
 * Category:Croatian-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Croatian-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Netherlands-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Dutch-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:English-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Australia to Category:English-born football (soccer) players who have played for Australia
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Canada to Category:English-born football (soccer) players who have played for Canada
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Cyprus to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Cyprus
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Barbados to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Barbados
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Ghana to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Ghana
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Grenada to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Grenada
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Hong Kong to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Hong Kong
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland to Category:English-born footballers who have played for the Republic of Ireland
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Italy to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Italy
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Jamaica to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Jamaica
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Montserrat to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Montserrat
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for New Zealand to Category:English-born football (soccer) players who have played for New Zealand
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Nigeria to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Nigeria
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Northern Ireland to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Northern Ireland
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Pakistan to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Pakistan]
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Poland to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Poland
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Saint Kitts and Nevis to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Saint Kitts and Nevis
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Saint Lucia to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Saint Lucia
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Scotland to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Scotland
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Sierra Leone to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Sierra Leone
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Singapore to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Singapore
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for South Africa to Category:English-born football (soccer) players who have played for South Africa
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Trinidad and Tobago to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Trinidad and Tobago
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Turkey to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Turkey
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for United States to Category:English-born football (soccer) players who have played for the United States
 * Category:English-born footballers who played for Wales to Category:English-born footballers who have played for Wales
 * Category:French-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:French-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:German-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:German-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Ghanaian footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Ghanaian-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Greek-born football (soccer) players who have played for other national teams to Category:Greek-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Hungarian-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Hungarian-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Nigerian footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Nigerian-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Paraguayan footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Paraguayan-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Polish-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Polish-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Scottish-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Scottish-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Serbian-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Serbian-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:South African-born soccer players who played for other national teams to Category:South African-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Spanish-born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Spanish-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Swiss born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Swiss-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Trinidad and Tobago born footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Trinidad and Tobago-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Turkish footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Turkish-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:United States-born soccer players who played for other national teams to Category:American-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Uruguayan footballers who played for other national teams to Category:Uruguayan-born football (soccer) who have played for another national team
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for other national teams to Category:Foreign-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for other national teams by country of birth to Category:Foreign-born football (soccer) players who have played for another national team by country of birth
 * Category:Foreign-born footballers who have played for other national teams by national team to Category:Foreign-born football (soccer) players who have played for aother national team by national team


 * Propose renaming
 * Nominator's rationale: cat pages meant to list association footballers(, which take the wikip disambiguate 'football (soccer)' players, as the 'other national team' could be one where 'soccer' is the common term) who are foreign-born (regardless of whether the birth resulted in them acquiring citizenship of the country that they were born in) who have played - they may still be playing - for that other national team (regardless of the level of the internationals - A, B, youth) Mayumashu (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all - why is this important? The tortuous language of the nom makes it clear that these categories defy ready definition. Occuli (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all as non-defining place of birth categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, I don t mind if they are to be deleted as I support the point raised by Good Ol'factory made here and elsewhere that being born in a place regardless of citizenship is 'non-defining'. [User:Mayumashu|Mayumashu]] (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Point of Order: Categories were nominated for renaming, not deleting. I would support using the term soccer player thou. Categories are legitmate and should be kept. The categories have been in existence for a while now and should be kept. I would support the deleting of some the subcategories which only have a handful articles in them Djln --Djln (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is common practice here for pages nominated for rename to be deleted if the discussion leads in that direction.   Mayumashu (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. see above for reasons. Djln --Djln (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as OCAT. If this is of interest then a list with the important facts would seem to be much more useful then a category with a list of names. The WP:ILIKEIT argument is, as always, very week.  How long a category exists is not a reason to keep.  Just like a speedy delete can be applied to articles of any age we can delete long existing categories here. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandalism It is my opinion that deleting these categories is vandalism thru the back door. Just because a small group of editors fails to understand why they should be kept does not mean they should deleted. I am positive many readers will find these categories interesting and useful. It is very frustrating when some editors put work into improving Wiki while others just seem to nominate articles/categories for deletion. I hope whoever makes the final decision has some common sense or at list listifies the all the info in theses categories. Djln--Djln (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Sportspeople by state

 * 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 all as test case, as Mayumashu seems to support this as part of a broader rename. Kbdank71 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Sportspeople of Alaska to Category:Sportspeople from Alaska
 * Propose renaming Category:Arkansas sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Arkansas
 * Propose renaming Category:Arizona sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Arizona
 * Propose renaming Category:California sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from California
 * Propose renaming Category:Connecticut sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Connecticut
 * Nominator's rationale: If one looks at a categorization tree such as:
 * Category:People from California
 * Category:California sportspeople
 * Category:Major League Baseball players from California
 * Category:Basketball players from California
 * Category:American football players from California
 * then it is easy to spot the dichotomoy where people from XYZ gets re-worded to become XYZ specific-people, and then re-re-worded back to more-specific people from XYZ. The purpose of this nomination is to bring the categories in Category:American sportspeople by state to the same format as their parent categories, and their children categories.  Only the first few have been nominated, as this is somewhat a test case for the rest of the states in the category. Neier (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename as nominator. Neier (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

*Support. And will support the bigger nomination as well Keep. The whole of the rest of Category:People from California by occupation uses the 'California lawyers', 'California musicians' pattern. I favor a reverse merge because of this. Mayumashu (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per consistency with the structures laid out in the nomination. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The rest of the category tree is broken, in my opinion, and the opinion of the Categorization of people guideline. The football category, for example, settled on "players from XYZ" because "California American football players" just sounded ridiculous.  The "... from state" construct makes it plainly obvious what the categorization is for -- unlike something like Category:Kansas musicians, and also would resolve the clumsy disambiguities scattered throughout the encyclopedia, like Category:Oklahoma (state) actors.  I had not planned at stopping with sportspeople; but, since the subcategories had worked themselves out already, it seemed like a logical place to attack the problem. Neier (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also note that the change I have in mind seems to be supported in many past CFD discussions. Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 26 is but one example. Neier (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support an all inclusive nomination, but it ll be a lot of work to put together. Mayumashu (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Public schools sex abuse scandal

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:School sex abuse scandals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Speedy Renaming
 * Rename Category:Public schools sex abuse scandal to Category:Public schools sex abuse scandals ??. Pluralize. Cgingold (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Take to full CFD - Two comments - 1) I think grammatically is better, and 2) there are two different, diametrically opposed, meanings to the term "public school", which is why we don't have any  - this category meeds more than a simple one-letter rename. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  22:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right you are -- I had completely forgotten about that maddening, perplexing and inexplicable British proclivity for inverting the meaning of perfectly ordinary words. (Public schools, indeed!) But I think this may actually be a blessing in disguise. Is there really any good reason to distinguish between sex abuse scandals at private schools and sex abuse scandals at public schools? Why don't we just rename to ?? Cgingold (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * comment will this new catgegory then include colleges and universities or only lower grade levels? Hmains (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It should/will be a sub-cat of, which is a separate category tree from (they're both under Category:Academic institutions). I could be wrong, but I don't think there have been any sex abuse scandals of this sort at the college level, so no articles as far as I know. Cgingold (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We may have. I'm dredging my memory to think of the detail;s of the case, but it involved members of a basketball (?) team in a US college, in 2007, ISTR. Can't for the life of me think of its name, though. BTW, the suggestion of changing this to sounds good - I'd definitely support that. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Minnesota Democrats
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 04:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Minnesota Democrats to Category:Minnesota DFLers
 * Nominator's rationale: The Democratic Party in Minnesota is known as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and its members are known as DFLers. The category should be renamed accordingly. Lincolnite (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per everything else in Category:Democrats (United States). Occuli (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename. In Minnesota, which I am from, the state party which is affiliated with the national Democratic Party is not named the same way the other 49 state parties are. Inaccuracy for the sake of consistency with other states is not needed; it can still be a subcategory. Jonathunder (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that this category should be renamed, as explained. But we generally avoid using nicknames in category names -- as a rule, a formal name is preferred. In this case that would translate to . Admittedly, that's a bit cumbersome, but I've seen worse. Cgingold (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * rename per Cgingold This follows naming conventions and follows what is locally true in Minnesota. Also change the inclusion criteria for the category.  Hmains (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Input has been solicited at the talk pages for Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and WikiProject Minnesota. Cgingold (talk)
 * Keep - DFLer and Democrat are used interchangeable in Minnesota to refer to members of the party. The full category name (Members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) is very cumbersome, when Democrat is a perfectly acceptable alternative.Crumley (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Crumley. Although the party is officially known as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, it is not incorrect to identify the members as Democrats, because the state party is associated with the national Democratic Party, and there is no other noticeable party in Minnesota with "Democratic" in its name. The DFLers are Democrats for purposes of national politics. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename:politicians from Minnesota who caucus with national Democrats are members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. When the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party and the Minnesota Democratic Party merged, the agreement was to keep the new combined name. To refer to members as Democrats is to disenfranchise a large number of constituents.--Appraiser (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The party merger was over 60 years ago. I am not suggesting that the DFl or the DFL party page on Wikipedia should be renamed. Just that the commonly used synonym of Democrat is OK as part of a category here, as opposed to the unwieldy Members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. The shorter DFLer is too confusing for a category name for those outside of Minnesota (and many of those in). I don't see how this disenfranchises anyone no matter what decision is made. Crumley (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If renamed, lose the acronym. This is going to be confusing enough with a spelled out name.  Leaving the acronym in will be a disaster to the average reader. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cornish rugby union footballers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 04:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Cornish rugby union footballers to Category:Cornish sportspeople and Category:English rugby union footballers
 * Nominator's rationale: as per comments in the nomination immediately below Mayumashu (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:English rugby union footballers (as we don't have 'sportspeople by county'). Occuli (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Upmerge sportspeople by county is overcategorisation, but also upmerge to Category:People from Cornwall, or perhaps Category:Cornish sportspeople, which is reasonbaly populated subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Cornish people are in fact recognised as an ethnic group on many articles on Wikipedia such as Template:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, Celtic nations etc and are recognised by the Office for National Statistics with a UK national Census ethnic code of '06' ref. United Kingdom Census 2001 Ethnic Codes. This category falls into line with other UK and Irish sporting group categories such as Category:Welsh rugby union footballers and Category:Welsh footballers etc. Why are non-Cornish people always so keen to pigeonhole Cornish people as English people ? ---Kernowyon (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep some Cornish people have opted to play for Scotland or Wales. see Andy Reed for instance, why catagorise as English ?
 * Keep. Cornish is a very strong identity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cornish footballers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 04:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Cornish footballers to Category:English footballers and Category:Cornish sportspeople
 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation to break up Category:English footballers list by county and no precedent for it. Category:Cornish sportspeople is sufficient Mayumashu (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:English footballers (as we don't have 'sportspeople by county' either). Occuli (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Category:Cornish sportspeople is reasonably well populated as a subcategory of Category:Cornish people. I have today nominated a reoganisation of these Cornish categories (see above).  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Cornish people are in fact recognised as an ethnic group on many articles on Wikipedia such as Template:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, Celtic nations etc and are recognised by the Office for National Statistics with a UK national Census ethnic code of '06' ref. United Kingdom Census 2001 Ethnic Codes. This category falls into line with other UK and Irish sporting group categories such as Category:Welsh rugby union footballers and Category:Welsh footballers etc. Why are non-Cornish people always so keen to pigeonhole Cornish people as English people ? ---Kernowyon (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep some Cornish people have opted to play for Scotland or Wales. see Andy Reed for instance, why catagorise as English ?
 * Keep. Cornish is a very strong identity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dance shoes styles
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 02:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * dance shoes styles


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete only contains article Salsa (dance), which does not mention shoes. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Pointless category. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Syracuse neighborhoods
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 02:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Syracuse neighborhoods to Category:Neighborhoods in Syracuse, New York
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous and does not follow the form normally used for this type of category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support match standard used in the parent category across the US. Alansohn (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom to avoid the appearance of part of the original Sicilian city in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Introductions
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Speedy close Premature nomination, wait until it's empty if at all. Non-admin closure.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * introductions


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete I severly question all these articles. i think they ought to be moved to Wikiversity. Ipatrol (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This nomination is premature. Any discussion about keeping or deleting this category depends entirely on the outcomes of the AFDs for the articles that are in it, so there is absolutely no point in discussing this until those AFDs have been decided. I suggest closing this CFD, and reopening it if & when the articles have been deleted. Cgingold (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment - initiating AFds for all the articles would be a shrewd first move. Occuli (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not liking the articles is no argument for deleting the category. I can't see AfD's having a snowball's chance in hell myself. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep If you think the articles should be deleted, nominate them as a group in AfD. If the category then becomes empty, it can be deleted (and we can all go ice-skating with Satan). Tim Vickers (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Reamonn
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 (no opposition). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * reamonn


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete category only contains the artist article and a user page. The songs and albums categories are sufficient per standard. Wolfer68 (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.