Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 17



Category:English people of Antigua and Barbuda descent

 * 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 all. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * english people of antigua and barbuda descent


 * Category:English people of Saint Lucian descent‎
 * Category:English people of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent‎
 * Category:English people of Nigerian descent‎
 * Category:English people of Guyanese descent‎
 * Category:English people of Grenadian descent‎
 * Nominator's rationale: This is the endless subdividing they warn about in WP:OCAT. First of all, being of "___ descent" is almost always not more than a word in the biographies of these people, and often times, if they were born in the respective nation they already have a category of that nationalities. Indeed, we often have a biography with the category People of Guadeluopan descent English people of Guadeloupean descent and Guadeloupean. Ethnicities within the nation would make a directory (WP:NOT) of census results without a justification, but we don't have to worry about that, because these categories are not ethnicities but regions and natons. The majority of these categories and their respective articles (with ridiculous population templates and "representative" people, who often are hardly representative) were created by one user without discussion. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; having a mass nomination of every category is too much, so I'm only grouping together the island countries or the most "obscure" African nationalities for now. Bulldog123 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Mass overcategorization, as nom Bulldog123 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all The 'one user' seems to be Kbdankbot, a bot carrying out cfd decisions. Is Nigeria obscure? Zaire aka Democratic Republic of the Congo - obscure? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering Nigerians constitute less than 1% of emigrants to the country, and Zaire 0.1%, yes - that would qualify as obscure. Bulldog123 (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1% is 500,000, a substantial and well-documented minority. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the article Nigerian British, we don't need three categories and a list for a simple census take. It is WP:OCAT, which is a guideline now.
 * Also is complaining about my use of the word "obscure" your whole argument? Bulldog123 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I have also argued - see above - that your 'one user' no-consensus claim is erroneous. (In any case one does not need any consensus to create categories, regrettably perhaps.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your talking about. "one user" what? It's merely a "nominator's rationale." Bulldog123 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all per Roundhouse. Ethnicity/national origin/descent is noteworthy enough, less than nationality perhaps, for most people, but still as noteworthy as things like cause of death, year of birth, and sports position, bases for biography-related cat pages that presently exist Mayumashu (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "ethnicity/national origin is not noteworthy" was not the reason for deletion. Please read the third sentence in the rationale. Bulldog123 (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * but you seem to mention favouring a mass deletion of 'Fooian people of Booian descent' if it were not for the bother involved (which would be a very considerble one). You re saying then that it is noteworthy enough for mention in an article and mention in articles like Nigerian British but not for having category pages for?  I disagree with such a move as I envision eventually having many of the Fooian(-)Booian articles (Booian=ethnicity/national origin, and Fooian=citizenship) merged into 'Fooian diaspora(/emigration)', 'Immigration to Booian', and 'Demographics of Booian' articles as paragraphs/subsections.  Ethnicity/national origin info should be given in mere lists with accompanying census info, and cat pages serve such a purpose very well Mayumashu (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all as part of larger scheme of "Fooian people of Booian descent". Many other categories within the same scheme have recently been nominated for renaming, and there has never been a consensus to delete them, so it makes little sense to me to cherry-pick these ones off for deletion. (Pre-emptive rebuttal, since that seems to be predictably needed in this discussion: Before editors leap in and accuse me of WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:CRAP, perhaps consider that my argument is more based on precedent of the recent past discussions than the "all or nothing" or "other crap exists" positions.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not help get rid of the "Fooian people of Booian descent" scheme then? This would be a stepping stone. We don't need it; we already have categories (and articles and lists) that cover it. And it's making wikipedia looking amateurish, and frankly, ridiculous to have it all. Past discussions have proven there is a growing problem when we have a list, an article, and three categories for one concept. This isn't a discussion over whether Booian descent is important, its on why we need these ever-growing cross-categorizations. Bulldog123 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there's no consensus to do so, nor do I anticipate my being able to generate one. I'll go with the status quo consensus on this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not true though. In fact, I've seen a general consensus to avoid making unnecessary intersections via WP:OCAT. I'm afraid many people are just putting "keep" because they're seeing nationality/ethnicity and automatically thinking "Oh, Nationality and Ethnicity is important. Keep." But a consensus to NOT have these categories has been displayed many times in precedent. Bulldog123 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I await with bated breath your pointing out to me the specific places where there has been a consensus to delete categories like this, i.e., ones from this scheme. To just argue that there is consensus to delete categories that are overcategorization is obvious and just begs the question: "is this a specific example of overcategorization?" What I'm looking for is evidence that the consensus says "yes", with respect to this particular scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * keep because it is a notable way to categorize people. There is no point in trying to delete things when it is well affirmed (consensus) that WP editors want these categories to exist.  The people exist; so should their categories. Hmains (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe that many users are glancing over this nomination and misunderstanding the purpose. There is no, and never was, an argument that "these categories are not notable." And this statement is generally irrelevant to the discussion. What doesn't make sense is the need to have the categories: Category:Nigerian people, Category:People of Nigerian descent, and all the X people of Nigerian descent. Especially when the category has very little potential for growth (WP:OCAT), and is a narrow intersection (WP:OCAT)? If someone is born in Nigeria and then moves to England why can't they simply have the categories Category:Nigerian people and Category:British people. If they are English people of Nigerian descent, why not just the category Category:People of Nigerian descent - it doesn't make much sense to have a THIRD (and eventually fourth and fifth) category? Please somebody address this in their rationale for keep at least. Bulldog123 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In such a situation Category:British people and Category:Nigerian people would be huge, and part of the point of subdividing categories is to assist in locating information about people who share related characteristics or features. To lump Nigerian-descended people that are British with everyone else in the Nigerian people category could be confusing and, ultimately, unhelpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all Ethnicity and descent are always notable. Calling certain ethinicities as "too obscure" reeks of bias. Dimadick (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all per keepers. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all but in third and subsequent generations, ethnic origin is only likely to be notable if the subject is notably identified as of that descent or at least 75% or ancestors (or other fuirgure to be agreed) are of that extraction. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 22 June 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:Burma football clubs

 * 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 Category:Burma football clubs to Category:Burmese football clubs. - jc37 09:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Burma football clubs to Category:Burmese football clubs
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other categories in Category:Football (soccer) clubs by country use the country's demonym where appropriate. Furthermore, using the "Burmese" demonym avoids the controversy over the country's name (i.e. "Myanmar" vs "Burma"). – PeeJay 21:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 22:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 18 June 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:Norwegian national football team templates

 * 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. For future reference, WP:CSD would have covered this. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * norwegian national football team templates


 * Nominator's rationale: Speedy Delete: Empty category. All articles have been moved to Category:Norway national football team templates, in line with the standard notation used in Category:National football team templates. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 20:09, 17 June 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:Films featuring a Best Actress National Award winning performance

 * 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 - Comparable to the "Oscar" category, as noted. (And apparently wasn't tagged.) Though as an aside, when looking over the sub-cats of Category:Academy Award winners vs. the sub-cats of Category:National Film Awards, there's a rather clear diference in scope. If the kept cat has no further similar siblings in a reasonable amount of time, feel free to re-nominate. - jc37 09:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

films featuring a best actress national award winning performance
 * I'm don't have particular feelings about this cat. I just want to know if that's indeed an appropriate category. One user created it emulating the Oscars. My concern is whether it is at all needed in both cases. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. OCAT. Is this a quadruple intersection?  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to register that this also implies to the Oscars. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Remark This seems to be Bollywood's version of the Oscars (see National Film Awards) and as such ought to be treated similarly (see Category:Films featuring a Best Actress Academy Award winning performance, a long-established category via several renames with consensus - see e.g. cfd in 2006). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 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:Films set in the 1800s

 * 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. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * films set in the 1800s


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete: 1. Sub-categories for Category:Films set in the 19th century, which is not very populated as it is. The 19th century category seems to be sufficient  2. Confusing naming – Is 1800s for the period 1800-1810 or 1800-1899?  3. Very few, if any, films categorized in each of these "by decade" categorizations and will not likely increase. Request deletion of this and the below categories. Wolfer68 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Films set in the 1810s
 * Category:Films set in the 1820s
 * Category:Films set in the 1830s
 * Category:Films set in the 1840s
 * Category:Films set in the 1850s
 * Category:Films set in the 1860s
 * Category:Films set in the 1870s
 * Category:Films set in the 1880s
 * Category:Films set in the 1890s


 * Keep on the whole. The 20th century equivalent is well populated & I see no reason at all why these very new categories should not be populated (all those Westerns). "1800s" is the period 1800-1810, as always here (see MoS). On the other hand, should you be trying to find a film you are not sure about, this will take longer with all these sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about movies that are about one particular person's live? Is that movie article gonna be filled with those categories? That can be the problem, so Delete. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, see Cheers for Miss Bishop for an example!  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - a film spread over many decades can reasonably be left in the top category, Category:Films set in the 19th century. (There is Category:Films set in the 20th century, sub-divided into decades.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Still useful.   CWii ( Talk  15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep For consistency reasons. As for the so-called naming ambiguity, the article 1800s covers the decade. Dimadick (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe rename to Category:Films set in the 1800s (decade) to avoid any misunderstandings. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 19:49, 21 June 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:Firefighting museums

 * 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: nomination withdrawn. BencherliteTalk 08:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn Category:Firefighting museums to Category:Firefighting museums in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Almost all of this category's contents are in the USA. (the few items not in the USA would be moved to a new FF museums category.) Obviously, any country can have a new category created, but since this one is de facto is for the US, I'd like to just use this existing one. the US has its own overall cat, Category:Firefighting in the United States. thanks. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just move the THREE US articles in the main cat to the US sub-cat, and please don't waste our time! Speedy Close I see he had reached that conclusion by himself, & is doing it. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's seven, not three, but anyway.... By the way, no big deal, but there are some slightly more gentle ways to deliver that message than "don't waste our time!" we do get all kinds here. :-) anyway, no big deal. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) It was 3 left when I saw it - I was just striking. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ok, no prob. thanks. appreciate your reply. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:45, 17 June 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:Mexican-American War American ships

 * 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 Category:Mexican-American War American ships to Category:Mexican-American War ships of the United States. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Mexican-American War American ships to Category:Mexican-American War ships of the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: For conformity with other subcategories of Category:Ships of the United States (e.g. "World War II ships of the United States", "Korean War ships of the United States") — jwillbur 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename for conformity. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 22 June 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:Nazis from outside Germany

 * 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 for rename/merge. There is, however, a consensus that criteria points #3 and #4 from Keresaspa's comments below cause the category inclusion criteria to be too broad. I might suggest cleaning up the categories based upon the dis-inclusion of those who qualified for #3 and #4. As the rename/merge result was "No consensus", feel free to renominate for further discussion, or to even just start a discussion on a talk page somewhere. - jc37 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

nazis from outside germany
 * Rename or possibly delete/merge, depending on outcome of discussion.

Rationale - There are two basic issues here: one is the name of the category, the other is how it's being used. Starting with the name -- if the category is kept, it probably should be renamed to, with a new sub-cat for German Nazis created as a sibling to the other existing sub-cats.

However, after taking a quick look through several of the sub-cats (Brazil, Bulgaria, Hungary), I'm not sure that they are being used properly, because most of the individuals do not appear to be honest-to-goodness Nazis (now there's a memorable phrase!), but rather Nazi supporters. (I presume the Austrians were real Nazis, possibly the Swiss as well.) It comes down to how we define the term. I would think that it should be restricted to people who were, in fact, members of an official National Socialist party -- which would appear to eliminate most of the articles I looked at. We could, I suppose, change the categories to something like "supporters of Nazism" if that seems appropriate. Or perhaps there's an entirely different solution out there -- I'm open to suggestions. Cgingold (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to the appropriate sub-cats of Category:Fascists, which is what that is for. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Johnbod. (However the subcats aren't tagged and e.g. Category:Austrian Nazis is a subcat of Category:Austrian fascists so perhaps there is a subtle distinction not made clear in the yet-to-be-supplied rubric.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick comment: I didn't tag the sub-cats because I didn't have a clear plan in mind for them. But our decision on Category:Nazis from outside Germany is contingent upon our evaluation of those sub-cats. Do we keep & rename it, or do we delete it & upmerge the contents into ? (dealing with the sub-cats in another CFD, if necessary) Cgingold (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I too lack a clear plan - there are Neo-Fs and Neo-Ns as well all jumbled together (see Jun 18 cfds). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After a brief wander round Fascism etc, I find that a (neo)-Nazi is a type of (neo)-fascist ("German Nazism was a form of racially-oriented fascism"). So this makes the (neo)-Nazi cats subcats of the corresponding (neo)-fascist ones. And then subcatting Category:Nazis (or Category:neo-Nazis) by nationality is a standard procedure. Perhaps the inauthentic nazis you have discovered lurking in Brazil etc are more correctly neo-Nazis. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to "Nazis by nationality". Organizations like the Germanic-SS included recruits from the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. They were certainly Nazis and not really Germans. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But few if any the people in these cats were in such groups. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Given that this category and most of the subcategories are my handiwork I should probably say a little about my rationale for creating them.

I chose the term 'Nazis from outside Germany' largely because Nazism was a specifically German phenomenon and so one might assume that Nazis were German. I avoided 'Nazis by nationality' on the basis that I felt a category for 'German Nazis' would be unwieldy and rather wanted something to show the more minor pro-Nazi activism that took place in other countries. I am prepared to concede on this point, although I still do feel that a German Nazis category would look a bit odd.

As for the subcategories I felt when creating them that there were four basic criteria on which someone could qualify:
 * 1) The one that seems to have already been accepted here i.e. that the person in question was a member of the German Nazi Party or one of its organisations such as the SS (e.g. Søren Kam, Jakob Schaffner).
 * 2) Individuals who, whilst not specifically members of the German party, undertook work on behalf of the Third Reich, specifically recruitment of people in neutral or enemy countries (e.g. Ernst Leonhardt, Carl-Ehrenfried Carlberg).
 * 3) Members of movements in countries outside Germany that specifically looked to the Nazis for inspiration and copied large elements of their ideas, organisation etc. I was careful to avoid adding my own interpretations here and instead limited myself to those people who specifically referenced the Nazis (e.g. Zoltán Meskó, Aleksandar Tsankov).
 * 4) Those who, regardless of their group affiliation, openly endorsed the Nazis and sought to have Nazi ideas applied to their specific countries (e.g. Oswald Pirow, Gustavo Barroso).

In undertaking this I made a point of not including those who were drawn instead to Italian fascism (such as Elena Bacaloglu) or those who sought to create indigenous forms of fascism (e.g. Corneliu Zelea Codreanu) as these are much better covered by the existing 'Fascists by nationality' category. Similarly those whose contact with Nazism was through collaboration but who otherwise did not show any particular affinity to the ideas of Nazism were also excluded as the 'Collaborators with Nazi Germany' category has that base covered. In a nutshell therefore I created this category as an attempt to bring together the various individuals in the inter-war period who looked specifically to Nazi Germany for their political ideas whilst trying to avoid complicating things by forcing the creation of a German Nazis category. Keresaspa (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I want to thank Keresaspa for providing us with a very thorough explanation about all of this. I most assuredly do appreciate what you were attempting to accomplish, and I of course understand the reason for your choice of name for the category ("Nazis from outside Germany"). However, that wording would be better suited to serve as a section heading for an article. I can see how might seem a little odd at first blush, but it's simply a perfectly natural result of the way that Categories are structured. (It's worth noting, by the way, that some editors have a hard time with  for much the same reason.)
 * The more difficult problem here is your decision to use very broad inclusion criteria, with the result that actual Nazis have been lumped together with individuals who were Nazi supporters or pro-Nazi activists (or whatever term you prefer). I don't believe you will find much if any support for that among other editors, so the real question is whether there is a workable solution that will allow us to salvage the category structure you've created by renaming along the lines I've suggested. Cgingold (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I should qualify that the people in point 3 above are those who were members of groups included in the 'Nazi Parties' category. Keresaspa (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 11:57, 25 June 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:Articles with excessive non-free image content from February 2008

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


 * The result of the discussion was: speedy delete, G6 (housekeeping, empty maintenance category). BencherliteTalk 17:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * articles with excessive non-free image content from february 2008


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty and outdated Ultra! 11:21, 17 June 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:Sexuality by individual

 * 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 Category:Sexuality by individual to Category:Sexuality of individuals - Feel free to group nom the rest of Category:Aspects of individual lives. Also, I presume that if the creator nominates this (and also presuming that no one opposes), the group nom could be listed as a speedy rename. You may also wish to decide between "people" and "individuals" for such a nom. (I note both in the parent.) - jc37 09:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

sexuality by individual
 * Rename to Category:Sexuality of individuals. This is just better wording -- the current name seems a little fuzzy to me.  Cgingold (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. I thought this would be some crazy attempt to categorize all biogaphies - Category:American heterosexuals etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. I find the creation of entire articles just on individual people's sexuality rather odd, but as long as they're allowed to exist the proposed alternate name is far more appropriate and less confusing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. The reason for these articles is that they address aspects of the subjects' lives that, if left in the main article, would overwhelm them. These are reasonable sub-articles and need to be categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.   CWii ( Talk  15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am the creator of this category, along with the parent Category:Aspects of individual lives and most of its daughters, which are intended to group together common types of biographical sub-articles.  Most of these other categories have a similar naming, and if this one is to be changed we might reconsider the naming of the others as well.--Pharos (talk) 16:34, 18 June 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:Guest appearances by albums

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * guest appearances by albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Just mentions guest appearances of certain artists; artists' discography mentions the majority of their guest appearances  Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 04:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - This really seems like an unnecessary category scheme for a relatively trivial detail. Guest appearances should be noted in the bio article rather than categorized. Furthermore, one album can easily have 5 to 10 guest artists, so that would lead to major category clutter. Cgingold (talk) 23:12, 17 June 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:Serbian academicians

 * 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 Category:Serbian academicians to Category:Members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * serbian academicians


 * Nominator's rationale: This category was originally being used primarily for "Members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts". On 29 May 2008 I created Category:Members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and subsequently have been populating it. "Members of the  Academy of ..." is a more commonly used naming convention than " academicians", and avoids confusion, as in the case of Pierre Marie Gallois, for example, who was previously included in the "Serbian academicians" category, but who is not Serbian by nationality. On 29 May 2008 I also created Category:Serbian academics. The term "Academician" is not synonymous with "Academic", hence the distinct category, "Serbian academics" was needed, which also follows the common Wikipedia naming convention " academics".  As of 11 June 2008, I had placed (or confirmed prior placement of) all members of "Category:Serbian academicians" in either "Category:Members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts", or in "Category:Serbian academics" (or one of its subcategories), or both, where appropriate.  I have left all articles on people of Serbian nationality, who are academicians, in "Category:Serbian academicians", but do not feel that this category is any longer necessary in itself, nor does it fill a "missing space" in the categorization system.  Thanks, Lini (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ... I had to read this one about 5 times before I figured it out. It's all very confusing; even if I don't understand, nominator sounds like they know what they're doing within this scheme, so regardless I'm going to defer to them and say delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Category:Members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, which I think is what is being asked. If some of its population is academics who are not academicians presumably Lini will be able to identify them and recategorise them appropriately.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 22 June 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:Slavistics scholars
<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 Delete per user request; Category is empty. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * slavistics scholars


 * Nominator's rationale: Author requests deletion; created category and shortly afterwards discovered Category:Slavists which serves same purpose. Sorry. Lini (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete; I have added a {db-author} tag to the page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 17 June 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.