Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 23



Category:Filmed accidental deaths

 * 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.  Skier Dude  ( talk  02:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

filmed accidental deaths
 * Delete
 * Nominator's rationale: Not clear why the fact that it was on film should be important. It is not that we dispute everything that was not recorded on film.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This looks to me like a perfectly valid sub-cat of . Cgingold (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cgingold - fine sub-cat.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a well-defined cat. I recall that when many of the events on this list happened, a lot of the coverage was about the psychological impact on the viewer at having caught an accidental death on film, so the cat is also one of interest.  --M @ r ē ino 21:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cgingold. Joaquin008 ( talk ) 06:59, 25 August 2010 (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:Power transmission in India

 * 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. Courcelles 18:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Power transmission in India to Category:Electric power transmission in India
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Electric power transmission is the main article, so this should follow.  I'll add that we may want to consider other options.  Two articles are about power lines and 8 are about companies.  So maybe a different sort of cleanup is necessary. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Beagel (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2010 (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:Cuttings

 * 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. Courcelles 18:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Cuttings to Category:Cuttings (transportation)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Cutting (transportation). "Cuttings" alone is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Cuts (earthmoving). The previous main article was merged following a long standing proposal that did not have any opposition. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me as nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2010 (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:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America

 * 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:Boy Scouts of America case law. Ruslik_ Zero 12:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America to Category:Something
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - "contentious issues" is a poor name. The lead article is Boy Scouts of America membership controversies so that's a possibility, but I'm not feeling that name for the category or the article. Perhaps Category:Boy Scouts of America membership policies Category:Boy Scouts of America membership policy? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Policies is not good, as the articles relate reactions to BSA membership policies that have caused controversy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Categories like Category:Scientology controversies or Category:Mormonism-related controversies may be the closest match; no need to make the wording more complicated aside from just the rote reason of following the parent article Boy Scouts of America membership controversies (if they are all in fact membership-related). There doesn't appear to be a reason why "-related" should or shouldn't be in the name. postdlf (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose Category:Boy Scouts of America controversies. All the articles involve membership issues, except Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, which was a trademark issue. Not enough articles to really justify separate categories right now. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent example of why I dislike the word "controversies" in article or category names. Is Wrenn really a "controversy" by any reasonable definition of the word? I would much rather see the name neutralized and the one article that isn't about membership policy moved to the parent than introduce the NPOV "controversy" into it. Or the court cases could be grouped in a new Category:Boy Scouts of America case law with the membership cases cross-catted in Category:Boy Scouts of America membership policy. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Legal cases relating to the Boy Scouts of America (or something like that), and retain only the articles that are about legal cases, merging the rest back into Category:Boy Scouts of America. I think this is too vague to serve as a useful category. Robofish (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the naming format in wide use is "Foo case law" so the rename here if adopted would be Category:Boy Scouts of America case law. Adopting this proposal would expand the BSA category from 61 to 64 articles, which is not unreasonable. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2010 (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:Entertainers killed in airplane crashes

 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 22:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * entertainers killed in airplane crashes


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to . All subjects populating the nominated category are categorized as victims of aviation accidents or incidents, so there would be nothing to merge. Do we really want to start categorizing victims by occupation? — ξ xplicit  21:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Buddy Holly's death was very noteworthy because it was the day that the music died. I then wanted to know what other singers died.  Categorization helps locate similar articles.  According to WP:Similar treatment is okay we should be fair and treat all things the same.  When looking at the Victims of aviation accidents or incidents, there is a link to State leaders killed in air accidents and Aviators killed.  By the nominator's reasoning, those should be deleted, too.  I suggest 1. keep and 2. treat things the same (which would mean delete of the others).  This is not pointy but fairness.  The worse thing is to be unfair and delete only one category.  The best is to keep all four. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Big Bopper and Ritchie Valens are already mentioned in Buddy Holly's article, as well as in The Day the Music Died, about the plane crash and its legacy. So jumping from Buddy Holly to a category for all "entertainers" who died in airplane crashes seems like a much less direct, and more difficult way to find out who the other singers were who died with him.  So none of what you've said is an argument for keeping this category.  postdlf (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I agree that we don't want to categorize aviation accident victims by occupation. I think they should be categorized by place of accident. There are not so many in total so as to require categorization by occupation to make the tree navigable. The categories for politicians and aviators are cases which should be considered individually. (Don McLean would probably disagree, but then again, he seems to have thought Altamont was Satanically inspired.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are state leaders and aviators an exception. They are occupations too.  Including aviators would be similar to Bus drivers killed in wrecks.  Major occupations which could be valid include state leaders, aviators, entertainers, athletes, all occupations that travel.  Occupations which should not are be included probably include window washers killed in aviation accidents, dieticians, and plumbers. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did I say state leaders and aviators are "an exception"? I said they "are cases which should be considered individually". They are not included in this nomination, but could be discussed in a separate nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually just noted on my talk page that I wasn't aware of the aviators and state leaders categories at the time of the nomination, as I only noticed the nominated category because it was added to Aaliyah. — ξ xplicit  22:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I've never been a fan of cross-categorizing by profession and event, it's basically overcategorization. This is a topic that would make a decent list, however. Resolute 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for recognizing that it is a decent list! That is trying to be fair.  Also note that the current system of categorizing by place of crash appeals to the airplane fan but is not helpful for ordinary people.  This is because some people die in crashes in foreign countries.  So a foreigner dying in Ethiopia will be categorized in "air crashes in Ethiopia" but that is not helpful at all except for the airplane fan.


 * I agree that we don't want to overcategorize but this is not an example of that. A look at people in this cat and I see other cat that are less useful.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Other categories are worse" is not an argument for keeping this category. There's no queue of useless categories that we must clear before getting to this one, if a consensus of editors determines that it should be deleted.  You should read through Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and tailor your comments to defense of this category and discussion of its subject matter.  postdlf (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So the point of categorizing crashes by location has serious flaws making it unhelpful to the normal reader. This list serves a purpose and is even acknowledged as a decent list by a supporter of reducing the number of categories.


 * Also, your suggestion of people learning of Buddy Holly's dead colleagues is not practical because how would we list John Denver and Carole Lombard? I really had to wrack my brain to think of Carole Lombard, something that would have been unnecessary had there been this list. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it seems like you're just talking about other categories, not this one, so I'm not going to bother explaining why the country in which a crash occurred is a defining fact of that crash, or why place of death is significant. I really don't understand the rest of your comment, but for what it's worth, Buddy Holly, John Denver, and Carole Lombard are all grouped together in Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the United States. postdlf (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge? The problem is that a category about people killed in airplane crashes is useful. However, there is no category for that.  Merging the entire category with a newly created deaths from airplane crashes (or similar wording) has some justification.  However, the way it is now, the category of victims of plane crashes is organized just for the airplane buff since it is listed by place of crash.  So a Finn crashing in France cannot be easily located.  A real life example is Mickey Leland and he died in Ethiopia.


 * Mickey Leland is a noted American. Unless you know his history well, you aren't going to be looking it up in Ethiopia.  If you know his history well, you aren't going to need categories.  This is the reason that the current categories flawed.


 * Admins can count votes and decide this to be a delete but they will not be serving readability of Wikipedia well.


 * There is a real interest in entertainers, judging from the many articles about entertainers. Cats help locate similar article.  If there is opposition to an entertainer cat, then at least have an aircrash victims category without needing to know the country that they crashed in.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't one more likely to "look it up" at Mickey Leland than anywhere else? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not unless you know who Mickey Leland is. 99.99% of the world never heard of him.  My guess is that 98% of Americans haven't heard of him.  Yet if I want to look up others who have died in plane crashes, it's difficult.  I would say that cat by location of crash appeals to air fans but that nationality of victims is more useful.  Also entertainers category is useful as that is a popular subject.  Electricians killed in plane crashes would likely be a seldom looked up category, which is why I don't favor it.  I am still learning but my reasons are based on being practical, not citing Wikipedia red tape, which I am sorry and don't wish to offend those who cite rules. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, but what I don't understand is why deaths by location appeals to "air fans" but nationality of airline deaths would be more useful to everyone else. It seems pretty subjective, and I don't really see how one could be said to be far better than another. But one is enough, I think, and people can trawl through them if they are interested. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - If there is some sourceable information about this, then please do make this a list, or even better, a nicely well-sourced article on the subject. But the multiple intersections of death by mode and by occupation/celebrity status - probably not a good idea. - jc37 07:03, 3 September 2010 (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:Air Squadron Member

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 12:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Air Squadron Member to Category:Members of the Air Squadron
 * Nominator's rationale: per usual naming conventions, it ought to be in the plural and without a capital "m". BencherliteTalk 19:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection (I created the category). --Bill Hall (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in pronciple, but do we need this category at all? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Of the 10 articles, only three even mention this so the other 7 should simply be removed from the category.  Of the ones remaining, one simply mentions membership as a comment so it should also be removed.  That leaves two articles.  The question there, was this defining for those individuals?  In any case, delete as OC small if you don't accept that this should be deleted as not defining.  If kept, then rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2010 (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:Plots

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Plots to Category:Plots (graphics)
 * Propose renaming Category:Plot to Category:Plot (narrative)
 * Nominator's rationale: To match parent article and disambiguate. Plot is ambiguous. — ξ xplicit  18:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Possibly one of the most ambiguous categories I've ever seen; my first thought was that it related to fiction, my second that it somehow dealt with divisions of land.  Plot (graphics) didn't even occur to me.  postdlf (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Also added for renaming. If the renames go through, the two former categories should probably be turned into disambiguation categories. —  ξ xplicit  21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While Plots could be construed as ambiguious, Plot is not. Plot (narrative) is not a good alternative (just as the disambiguation of Plot (narrative) is not good either), since many stories--plays and other forms of drama most obviously--are not narrative (and are defined in contrast to it). DionysosProteus (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, makes more sense than my original.--Hooperbloob (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Joaquin008 ( talk ) 07:01, 25 August 2010 (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:Kipling stories with 'uneducated' characters
<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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * kipling stories with 'uneducated' characters


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - relies on original research to determine whether a character qualifies for the category creator's definition of "uneducated". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; the presence of the scare quotes alone makes this category suspect. Even if this is an established way of characterizing Kipling's characters or works, it should be explained in article text.  postdlf (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Postdlf. <font color="#008000">Joaquin008 ( talk ) 07:13, 25 August 2010 (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:Harris County Housing Authority, Texas
<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 deleted as spam. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * harris county housing authority, texas


 * Nominator's rationale: article masquerading as category <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">Wuh <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Wuz <font color="#AA0022" face="Papyrus">Dat 16:03, 23 August 2010 (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:List of People by name Sunil
<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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * list of people by name sunil


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inappropriate use of category space. Tassedethe (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, only contains 2 articles. <font color="#008000">Joaquin008 ( talk ) 07:09, 25 August 2010 (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:Actress Damehoods
<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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Actress Damehoods to Category:Actresses awarded British damehoods
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category is currently very weirdly named. It categorises actresses who have been awarded damehoods, not the damehoods themselves. The corresponding category for male actors is Category:Actors awarded British knighthoods. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Current name is awkward. Proposed name is consistent with male counterpart and more accurately describes the intended content. AusTerrapin (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to match male counterpart.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per Lenticel. <font color="#008000">Joaquin008 ( talk ) 07:09, 25 August 2010 (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:NAACP Image Award Winners
<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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * naacp image award winners


 * Nominator's rationale: delete: One of far too many awards that are handed out today, so unneeded as per WP:OC; recipients are already listed in articles for the different award categories so no need to listify. JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 12:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Nymf hideliho! 10:51, 24 August 2010 (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:1916 U.S. ballet premieres
<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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1916 U.S. ballet premieres to Category:1916 ballet premieres
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to follow the existing category structure in Category:Ballet premieres by year. It is overcategorization to split by country as well as year . Tassedethe (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom – Category:xxx ballet premieres have between 1 and 13 articles each and need no subcatting. Occuli (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. <font color="#008000">Joaquin008 ( talk ) 07:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom – such categories may become larger than they currently are, but 13 may well be as large as any ever becomes. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (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:New encyclopedism
<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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * new encyclopedism


 * Nominator's rationale: Neutral (semi-procedural nom) What exactly "New encyclopedism" means/is has not been reliably defined anywhere; witness New encyclopedism's unreferenced stub status. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. See New encyclopedism first. The new encyclopedism is such a spirit of Wikipedia that its ignorance or neglect at all may well look ahistoric and self-defeating from the Wikipedia's own perspective. --KYPark (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. I was hoping this might get you to explain the concept. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What about having something like v: User:KYPark/Encyclopaedism/Timeline here? It is ready to be imported. You are welcome to talk at Talk:New encyclopedism. Thanks. -- KYPark (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - category seems to have no inclusion criteria and the associated article offers little or no guidance as to scope. The essayish lead article remains unreferenced and is unlikely to survive. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - scope not defined. The opinionated original research essay that has been added to the article new encyclopedism since the nomination does not help either - if a "egalitarian and utilitarian perspective" were to be a characteristic, one would also need to include Diderot's 18th century encyclopedia in the category, cf. Encyclopédie. (At least it would make more sense than Yahoo!, which is currently categorized as "New encyclopedism" too.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This term appears in several reliable sources, but there is no discernable common meaning, and the collection of articles in this category is an entirely novel one. <font face="New York">Skomorokh  14:45, 28 August 2010 (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:Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
<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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * tuskegee syphilis experiment


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains one article and images. Probably will not be populated with articles. Images are not included in article categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is what Template:Commonscat is for.  postdlf (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Postdlf. <font color="	#008000" >Joaquin008 ( talk ) 20:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:SMALLCAT-- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:39, 24 August 2010 (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:Scholars and leaders of nonviolence, or nonviolent resistance
<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: merge to . —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * scholars and leaders of nonviolence, or nonviolent resistance


 * Nominator's rationale: Manually split (combination merge and rename) and then delete. Aside from the bad grammar, this category appears to be trying to be too much. There is no reason to categorize "leaders of" and "schoars of" together. I suggest manually merging those who are "leaders" into the parent and putting the scholars in a new . Other options are possible.  If kept, the comma needs to go. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait until existing discussion issues raised at Category talk:Scholars and leaders of nonviolence, or nonviolent resistance has reached a conclusion have been resolved. &mdash; Sebastian 22:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Ol’factory and I had a fruitful discussion on his talk page, and we agree that something needs to be done. We also agree that it would be nice to have somewhat more time, but we don't want to strain the usual procedure here. Since it appears to me that this category has largely been an accident (see Category talk:Scholars and leaders of nonviolence, or nonviolent resistance for details), I think it is best to just implement the easiest solution, which is to merge the child category into the parent category. I would like to give it 14 days though, so other voices can be heard. &mdash; Sebastian 07:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I endorse that suggestion of simply merging to Category:Nonviolence advocates as a possible interim solution. Further work could then be done on the category tree, if thought necessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename, possibly delete That extraneous comma needs to go; otherwise, I'm leaning toward deletion, but I can see its potential with well-defined inclusion criteria and regular policing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I never could figure out why this category was created, since it is fundamentally redundant to . So by all means, Merge into , and create as a new sub-cat.   Cgingold (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge the contents into Category:Nonviolence advocates; this category is overbroad. I suggest then creating categories for Category:Scholars of nonviolence and Category:Leaders of nonviolent resistant movements, which are both legitimate topics, but entirely separate. Robofish (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2010 (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:Atheist and agnostic heads of government
<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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * atheist and agnostic heads of government


 * Nominator's rationale: Is categorisation of heads of government by religion (or lack thereof) meaningful? I have my doubts, especially as state and official religions can dictate certain religions in certain places, i.e. Category:Muslim heads of government of Saudi Arabia. Not opposed to somehow grouping atheist etc. heads of government, but starting categorisation by religion in this area does not seem the best approach. Mattinbgn (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; and if nothing else, grouping atheists and agnostics together is inappropriate, since they are different positions/beliefs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems WP:POINTY (the inclusion of Soviets and Mussolini certainly stand out right now), and it's meaningless without context. An atheist head of state would be unremarkable in many modern secular nations, or outright required by law in many Communist regimes, for example.  postdlf (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Categorization by trivial attribute. Resolute 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wasn't sure I wanted to take the time to comment on this until I saw the last remark, calling it a "trivial attribute". Au contraire!. While I would agree that it was utterly unremarkable in a Communist state, it is in fact very remarkable in many countries. And I'm not merely talking about theocratic states like Iran or Saudi Arabia. (A non-believing President of the United States?? Unimaginable -- notwithstanding the current Muslim/Satanic resident of the White House... ) Cgingold (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point of saying this is trivial is that the category can apply to any head of state or head of government from anywhere in the world, and since this would be unremarkable in many countries, it therefore cannot be defining on a global scale, since it will largely include heads from places where it is unremarkable. If the category were more targeted to societies where it is remarkable, then your point would be well taken. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are very substantially in agreement here, GO -- "triviality" depends on the context. Cgingold (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2010 (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:Noble houses
<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/merge per nom. If somebody wants to split the Celtic category, they can do this themselves. Ruslik_ Zero 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Noble houses to Category:Noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Armenian noble houses to Category:Armenian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Austrian noble houses to Category:Austrian noble families
 * Propose merging Category:Belarusian noble houses to Category:Belarusian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Belgian noble houses to Category:Belgian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Bohemian noble houses to Category:Bohemian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Brazilian noble houses to Category:Brazilian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Celtic noble houses to Category:Celtic noble families (or, preferably, split to Category:Irish noble families and Category:Welsh noble families)
 * Propose renaming Category:Croatian noble houses to Category:Croatian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Czech noble houses to Category:Czech noble families
 * Propose merging Category:Danish noble houses to Category:Danish noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Dutch noble houses to Category:Dutch noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Estonian noble houses to Category:Estonian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Ethiopian noble houses to Category:Ethiopian noble families
 * Propose merging Category:French noble houses to Category:French noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Georgian noble houses to Category:Georgian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:German noble houses to Category:German noble families
 * Propose merging Category:Greek noble houses to Category:Greek noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Hungarian noble houses to Category:Hungarian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Indian noble houses to Category:Indian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Noble houses of Iraq to Category:Iraqi noble families
 * Propose merging Category:Italian noble houses to Category:Italian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Noble houses of Jordan to Category:Jordanian noble families
 * Propose merging Category:Lithuanian noble houses to Category:Lithuanian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Livonian noble houses to Category:Livonian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Luxembourgian noble houses to Category:Luxembourgian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Mexican noble houses to Category:Mexican noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Montenegrin noble houses to Category:Montenegrin noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Moravian noble houses to Category:Moravian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Portuguese noble houses to Category:Portuguese noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Romanian noble houses to Category:Romanian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Ruthenian noble houses to Category:Ruthenian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Serbian noble houses to Category:Serbian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Slovak noble houses to Category:Slovak noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Spanish noble houses to Category:Spanish noble families
 * Propose merging Category:Swedish noble houses to Category:Swedish noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Swiss noble houses to Category:Swiss noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian noble houses to Category:Ukrainian noble families
 * Propose renaming Category:Welsh royal houses to Category:Welsh royal families
 * Propose renaming Category:Noble houses of the First French Empire to Category:Noble families of the First French Empire
 * Propose renaming Category:Noble houses of the Holy Roman Empire to Category:Noble families of the Holy Roman Empire


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per this Russian noble houses discussion that I closed, there seems to be no real difference between "noble houses" and "noble families," or at least none that people populating these categories can discern. There are more "noble houses" categories, but noble house just goes to the Clavell novel. Also, for category tree purposes, "noble families" has the parent Category:Families, and "noble houses" doesn't make sense in the parent Category:Houses. If this nomination gains steam, I'll add the subcategories. If it gains steam the other direction, I'll add those instead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support all "Houses" is mainly a continental European usage in various languages. It sounds forced and pompous in English. Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – it could be renamed to Category:Noble families by country and then made a subcat of Category:Noble families with a modest amount of rearranging. I support the idea of changing 'house' to 'family' throughout the subcats. Occuli (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with Category:Noble families by country as well. Or "by nationality".--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or indeed 'by nationality'. I suppose an advantage with the present set-up is that it is left unstated whether it is by nationality or country or something else. Occuli (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tricky. Many were notably multi-national, and persisted across many border changes. The categories include "Moravian", "Montenegrin" and "Welsh" etc, as well as the rather dubious "Celtic". If we have to go with one "by nation" (not nationality) might be best. Or "by location". Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points. I think it might be best to just stick with Category:Noble families, then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: Subcategories nominated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to Foo noble families. "By country" is also acceptable for the parent, since they were once countries, even if not now.  The Celtic item should be emptied (split) and then deleted.  The contents should be categorised as Welsh, Scots, Irish, or Breton as apparopriate.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is deleted, we would only need to create Category:Welsh noble families and Category:Irish noble families, since that's all that's in the Celtic category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2010 (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:Hart
<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 to Category:Places in Hart (district). The deals with the disambiguation.  I'm taking it on faith that Peterkingiron is correct about using places in the category name.  If this is incorrect, another nomination can be submitted. There is no support for the current name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Hart to Category:Hart (district)
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge new category to pre-existing one for the district of England. Hart alone is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom to avoid confusion.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge as ambiguous. <font color="	#008000" >Joaquin008 ( talk ) 07:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or Rename to Category:Places in Hart (district). The category seems largely to be concenred with places within the district, rather than with the district itself.  If so, some of the articles in the parent would need to be moved here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2010 (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:Production electric vehicles
<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: merge. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  18:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Production electric vehicles to Category:Electric cars
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to the category that is listed as the main article. Production is somewhat ambiguous since you can have a production run that is only a few vehicles.  Upmerging to the sole parent would add to the needed cleanup in Category:Electric vehicles which already probably needs cleaning and some reorganizing and categorizing.  Probably better to create categories for the non production vehicles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Ambiguous and confusing category. Beagel (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2010 (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.