Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 28



Category:Norwegian people of 1814

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Norwegian people of 1814 to Category:something more informative
 * Nominator's rationale: This category appears to group people involved in events of Norway in 1814, in which Norway started as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, briefly became an independent kingdom, and ended the year in a personal union under the Swedish king. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a suitable collective name for these events (which is presumably why the head article is called Norway in 1814). I don't like a category named simply after a year because it's too vague, and could end up being populated with any Norwegian who happened to be notable at the time. Is there any better solution? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Norway has been notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify I don't think that's a good use of the category system. A politician or some other prominent figure could easily have hundreds of such categories attached. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename somehow. In 1814, Norway seceded from Denmark; a constituent assembly created a constitution; but then the country was taken over by the Swedish king.  The category contains a category for the constituent assembly and two more participants in these events.  Unfortunately, I do not know how these events are collectively desrcibed.  I do not think it is "Norwegian Revolution", but there ought to be some such term that we can use.  Category:People concerned with the 1814 Independence of Norway would be a horrid mouthful, but that is what it is about.  Listify should not be an option.  We ought not to get 1813 or 1815 categories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are only two people and one category in here: the "What's the point question" seems to arise... could just delete? Simpler  --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Meeting of Notables participants or similar, as the category seems to relate to the Meeting of Notables in 1814. Cjc13 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Geschichte (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of the individuals included in the category were participants in the Meeting of Notables, and the members of the Constituent Assembly already have their own category, so it could be easily converted into a category for the Meeting of Notables particpants. There do not seem to be any other individuals involved apart from these 2 groups. Although I am not sure of the population of Norway in 1814, Category:Norwegian people of 1814 does seem a little vague. Cjc13 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatively Category:Norwegian nationalists of 1814 Cjc13 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A category only for Meeting of Notables participants would be overcategorization, whereas a category for "Norwegian nationalists of 1814" would be imprecise. The category was meant for people who did things like attend the Meeting of Notables, attend the Constituent Assembly, participate in the summer war against Sweden, participate in the negotiations and re-signing of the Constitution after Sweden's victory. These were some of the events in this extremely notable year in Norwegian history. I hardly see how "nationalists" can be fitting as a label here. Especially since the doctrine of nationalism was undeveloped at the time. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I nominated this category for renaming, but there seems to be no way of coming up with a name which doesn't have at least as many problems as the current name, and since the category only includes three articles it's not much use for navigation anyway. No objection to listification. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 10 April 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:Norwegian people of 1905

 * 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: [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 16. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The best name I can think of so far is Category:People of Norwegian Independence, but that doesn't seem quite right. Any better ideas? Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Norwegian people of 1905 to Category:Something which better conveys the purpose of this category
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. When I first saw this category, I thought it might be part of a series of categories for each year, which would be a recipe for massive category clutter. However, while it is part of the badly named, the contents of this category relate to the Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905. That seems to me to be a potentially valid basis for a category, grouping together the major players in a historic process, but the name does not convey this.


 * WikiProject Norway has been notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Listify I don't think that's a good use of the category system. A politician or some other prominent figure could easily have hundreds of such categories attached. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename somehow. The main article is Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905.  This should thus be "People of Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905".  Hitherto, there was a personal union of the corwns of Norway and Sweden.  Category:People of Norwegian 1905 Independence would do.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 30 March 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:Bagram Theater Detention Facility detainees

 * 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 . —  ξ xplicit  19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Bagram Theater Detention Facility detainees to Category:Bagram Theater Internment Facility internees
 * Nominator's rationale: The name of this category should incorporate one of the actual names of the facility. Originally, during the period when GIs murdered several captives, the facility was called the "Bagram Collection Point".  Subsequently, it was renamed the "Bagram Theater Internment Facility".  Its official name has never been the "Bagram Theater Detention Facility".  Since it is an "internment facility", I suggest the individuals held there should be called "internees".  Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nominator to match head article Bagram Theater Internment Facility. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike my !vote for now. The comments below persuade me that this may be more complex than I thought. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The name of that article might not be a good reference for the status of the prisoner that is reflected in the category name. This article was also renamed in the past by the nominating author himself without given good reasons and or community participation. I think that article name can be discussed at another place and is not much value of as a reference for the name of this category.


 * A similar discussion of the naming of "detainees" held by the US in various camps in the so called "War on terror" has been started by the same nominator and is ongoing here Talk:Uyghur_detainees_in_Guantanamo and the result there is so far against the nominator and to call them detainees. IQinn (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Back on September 29 2009 you wrote something that seems inconsistent with your current position. You wrote:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * An "Internee Security Number" is a prison number given to Internees (or captives) to distinguish them and to give basic security to internees during there stay in prison, as prison numbers allow for accountability. I think they are demanded under the Geneva convention and by the Red Cross.
 * An "Internee Security Number" is a prison number given to Internees (or captives) to distinguish them and to give basic security to internees during there stay in prison, as prison numbers allow for accountability. I think they are demanded under the Geneva convention and by the Red Cross.


 * }
 * Of course you are entitled to change your mind. But forgive me if I suggest the rest of us can be forgiven if we ask you to explain why you have expressed two views that seem inconsistent.  Note: Guantanamo and Bagram share one sequence of Internee Serial Numbers.   Geo Swan (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of context quote from a discussion about Internment Serial Number what has absolutely nothing to do with the name of this category and the discussion here. Please be more careful not to quote other people out of context. Sure i assume good faith but considering the presentation of the quote and past experiences i would like to ask you to have a look at Civility (2d) IQinn (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * May i ask you why you used Internee Serial Number the right term is Internment Serial Number? And you should know that well you just created the redirect and worked on that article before. I must say i found that a bit misleading. Any reason for that? IQinn (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename -- except keep the word detainees -- the only proper rationale to rename the category to "internees" would be if they're actually called "internees." They're not.  They're called "detainees" by the U.S. government, and by the media.  I suspect there's a reason for this but I don't yet know what it is, and it's not in the article. -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename -- except keep the word detainees -- per Randy IQinn (talk) 12:43, 29 March 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.

20th and 21st-century people by nationality

 * 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: Containerize using container category for most categories.  Categories that do not contain subcategories will be deleted and recreation is allowed when there are appropriate subcategories.  This is going to take a while to close, so if anyone wants to lend a hand, feel free to do so.  I'll start on this later tonight. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have listed all these categories for merger or deletion, and will tag them as such, but per the rationale below I suggest that we also consider the option of making them all container categorys.
 * Propose deleting
 * Category:20th-century people by nationality
 * Category:21st-century people by nationality
 * Propose merging


 * Category:20th-century Colombian people to Category:Colombian people
 * Category:20th-century Iranian people to Category:Iranian people
 * Category:20th-century Iraqi people to Category:Iraqi people
 * Category:20th-century Malaysian people to Category:Malaysian people
 * Category:20th-century Thai people to Category:Thai people
 * Category:20th-century African people to Category:African people
 * Category:20th-century Albanian people to Category:Albanian people
 * Category:20th-century American people to Category:American people
 * Category:20th-century American criminals to Category:American criminals
 * Category:20th-century American Episcopalians to Category:American Episcopalians
 * Category:20th-century bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America to Category:Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America
 * Category:20th-century United States government officials to Category:United States government officials
 * Category:20th-century Argentine people to Category:Argentine people
 * Category:20th-century Armenian people to Category:Armenian people
 * Category:20th-century Australian people to Category:Australian people
 * Category:20th-century Austrian people to Category:Austrian people
 * Category:20th-century Bahamian people to Category:Bahamian people
 * Category:20th-century Bermudian people to Category:Bermudian people
 * Category:20th-century Bolivian people to Category:Bolivian people
 * Category:20th-century Bosnia and Herzegovina people to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people
 * Category:20th-century Brazilian people to Category:Brazilian people
 * Category:20th-century British people to Category:British people
 * Category:20th-century English people to Category:English people
 * Category:20th-century Scottish people to Category:Scottish people
 * Category:20th-century Bermudian people to Category:Bermudian people
 * Category:20th-century Guernsey people to Category:Guernsey people
 * Category:20th-century Welsh people to Category:Welsh people
 * Category:20th-century Bulgarian people to Category:Bulgarian people
 * Category:20th-century Canadian people to Category:Canadian people
 * Category:20th-century Cape Verdean people to Category:Cape Verdean people
 * Category:20th-century Chinese people to Category:Chinese people
 * Category:20th-century Cuban people to Category:Cuban people
 * Category:20th-century Czech people to Category:Czech people
 * Category:20th-century Dutch people to Category:Dutch people
 * Category:20th-century Finnish people to Category:Finnish people
 * Category:20th-century French people to Category:French people
 * Category:20th-century French politicians to Category:French politicians
 * Category:20th-century Georgian people to Category:Georgian people
 * Category:20th-century German people to Category:German people
 * Category:20th-century Greek people to Category:Greek people
 * Category:20th-century Guyanese people to Category:Guyanese people
 * Category:20th-century Haitian people to Category:Haitian people
 * Category:20th-century Hong Kong people to Category:Hong Kong people
 * Category:20th-century Indian people to Category:Indian people
 * Category:20th-century Irish people to Category:Irish people
 * Category:20th-century Israeli people to Category:Israeli people
 * Category:20th-century Italian people to Category:Italian people
 * Category:20th-century Jamaican people to Category:Jamaican people
 * Category:20th-century Japanese people to Category:Japanese people
 * Category:20th-century Kazakhstani people to Category:Kazakhstani people
 * Category:20th-century Korean people to Category:Korean people
 * Category:20th-century South Korean people to Category:South Korean people
 * Category:20th-century Mexican people to Category:Mexican people
 * Category:20th-century New Zealand people to Category:New Zealand people
 * Category:20th-century Norwegian people to Category:Norwegian people
 * Category:20th-century Polish people to Category:Polish people
 * Category:20th-century Portuguese people to Category:Portuguese people
 * Category:20th-century Russian people to Category:Russian people
 * Category:20th-century Serbian people to Category:Serbian people
 * Category:20th-century Slovenian people to Category:Slovenian people
 * Category:20th-century South African people to Category:South African people
 * Category:20th-century Spanish people to Category:Spanish people
 * Category:20th-century Swedish people to Category:Swedish people
 * Category:20th-century Swiss people to Category:Swiss people
 * Category:20th-century Trinidad and Tobago people to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people
 * Category:20th-century Ukrainian people to Category:Ukrainian people
 * Category:21st-century Afghan people to Category:Afghan people
 * Category:21st-century Colombian people to Category:Colombian people
 * Category:21st-century Cuban people to Category:Cuban people
 * Category:21st-century Dutch people to Category:Dutch people
 * Category:21st-century German people to Category:German people
 * Category:21st-century Iranian people to Category:Iranian people
 * Category:21st-century Iraqi people to Category:Iraqi people
 * Category:21st-century Malaysian people to Category:Malaysian people
 * Category:21st-century Norwegian people to Category:Norwegian people
 * Category:21st-century Thai people to Category:Thai people
 * Category:21st-century African people to Category:African people
 * Category:21st-century Algerian people to Category:Algerian people
 * Category:21st-century American people to Category:American people
 * Category:21st-century American criminals to Category:American criminals
 * Category:21st-century American Episcopalians to Category:American Episcopalians
 * Category:21st-century United States government officials to Category:United States government officials
 * Category:21st-century Argentine people to Category:Argentine people
 * Category:21st-century Armenian people to Category:Armenian people
 * Category:21st-century Australian people to Category:Australian people
 * Category:21st-century Austrian people to Category:Austrian people
 * Category:21st-century Bahamian people to Category:Bahamian people
 * Category:21st-century Barbadian people to Category:Barbadian people
 * Category:21st-century Belgian people to Category:Belgian people
 * Category:21st-century Bermudian people to Category:Bermudian people
 * Category:21st-century Bolivian people to Category:Bolivian people
 * Category:21st-century Bosnia and Herzegovina people to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people
 * Category:21st-century Brazilian people to Category:Brazilian people
 * Category:21st-century British people to Category:British people
 * Category:21st-century English people to Category:English people
 * Category:21st-century Scottish people to Category:Scottish people
 * Category:21st-century Welsh people to Category:Welsh people
 * Category:21st-century Bermudian people to Category:Bermudian people
 * Category:21st-century Bulgarian people to Category:Bulgarian people
 * Category:21st-century Czech people to Category:Czech people
 * Category:21st-century French people to Category:French people
 * Category:21st-century Greek people to Category:Greek people
 * Category:21st-century Indian people to Category:Indian people
 * Category:21st-century Irish people to Category:Irish people
 * Category:21st-century Israeli people to Category:Israeli people
 * Category:21st-century Italian people to Category:Italian people
 * Category:21st-century Ivorian people to Category:Ivorian people
 * Category:21st-century Jamaican people to Category:Jamaican people
 * Category:21st-century Japanese people to Category:Japanese people
 * Category:21st-century Kazakhstani people to Category:Kazakhstani people
 * Category:21st-century Korean people to Category:Korean people
 * Category:21st-century Lebanese people to Category:Lebanese people
 * Category:21st-century Mexican people to Category:Mexican people
 * Category:21st-century Mongolian people to Category:Mongolian people
 * Category:21st-century Nigerian people to Category:Nigerian people
 * Category:21st-century Polish people to Category:Polish people
 * Category:21st-century Russian people to Category:Russian people
 * Category:21st-century Serbian people to Category:Serbian people
 * Category:21st-century South African people to Category:South African people
 * Category:21st-century Spanish people to Category:Spanish people
 * Category:21st-century Swedish people to Category:Swedish people
 * Category:21st-century Swiss people to Category:Swiss people
 * Category:21st-century Tunisian people to Category:Tunisian people


 * Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete or containerise.
 * The problem with these categories is that they are unworkable in their present form.  If fully populated they will become monsters containing the overwhelming majority of biographical articles on wikipedia, which then creates pressure to sub-categorise ... and the more we sub-categorise, the more category clutter we create on articles, as someone ends up,  , , and so on. For those still living, that can usually be doubled, as they end up in 20th and 21st-century categories.
 * This is a fundamentally flawed logic, because it is involves converting double intersections into triple intersection, triple intersections into quadruple ones, and so ... and the more intersections involved the harder the category becomes to use and to maintain. If and when Category intersection is implemented (and don't hold yoir breath), we can place everyone in a xth-century people category and dynamically create all possible intersections ... but until then, this idea just doesn't work.  In some narrow circumstances it may create navigable groups without cluttering articles, but those situations are rare. In most cases it complicates category trees, clutters article, and arbitrarily divides categories by time-bands which bear no relation to the widely-accepted historical epochs.
 * Solution 1: merge & delete This is simplest route: just get rid of the categories. They are all listed here, and the bots can do the work.
 * However, when compiling the list of categories for this nomination, I noticed that there were quite a lot sub-categories based on historical periods which are distinct and encyclopedic topics of study. e.g. contains,  etc; while  contains , , . Those are all sound categories, without the arbitrary boundaries of the by-century categories. And that brings me to second option:
 * Solution 2: containerise . Instead of deleting or merging these categories en masse, tag them all with container category, and remove from them all individual biographical articles. They can still contain lists, or categories such as or, but will cease to clutter individual articles.
 * This removes the clutter and the endless succession of triple intersections, but retains the crucial aspects of the by-century groupings sought by those who defend these categories. My only concern is that some monitoring will be required to ensure that they remain as container categories, but I don't think that this is insurmountable. Some categories will initially be emptied, but it will be rare for any country not to at least have some lists which could be categorised in this way. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Categories now all tagged. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Biography has been notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Aren't Xth-century people by nationality simply top level cats that contain all the lower cats i.e. Xth-century [Country name] people? I envision this as similar to the the way that  contains  contains  contains . Perhaps the lower level cats need to be rationalised and better organised?  Not sure that merging all those cats upwards to [Country name] people helps much as it would cause those cats to become inflated: better to make sure that the [Country name] people cats are also simply container cats and move people to the relevent Xth-century [Country name] people, IMO.  I may have missed something in the nom's rationale, however, as I know nothing about Category intersection nor do I quite follow the problems address by the nom; I will read up on it, though, and decide after I have informed myself of the facts  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Xth-century people by nationality categs do contain Xth-century [Country name] people categories. If you expand the box at the top of the nomination, you'll see them all listed.
 * Most of the Xth-century [Country name] people categs contain very few articles, but those which do can be dispersed to other sub-categories of [Country name] people. E.g. the articles in can be dispersed to the appropriate sub-categories of, such as  or  ... although as Occuli points out, most of them will be there already. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am beginning to understand this, now, especially looking at the examples giving by Occuli.  I'll think on a bit more and get back  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OTOH, why delete only Category:20th-century people by nationality and Category:21st-century people by nationality? Why not Category:19th-century people by nationality and earlier, also?  Or would that be the next step?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the consensus of lots of other discussions of people-by-century categories has been that they may work for periods which contain a minority of biographical articles, but are problematic for the 20th & 21st centuries, which would contain the majority of articles. My crude sample checks so far suggest that over 60% of all Dublin biographical articles are for 20th-c and 21st-c people, but only 2% are from the 17th century, 5% from the 18th-century, and 15% from the 19th-century. (I'd like to see better data, and am trying to figure out how to get it)
 * So categorising by century for periods before the 19th century is much less likely to create the huge categories that we get from 20c/21c, which means much less pressure to subdivide those categories and thereby break up the rest of the category tree. If those figures are replicated more widely, then I think that we might be well-advised to take another look at the 19th-c, but more data is needed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Containerise – Ali Dizaei gives a good example of category clutter; he has been Iranian and British in consecutive centuries but wasn't a criminal until 2000 or later. Jordan (Katie Price) in contrast became British after 2000, apparently. I don't think we have yet identified a single Category:21st-century XXX YYY people which is valid except as a container category for subcats such as Category:UK MPs 2001-2005. No-one yet says: Andy Murray, the 21st century tennis player; perhaps they will in 2110. I am pretty sure we don't need any upmerges as these will all be in some other 'fooian' category. The 'Containerise' option seems to be a good idea. Occuli (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep  or Containerise. But Delete/Merge Category:XXth-century Fooian people if it has four or less (or so) articles and is not a G8 nation and is not an English langage speaking nation (the langage of this Wikipedia), such as Category:21st-century Ivorian people. Also Delete/Merge if it has one or two articles and (is either not a G8 nation or is not an English langage speaking nation). User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What does being a G8 or English-speaking nation have to do with it? And why keep the categories which are cluttering the most articles? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you always going to try and argue with me now? Are you trying to have me disagree with your proposal even more than I do? What does being "20th-century" have to do with "it"? (No, please do not repeat your views stated above. Just try to spend some time improving Wikipedia.) User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Carlaude, I assume that we are all here to improve wikipedia, and this is a discussion about one small aspect of how to do that. In a discussion, people say things to each other, ask questions, and agree or disagree; that's how consensus is formed. I just hoped that you would explain why you suggested what seemed to me to be odd criteria. You don't have to reply, but I dunno why you complain about being asked. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the identity of the questioner is creating tension (?), Carlaude could assume that others are wondering the same thing: why does being a G8 nation or an English-langage-speaking nation make a difference here? Such criteria seems quite arcane to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Second that. What do those have to do with anything? --Jubilee♫ clipman  12:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Containerise or delete if that is too impractical. Clearly, these cats are going to contain an enormous number of people since WP is skewed towards these centuries at the moment.  A giant cat (!) is next to useless (or even dangerous...) --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support nom -- Over recent weeks we have been merging all 20th/21st century splits as overcategorisation. These group should be dealt with according to this recent prcedent.  This should not be carried further to previous centuries.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not merge Everyone listed is already listed in sub-cats for Category:People by nationality and occupation, so a merger would just clutter.  Given that this is likely going down and a complete tree of Category:People by century is not desired by the majority, I also favour the ultimate deletion of 21st and Category:20th-century people by occupation.  Containerising requires the appropriating tagging at the heads of pages - neutral on whether to do it or not.  Lastly, I think the same should be done with the 19th-century too, given its volume (15%), leaving 18th-century (at just 5%) the most recent century that we maintain.  (But jumping ahead somewhat, admittedly.) Mayumashu (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards your suggestion of doing the same thing for the 19th-century, but I think that a little more data would help. My Dublin figures above are a bit tentative, so I'm going to see if a WP:BOTREQ can persuade some kind botmeister to produce better figures. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. When making this nomination, I had forgotten that at CfD 2010 February 20, we had containerised, , , and . Having just looked at the categories again, they seem to be staying as containers, so from that angle they work well.  Whether any of the sub-categories should stay is another matter. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think I'm leaning towards deletion of these. They could be containers, but they certainly should be purged of any articles. But if changed to containers only, how would their container status be "enforced"? It seems it would take constant vigilance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete 20th and 21st century, Keep the Rest I like Brown Haired Girl's thought (if I may paraphrase) that the older categories are both smaller and more useful, while the latest two are larger and less so. Also, I think that counting the present numbers in a category is not a good criterion -- after all, we all expect that the numbers are going to expand as more articles are written. Which leads back to my first comment -- the 21st century cats will grow both because more people achieve notability and more articles are written about minor notables -- the older ones have only the latter. Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Containerise As parent categories, they are a useful search term. For example "20th-century Greek people" is a container category for subcategories "People of the Macedonian Struggle", "Greek people of the Balkan Wars", "Greek people of World War I" and "Greek people of World War II". Several of the others have manageable subcategories Just prevent people for adding individual articles in the parent category. Dimadick (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Living in a century is not a trait used to categorize people together. Geschichte (talk) 14:25, 12 April 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:All-Japan Grand Touring Car Championship drivers

 * 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: at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 6. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:All-Japan Grand Touring Car Championship drivers to Category:Super GT drivers
 * Nominator's rationale: I am proposing a merge as these two series are literally the same (organisation, rules, almost everything), only branding and an unsucessful attempt to internationalise the series that makes them appear different when nothing to suggests that they are. I don't personally know why there is a need for two different categories when one is necessary. Donnie Park (talk) 21:14, 28 March 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:Wembley Winners

 * 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) 18:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * wembley winners


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as trivia. It may be appropriate to categorise sportspeople by the major competitions they won, but categorising them by the stadium in which they won seems rather trivial.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – this would be an enormous category lumping together footballers from most leagues, both amateur and professional, rugby union, rugby league players and even American football. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Only one article so far, but this would be a performance by performer (or worse still performer by venue) category. If fully populated it would have 1000s of articles and be utterly unusable.  I think the creator misunderstood what categories were for - a navigation tool, not a system of bullet points.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and Peterkingiron. Overcategorisation. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:59, 30 March 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:Circular bidirectional bus routes

 * 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. On a side note, I see assuming good faith means nothing around here anymore. —  ξ xplicit  19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * circular bidirectional bus routes


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think that categorising bus routes by shape can be justified as anything other than trivia, per WP:OC. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on. Circular routes are quite rare, their operation is a bit trickier than that of linear A-B routes, so it's a significant defining property that justifies a separate category. I'm not voting oppose because I'm not confident in notability of any bus route (should they be AFD'd the whole point is moot). Sister Category:Railway loop lines is a clear keep. NVO (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the distinction is quite so important, but if it is kept, do we really need to separate Circular bidirectional bus routes from Circular one-way bus routes? Wouldn't a rename to Category:Circular bus routes be more inclusive? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You speak in riddles NVO, what does "AFD'd" mean? Mu2 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion. History here: . NVO (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks NVO. Mu2  14:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree - keep it - It is not a categorisation by simply shape, whether a square, circle pentagon etc., but rather a categorisation by operation. Essentially "circular" is used in the topological rather than geometric sense.  Large numbers of bus routes operate as end to end services with each bus operating in both directions.  Certain routes however, usually particularly important and busy routes, such as the 11 (and 8) in the category, are configured to provide independent opposite direction paired routes.  The 11 is also notable as the longest urban bus route in Europe. As such the categorisation is not arbitrary.  What is the nominator's specific objection under WP:OC? Mu2 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps renaming to include unidirectional circular routes may reduce the specificity of the category, if that is the original objection. I think that might be beneficial. Mu2 (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of my head I can recall around ten one-direction bus routes that I used in my life (like campus or fairground shuttles) but only two truely bidirectional loops (one is now reduced to unidirectional. Incidentally I live where these two loops touched each other). From this highly randomized sample I make a conclusion that, yes, your proposal will be more inclusive (and it sounds better) and no, it won't make a big difference because those campus shuttles aren't notable anyway.NVO (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I've been bold added the code needed to get a bot to move the category to "circular bus routes", which I hope meets our consensus of three that it would be better to be less specific, although perhaps sub-categories would be useful between uni and bidirection routes, as to my mind a unidirectional route is not a method of operating a high capacity major route like circular bidirectional routes such as the number 11 in Birmingham, UK. Mu2  15:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and I have reverted that. WP:BOLD is not a license to take unilateral action while an issue is being discussed.


 * This discussion exists to form a consensus about what to do with this category, and you should let that discussion run its course. At the end it will be closed by an uninvolved admin, who will weigh the consensus, and the bots will implemented that consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a bit (a lot actually) rich, given what you've done with the London Bus route articles. It's fine for you to ignore a dicussion, but no one else? Arriva436talk/<b style="color:#800080;">contribs</b> 13:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you had checked your facts before making personal attacks, you would have seen that I have not made any unilateral merges, renamings or deletions of London bus routes: I have opened discussions through the normal process to seek a consensus on whether to delete some articles, and no discussion was taking place elsewhere about any of those articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever you want to believe. Fact is, you ignored the WikiProject London Transport discussion, and then AfDed some articles. Birmingham is irrelevant. And it wasn't ment to be a "personal attack". <span style="font-family:Zapfino, Segoe Script;"><b style="color:#FF0000;">Arriva436</b><sup style="color:#800080;><b style="color:#800080;">talk</b>/<b style="color:#800080;">contribs</b> 09:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not "what I want to believe"; what happened. No discussion was taking place on the talk page of those articles, and when the WikiProject London Transport discussion was drawn to my attention it was clear that there had been discussion of only one individual route ... and even the lone the editor praising that one now supports its deletion.
 * In this case there was an open discussion on the fate of this particular category, all properly tagged and listed, and the editor went ahead to try to misuse the speedy renaming process to rename it ... even though speedy renaming is not supposed to be done for controversial moves or for and end-run around consensus-forming processes. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was hardly unilateral given the consensus of the thread up to that point, it seemed no-one else was interested. What a stuffy way to run a wiki, it will turn potential contributors off. Why are we wasting effort discussing a narrow category that even those in favour of acknowledge needs broadening?! Mu2  13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I don't care how rare or common this is—the shape of a bus route is nothing more than trivia. Wikipedia is not a directory for every possible interesting permutation of facts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Change it to just circular bus routes. Bi-direction is a bit too much, but circular routes are quite unusual. Of course it's not just their shape, it's everything to do with their operation and numbering. <span style="font-family:Zapfino, Segoe Script;"><b style="color:#FF0000;">Arriva436</b><sup style="color:#800080;><b style="color:#800080;">talk</b>/<b style="color:#800080;">contribs</b> 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and change to circular bus routes, as Arriva436 said. When I get around to writing the article for Redditch routes 57 and 58, that'll be in this category. This nomination seems to be one of many in BHG's crusade to get anything remotely bus related off Wikipedia. Jeni  ( talk ) 19:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yawn. There is no such crusade because I have no such objective, and Jeni should stop this campaign of telling lies to try to attack contributors. There are a lot of articles on notable bus-related topics, but there is also an excessive amount of non-notable trivia, and its a great pity that a small vocal minority of participants in the bus projects prefer to engage in personal abuse rather than trying to distinguish between the two. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No way! any encyclopedic value? really??? Per nom. Outback the Koala (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no real point having a cat that only contains three articles. Anyway, rather than reading the above pointless exchange, has any one actually looked at those articles?  One of them even contains a very interesting 5m video from birminghamitsnotshit.co.uk covering the entire route!!!  Cool!!!... not.  None of the articles are on notable subjects and are only backed up with non-indepentent non-reliable sources so the cat will be redundant once they disappear...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  12:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that Europe's longest urban bus route that carries 50,000 people every day is notable? <span style="font-family:Zapfino, Segoe Script;"><b style="color:#FF0000;">Arriva436</b><sup style="color:#800080;><b style="color:#800080;">talk</b>/<b style="color:#800080;">contribs</b> 12:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We edit-conflicted as I was about to correct myeslf: Southern Vectis route 7 is probably notable. The West Midlands bus route 11 you mentioned needs sources...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  12:54, 3 April 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:Harriet Harman
<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) 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * harriet harman


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC: "Articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories) typically are already links in the eponymous article in question." In this case, they already are. (BTW, the creator of this category is rather appropriately named).  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – Harriet Harman (same creator) seems ambitious as well. Occuli (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't even see the point of it --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and also the template. The information can all be satsifactorily included in the Infobox in her article.  Unfortuantly, that (like many infoboxes) is cluttered by having predecessor and successor fields for each post held, when these are already covered in the succession box.  The solution is to prune the infobox of its excess detail and add some family items.  Alternatively rename to "Harman family".  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Totally excessive templating and categorization. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 31 March 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:Sony α
<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. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sony α to Category:Sony Alpha DSLR cameras
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with Sony Alpha xxx articles and other categories in Category:Digital SLR cameras. Special characters (α) discouraged in MOS:TM. See also Talk:Sony Alpha 230. Apalsola t • c 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per MOS:TM, and a rough agreement at WP:RM on article names ( whatver -> Sony Alpha xxx) 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:32, 29 March 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:College baseball seasons
<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:  at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 16. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:College baseball seasons to Category:College baseball team seasons
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category is malnamed in comparison to others in Category:College athletic team seasons in the United States by sport. Category:College baseball seasons would be for articles like 2009 NCAA Division I baseball season. For individual teams the proposed name is better.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another alternative is to create the proposed renamed category moving the current contents. Then move all the season to the extant category.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 29 March 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:Marc Claproth
<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 WP:CSD (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). The only article-space content was the eponymous article, which was speedy-deleted per WP:CSD, and the only purpose of the category was to give undue prominence to the non-notable subject. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * marc claproth


 * Nominator's rationale: Self-promotion. Recreation of a speedied article in category space. No speedy criterion seems to fit this case. Hans Adler 17:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete speedily as it is empty (apart from a user-page, which is not a legitimate member). Occuli (talk) 17:56, 28 March 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:Lamellaphones
<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:Lamellophones, but recreate as a category redirect. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Lamellaphones to Category:Lamellophones
 * Nominator's rationale: The category's main article, Lamellophones, as well as Electric lamellophones, spells it with an 'o'. There is not a consensus on this spelling - a search for 'lamellaphone' returns 33 pages; 'lamellophone' returns 40.Brian2357 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's generally best to keep consistency with the main article, and in this case main article uses the most common spelling: google throws up 3,030 ghits for Lamellaphone but 44,800 ghits for Lamellophone. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator, but re-create the old title as a category redirect.


 * 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:American online journalists
<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: [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 16. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(Note that this category is just one of the latest from an editor who is creating a lot of new categories, and in engaging in widespread recategorisation while refusing to discuss the problems created by her high error rate). Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:American online journalists to Category:American journalists
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category has no wider equivalent (there is no, and it is a pointless divide because nowadays nearly all journalists write for online news media as well as for print: every major newspaper (and most small ones) also publishes its articles on a website.


 * Merge unless someone can tell me what an online journalist might be (the single person included does not seem to be an online journalist). Occuli (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Online journalists (see below): Mike Smartt seems to be one. Consider upmerging Category:American online journalists to Category:Online journalists as well as Category:American journalists. (How does Category:Bloggers relate? I would say a blogger is not nec an online journalist and vice versa.) Occuli (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I agree that online journalists are overlapping and not-syonymous fields. Some bloggers, along with some other people in media in general, are in a gray area where there is probably some division about whether they as individuals are journalists. Maurreen (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep --
 * Now there is Category:Online journalists.
 * The category is not intended for all journalists who are published online. It is intended for those with an online focus. I added clarification to the category page.
 * The cat now includes Category:Slate magazine people, from an online-only publication; Adrian Holovaty, a programmer-journalist who has won a couple of major awards; Roblimo, aka Robin Miller, who "was the Editor in Chief of Open Source Technology Group, the company that owns Slashdot;" David Talbot, founder and former editor of Salon.com, an online-only magazine; and Joan Walsh, Salon.com's current editor. Maurreen (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So what exactly is an "online focus"? Just how online-focused does journalist have to be to be included?
 * This seems to be one of a series of categories created in order to diffuse, without proper examination of how it actually works. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * About what is an online focus -- As with many things, there is some gray area. But this is what I wrote on the category page:
 * "This category is for those journalists who currently or previously have had a strong online focus, such as being employed by a publication that is solely online, or making a distinctive mark in the field of online journalism.
 * "Journalists who just happen to published online or who have little work that is digital-specific, should not be categorized here."
 * Also, the wider Category:Online journalists now has 17 articles that are not under Category:American online journalists. Maurreen (talk) 07:31, 4 April 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:People associated with energy
<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: keep all. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Businesspeople in coal to Category:People associated with coal industry
 * Propose renaming Category:Businesspeople in coal mining to Category:People associated with coal mining
 * Propose renaming Category:Businesspeople from the United States in coal mining to Category:American people associated with coal mining
 * Propose renaming Category:People related to the International Energy Agency to Category:People associated with the International Energy Agency
 * Propose renaming Category:People in the petroleum industry to Category:People associated with the petroleum industry
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with the parent category:People associated with energy. Beagel (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Curious. "Associated"? Do you really want to put coalminers and fat capitalist bloodsucking menbearpigs in one bucket? Although Category:English miners is populated mostly with footballers and politicians, so resistance is futile... Oppose, first, for a flawed rationale. Category:People associated with energy is a misnomer that itseld screamd for a CFD. There's no need to multiply an awkward fault downstream. Second, because after you put businessmen, miners and miners-turned-footballers in one bucket the next step will be splitting them into separate subcats, recreating "businesspeople". NVO (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose all per NVO. "People associated with" is hopelessly vague; just how closely associated with it do you have to be? The existing category names are much clearer. The parent category should probably be renamed to something less ambiguous, along the lines of  (although "Energy people" does also suggest people with lots of personal energy, like the Energizer Bunny). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename the last 3 per nom. We have thousands of categories beginning 'People associated with' - see eg Category:People by university or college in England - although I would prefer them to be restricted to container categories for better defined subcats. Keep the first 2 well-defined categories and consider creating Category:People associated with the coal industry as a parent. (The 'miners' category is not restricted to coal and contains eg gold miners.) Occuli (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose in general per BHG. "People associated with" categories are generally fine as container categories, but I do not think it it useful to merge a specific category for people of a certain type (in this case, businesspeople) into a vague category of people who are somehow "associated with" the topic. A few of these may need renaming, but I think it would be best to discuss them separately after Category:People associated with energy has been discussed. Rename Category:Businesspeople from the United States in coal mining to Category:American businesspeople in coal mining per the parent categories Category:American businesspeople and Category:Businesspeople in coal mining. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:51, 5 April 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:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen 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. No case made to overturn previous G4. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the league of extraordinary gentlemen characters


 * Nominator's rationale: This category has been deleted before, and the same considerations still apply. I quote the previous nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. These characters were not made to be featured in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and being so is not relevant to the characters themselves. If only the original characters were to be categorized, I'd be content, but as is, practically every major character of Victorian fiction is destined to end up here. —Paul A (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD as re-creation of deleted content, otherwise delete per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a legitimate category and no different than the dozens or hundreds of other comic character categories. Kuralyov (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Kuralyov; also there are very few (if at all) original characters in LoEG—that's the idea.--Oneiros (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That may indeed by the idea of this series of comic books, but being portrayed in those comics is not a defining characteristic of the characters. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This comic is made entirely out of characters that long-dead people have created. This is very much non-defining for a personage like Captain Nemo. Just because the comic is great doesn't mean it gets to be on even footing with the original stories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete these characters/people are not defined by Alan Moore, rather by their existence before Alan Moore added them to his piece of fiction. The only characters that should be in this category would be the ones that were created by Alan Moore for this comic. Those characters would be better served merged into a list. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No brainer Delete - James Bond (character), Artful Dodger, Jeeves and Bertie Wooster, Captain Hook, Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland), Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four), Ariel (The Tempest)... 'Nuff sed...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  06:22, 30 March 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:All-Steinway Schools
<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) 18:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * all-steinway schools


 * Nominator's rationale: This category was created and maintained almost solely by user Fanoftheworld (talk), who is currently banned and has had a long history of promoting and advertising Steinway & Sons pianos on Wikipedia. The category does not represent a definitive property, though some schools may pride themselves on being All-Steinway Schools. Instead of a category, I suggest that mention of this distinction be placed on each page, and/or a list be created. If the category is not deleted, I recommend moving it from Category:Schools into Category:Awards given to schools, which currently only holds two sub-categories and is a much better description of Category:All-Steinway Schools. Brian2357 (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Blatant advertising. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator. I don't think that there should be a mention of this distinction be placed on each page (what's next then? All-IBM Offices? All-Airbus airlines?). Being a school that only owns a particular brand of pianos doesn't make any difference to the quality and prestige of a school.--Karljoos (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, All-Steinway Schools is a significant program that schools often spend millions of dollars to gain entry to, and there is an application process. A school can't just buy all Steinways and call itself an All-Steinway School - it needs to be recognized by Steinway & Sons. The All-IBM Offices argument is a good point, but it is not convincing. Being an All-Steinway School can very much affect the prestige level of a school, Karljoos, as the Steinway brand itself is extremely prestigious.Brian2357 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional template added by a single purpose editor.THD3 (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - the above comment was inadvertantly deleted in this diff. I have restored it --Jubilee♫ clipman  05:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please see discussion on Category:All-Steinway Schools talk page which favors deletion. I suggest including a description of the All-Steinway School program in the Steinway & Sons article with a link to the Steinway & Sons website section with the All-Steinway School list. A list on Wikipedia is not needed as Steinway & Sons updates the list.Sandcherry (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete even if it had not been created by that particularly annoying user, it would still be blatant advertising. I strongly advise caution against creating a list, also.  Mentioning the award in-article is clearly fine, though, if done in a non-promotional manner  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. See the creator's comment: Category talk:All-Steinway Schools. Rerumirf (talk) 10:16, 30 March 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:Lacrosse defenders
<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: reverse merge. Although the target category was not tagged, its creator participated in this discussion and supported the reverse merge (see CSD G7). -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Lacrosse defenders to Category:Lacrosse defensemen
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories.  Yarnalgo  talk to me 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge. There is no need to use a gendered word when a non-gendered one is available, and more accurate. Women play lacrosse too: see box_lacrosse. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. I don't really care which one stays, there just shouldn't be two. -- Yarnalgo  talk to me 04:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge as per BrownHairedGirl''' Mayumashu (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge – also a parent category is Category:Defenders (sport position) and 'defense' is not necessarily thus spelled throughout lacrosse (eg in the UK, although I can find no British lacrosse defencepersons). (The target is not tagged however.) Occuli (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge for gender-neutrality and avoiding American–British spelling difference... lil2mas (talk) 00:50, 29 March 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.