Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 22



Category:Thessalonian Jews

 * 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 Category:Jews from Thessaloniki. There is no support for keeping the categories separate and this direction has the most support. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Thessalonian Jews to Category:Jews from Thessaloniki
 * Nominator's rationale: This suggestion was made on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism and seems logical enough. There is a catch though. The category at present contains 14 articles, of which 2 are about people whose fathers lived in Thessaloniki. They could be called Thessalonian after the place of origin of their families, but are not themselves from Thessaloniki, and would therefore have to be removed from the category after a merge. Nevertheless, I think the merge makes sense. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The merge should be switched to match the majority of other such cats. Therefore Merge to: Category:Thessalonian Jews. Chesdovi (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, since "Jews from Thessaloniki" is the lesser statement. By which I mean that it describes the fact, rather than make a statement about the person. In other words, whether a person considers himself to be Thessalonian is a questionable. He might feel himself Greek or Jewish rather than Thessalonian. While the fact that he is from Thessaloniki, is not prone to personal sentiments.
 * You could say the same thing about Jews from Thessaloniki, because I could say that I'm from Sweden, even if I was born there and I'm only Swedish by ancestry.  pluma  Ø  23:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain. I am not sure I understand you. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are at least another five "Jews from" category, and recent discussion leads to believe that such a formula is preferred by many editors to the "Fooian Jews" formula, for precisely the reason I have mentioned.
 * I would like to make it clear though, that I'd prefer the reverse merge to no merge at all. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Jews from Thessalonika. Also remove all those from the category who never lived in that city.  There are lots of misaplications of nationality and location categories in wikipedia and someone probably needs to systematically remove people who have been put in them when it was their parents or ancestors who actually were there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2011 (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:Former Muslims by nationality and subcats

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


 * The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:Former Muslims by nationality
 * Delete Category:American former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Andalusian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Afghan former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Albanian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Ancient Arabs former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Algerian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Argentine former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Australian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Austrian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Azerbaijani former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Bangladeshi former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Beninese former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Berber former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Moroccan former Muslims
 * Delete Category:British former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Burkinabé former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Canadian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Central African former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Chinese former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Comorian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Dutch former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Egyptian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Filipino former Muslims
 * Delete Category:French former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Gambian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Former Muslims from Georgia (country)
 * Delete Category:Guinean former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Indian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Indonesian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Iranian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Iraqi former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Kenyan former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Lebanese former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Liberian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Malaysian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Mauritian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Nigerian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Pakistani former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Palestinian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Portuguese former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Romanian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Russian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Serbian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:South African former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Spanish former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Sri Lankan former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Sudanese former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Tanzanian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Tunisian former Muslims
 * Delete Category:Turkish former Muslims
 * Nominator's rationale For the same reason we do not have convert categories by nationality, we should not have former Muslim cats by nationality. The only sub-categories of Category:Former Muslims should be categories like Category:Converts to Christianity from Islam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe, but deletion rather than upmerging would lose data, unless we check them all first. I just checked the American category, and created 2 new intersection cats, but this still leaves Cenk Uygur (agnostic), Parvin Darabi (atheist) and Wesley Snipes (Black Nation of Islam 1978-88) who would be removed from "Former Muslims" altogether by your proposal. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment/neutral. I agree with Fayenatic that if these are indeed deleted they should be upmerged to . I don't really have an opinion on keeping these vs. upmerging them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There are no longer any intersections between atheists/agnostics and former religions. We have Category:Converts to Islam from atheism or agnosticism but those for people moving in the other direction were abolished here and here last year. However, only non-religious people will end up staying in Category:Former Muslims, as those converted to other religions should instead be in a sub-category specifying the new religion. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Upmerge. Nationality subcats can be used even when irrelevant for the purpose of diffusing large categories, but this is not necessary here because there are so few members in these categories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Should we also upmerge to the relevant national categories for Muslims? If someone has had more than one occupation during their lifetime, we list them in both, so why not also for religions? For example, Rifqa Bary could be categorised in both Category:Sri Lankan Muslims and Category:American Protestants. On the other hand, it is clearer to keep the existing (nominated) category of Category:Sri Lankan former Muslims. Also, it is likely that readers will not understand the use of the category for the former religion if it does not say "former", and will remove it. Then Rifqa Bary would end up just in Category:Converts to Protestantism from Islam and Category:American Protestants. The only remaining Sri Lankan category would be, with no religious category intersecting with Sri Lanka. Is this desirable? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in principle, but I would bet that this is too subtle for the average WP reader/editor. It's not hard to imagine countless editors removing "FOOian Muslims" categories with the edit summary—"he is no longer a Muslim!" Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. The relevance of my point is that this is an argument for keeping the nominated categories. Does it carry sufficient weight that we should do so? - Fayenatic (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a good argument based on this point, I think. I'm almost persuaded to move out of my neutral stance. I guess I could could say I'm leaning keep, in a weak sort of way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Religion is not like occupation. We do not have categories like Category:Doctors who became politicians, and you can be multiple occupations simultaneously much easier than multiple religions.  The only justification for this category is those who became secularists, so the profeered example, Bary, should be in Category:Converts to Christianity from Islam, and we do not sub-divide that category by nationality.  A limited upmerge of those who abandoned religion to Category:Former Muslims would work, those who specifically converted to another religion should be put in the relevant conversion categories.  In reviewing this I also found many articles that did not provide any text discussion of the change in religion on the part of the subject, and in the India case a few like Abul Fazl are probably too controversial to categorize in this way at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and also delete the corresponding non-"former" category. If people's former religion is trivial, their current one is as well. I strongly disagree with John Pack Lambert - religion is as changaeble and negotiable as nearly any other human viewpoint or occupation: we don't have categories like Catholics who skip church most Sundays, Mormons who drink coffee, Muslims who eat during Ramadan - although there are plenty of all these, why? because religion is sufficiently trivial that those who buy into only part of it are lumped in with those who buy it hook line and sinker. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please clarify: are you proposing deletion of all of Category:People by religion and nationality and Category:People by nationality and religion? or the entirety of Category:People by religion? Do you "Imagine" that would be carried? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think, based on his repeated remarks along these lines in many Cfds, that CarlossSuarez would love nothing more if we categorized absolutely no one by religion ever. However this is an extreme view that ignores the fact that religion is important to many people and that splitting large religion categories by nationality is logical.  However splitting those who once were a religion into the various religions they converted to is a much more logical division.  We end up with a fairly limited number of people who became athiest/agnostic which for some reason we categorize but will not categorize people as having converted to, so the people who end up directly in the former Muslims category will be failry small and in no way justify the subdivision by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Andulusian, Afghan, Burkinabe, Gambian and Filipino categories all contain only people who converted to other religions, and thus their contents would not be added to the parent cat, but left in the parralel structure sister cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The comorian and Kenya categories are currently empty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Albanian cat is now empty because neither article that was their stated the subject ever was a Muslim. The Ancient Arabs cat only contains those who converted to other specified religions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The Chinese former Muslims cat is now empty as the one person who was their the article never said he had ever been a Muslim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the only religion that has its former adherents broken down by nationality. All other former adherents of a given religion category are broken down only by religion they converted to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Portuguese is also empty. The Andalusian category should be removed even if the others aren't. Although the sole member of the group, Umar ibn Hafsun, lived in what is now Andalusia, culturally he belongs with Zaida of Seville and Casilda of Toledo (who are now categorized as Spanish former Muslims), residents of Al-Andalus but not Andalusians. Agricolae (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with "former" categories. And dividing them by country is only to facilitate navigation. In other word, keep. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * KeepI see no reason to delete all of the categories by nationality as per Debresser above, with a large of large number of Former Muslims, dividing them by country would be an easy way to facilitate navigation. John Pack Lambert has brought up that a few categories are now empty, ok, so how does that justify the deletion of all of the categories? Again I move to keep the categories as they are. Abstrakt (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2011 (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:Cemeteries 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries by nationality to Category:Cemeteries by culture
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is already a Category:Cemeteries by country, but this collection of categories for Armenian, Chinese and Jewish cemeteries is not selected/grouped by country but by culture, e.g. the Armenian Cemetery (Moscow). In effect, it is "cemeteries by diaspora", but that is not an appropriate name. Fayenatic (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2011 (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:Ghana towns with Senior High Schools

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ghana towns with senior high schools


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete While it's probably true that senior high schools are less common in Ghana than, say, in England, this still doesn't constitute a defining characteristic of a city or town. In any case, List of senior secondary schools in Ghana carries that same information and then some. Pichpich (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, its not a descriptive characteristic of each town, but rather of elements in the town, which are covered in the category List of senior secondary schools in Ghana, Sadads (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete overcategorizationCurb Chain (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2011 (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:Poptropica

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * poptropica


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Too small to be useful and unlikely to grow. (Note that the list article is up for deletion though I expect that it will be kept) The two articles already point to one another so there's not much benefit for browsing. Pichpich (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree It only has two articles and the articles have links to each other in multiple places. I think it should be deleted now, but if in the future, if a large enough number of pages on Poptropica are written, then the category could be recreated.  pluma  Ø  23:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely Delete One of the pages in the category has been changed into a redirect page to the other. So this category is now little more than a really slow redirect page.  pluma  Ø  16:15, 27 August 2011 (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:Smoking by country

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


 * The result of the discussion was: No merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging


 * Category:Smoking in Argentina into Category:Tobacco in Argentina
 * Category:Smoking in Australia into Category:Tobacco in Australia
 * Category:Smoking in Canada into Category:Tobacco in Canada
 * Category:Smoking in the United Kingdom into Category:Tobacco in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Smoking in the United States into Category:Tobacco in the United States
 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Smoking in Colombia to Category:Tobacco in Colombia
 * Category:Smoking in Hong Kong to Category:Tobacco in Hong Kong
 * Nominator's rationale: Category:Tobacco is the main category, with subcategories like Tobacco companies etc, so all the country categories should be Tobacco in Fooland etc, not Smoking in Fooland. However Category:Smoking by country should be retained for the articles on smoking in particular countries (though I put a merge notice on it so that people would be aware of this proposal). Most articles in Category:Tobacco are on smoking/consumption of tobacco (there are very few articles on cultivation of tobacco), so even for the United States with c66 articles in total there is no advantage in retaining the separate Category:Smoking in the United States; many articles already in Category:Tobacco in the United States are on smoking. Of other countries, only Canada (c5) and the UK (c8) have more than one or two articles on tobacco and smoking in particular countries. At present there are 7 Smoking by country categories and 17 Tobacco by country categories. Hugo999 (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * do not change This change means that these articles will collectively lose their connection to the categories named 'drugs in foocountry', to which smoking--not tobacco--certainly belongs. Hmains (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tobacco is a drug. As it says in tobacco: "It is most commonly used as a recreational drug". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The two subject are closely linked, but remain separate. Pages like Smoke-Free Air Act are about "smoke", not tobacco. They can chew tobacco in public places. Remember the fact that while it may form the main ingredient of a cigarette, tobacco is not the only composite which makes opposition to "smoking" so strong. Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Category:Smoking in Australia etc would be a subcategory of both “Economy of Australia” and “Drugs in Australia” (and Drugs etc is a subcat of “Health in Australia”). Tobacco is a drug as stated, and the category “Tobacco” covers all aspects of consumption ie cigarette smoking, pipe smoking, chewing etc. “Smoking” is less inclusive, which is why “Tobacco” should be used for the countrty categories. Category:Tobacco control includes many articles on smoking. Hugo999 (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles about smoking should be under a smoking category, tobbaco under tobacco. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Tobacco categories include smoking articles eg in Tobacco advertising or Cigarette taxes in the United States (in Category:Tobacco taxation) so there is no need to go from Category:Tobacco control to a subcategory say Category:Smoking control to check on some aspect of the subject (with many articles having to go in both categories). The “by country” categories should be the same, rather than trying to define an obscure dividing line between tobacco consumption and smoking. Hugo999 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


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

Category:Songs produced by LMFAO

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * songs produced by lmfao


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Irrespective of number of entries in this category (one), the reason for this nomination is that this category at the moment only contains self-produced songs, therefore is not a defining characteristic. An analogy would be I cooked my dinner last night, but that doesn’t make me a chef! Unless producing for other artists there would be no entries in the cat which are not in Category: LMFAO songs. Richhoncho (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sound reasoning by nominator. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2011 (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:Video game industry advocacy groups

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Video game industry advocacy groups to Category:Video game trade associations
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not a single organization in this category is an advocacy organization; they are all trade associations, so the category is misnamed (and miscategorized as a subcat of ). The parent also needs cleanup, as it contains redundant entries that are already in this subcat. PS: Adding "industry" would be redundant (the video game trade = the video game industry). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename as nominated. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2011 (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.

People by village in Ireland

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People by village or town in Ireland to Category:People by city or town in Ireland
 * Category:People from Delgany to Category:People from County Wicklow
 * Category:People from Kilcoole to Category:People from County Wicklow
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Numbers of notable people from villages do not justify separate categories, WP:SMALLCAT; they should be listed in the articles on each villages. Fayenatic (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree that by village is too fine Mayumashu (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This one can still go ahead despite my withdrawing the larger nomination re "People by city" below. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2011 (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.

People by city or town

 * 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People by city to Category:People by city or town
 * Category:People by country and city to Category:People by country and city or town
 * Category:People by occupation and city to Category:People by occupation and city or town
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match an increasing number of the sub-categories, e.g. see CFD Aug 5 re South Africa. Fayenatic (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:People by country and place or Category:People by country and populated place. Otherwise where do we put people by village? Hamlet? Localities? Township? CDP? Better to go with the broader topic here then to break these out by type especially if we are going to start grouping types in arbitrary subsets of the possible terms. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: "By place" is too vague, as there are already and . As for "populated place": Smaller places than towns generally produce too few notable people to be needed for categorising biographies, see WP:SMALLCAT, so people from villages should generally be (i) listed in the village article and (ii) categorised by country subdivision rather than populated place. In the United States, "village" has a specific meaning as a form of local government, and can be quite big, e.g., so I am no longer minded to delete the eight US state categories for people by village (listed in the S Africa CFD linked above). However, for the rest of the world, "town" is the smallest populated place that deserves a "people by" category. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with this proposal is that it suggests, that even for the US, we should be using these combined name categories. If we leave villages in the US, where is the parent category, Category:People by city or town?  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment the US only has a "people by city" head category,, and no equivalent for towns; navigation to "people by towns" is only found within each state, e.g. within , ,  etc. (I haven't looked into why Alaska doesn't have one.) As the number of towns in the US is so huge, it would probably not be desirable to create a category for all US cities & towns like England's , but it would probably be a good idea to set up  if US city people are to be categorised nationally separately from townies. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the bottom line is that there is no reason to create multiple types of populated places for these categories. The places are one or the other but not both, with an odd exception for the city/boroughs in Alaska.  So, if we did rename Category:People by city to Category:People by city or town, it could remain in Category:People by place but would no longer be in Category:Categories by city since not everything in the category is a city.  I wonder if we would be better off just merging Category:People by city to Category:People by place?  Why does it matter what type of organization the place has? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think it should remain in "Categories by city". There are several "Cities and towns in Foo" categories already in Category:Towns by country. "People by X or Y" sits fine under both "Category:X" and "Category:Y". - Fayenatic (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not according to WP:SUBCAT which says "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also." So unless cities are towns, they should not be combined this way. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "for the rest of the world, "town" is the smallest populated place that deserves a "people by" category.". Why?? Are you saying that US villages have more notable people than villages elsewhere in the world? I hope I've misunderstood your claim. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 19:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not mean that American village people are "more notable"! Some places in the US are called villages, but are quite large, and produce a large enough quantity of individuals who achieve sufficient notability to have their own biography articles here, so that they can justifiably categorised be by their place of origin without offending WP:SMALLCAT. However, in (e.g.) the UK and Ireland, "village" means a small populated place. I can't speak for the rest of the world. Ridgewood, New Jersey has 25,000 people; in the UK, we would not call that a village. Looking again at Category:People by village in Illinois, that does have a lot of small categories so some of those should probably be upmerged. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How places are named varies. So either we use a simple name and not worry about what types of places are included or we make really long category names that can't have any parent categories per WP:SUBCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right about WP:SUBCAT. I think it is desirable to keep a "People from" category as a sub-cat in the well-established tree, which means undoing some of my recent work. Options include:
 * Ignore that rule in WP:SUBCAT (which is only a guideline) and categorise "People by city or town" (or "People by populated place") within anyway. Disadvantage: in cases like category:People by city or town in England, where the city sub-cats are far outweighed by towns, it's blatantly and massively against the guideline.
 * Keep, and reinstate where necessary, national "People by city" categories and make them sub-cats of "People by city or town" (or "People by populated place"). Disadvantage: removes cities from an alphabetical place within the more general category.
 * Keep, and reinstate where necessary, national "People by city" categories and make them sibling cats alongside "People by populated place". Disadvantage: requires "people from X-city" category to be placed in two head categories. E.g. would be in both  and  . Further disadvantage: Boroughs in cities and City districts are also places that are populated, but I would not intend those to be categorised here -- although I suppose it would do no harm.
 * I am now inclined towards option 3, which means leaving the three nominated categories as they are, and renaming all "People by city or town" as "People by populated place". - Fayenatic (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support that position. If you wish, you can withdraw this proposal and close this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think about including city districts at the main level of populated places (as well as keeping their specific category)? After all, most of them historically started as villages. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what we mean by districts. Here they tend to be neighborhoods.  But to answer your question.  If all depends on the notability of the people from there.  I would lean against and include them in the more formal city category.  Having said that I expect that a large number of these would be justified to have a category.  This may be especially true as we go back in time if people are best described as being from the old place and it would be incorrect to say that they are from the new larger place, if I understand the question. I think in the end this needs to be a case by case decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn by nominator. However, I'm not closing the discussion immediately in case anybody else has wisdom to add. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ick I really hate hairsplitting and minutiae futzing... Williamb (talk)


 * 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 by town

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * people by town


 * categories by town


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. "People by town" is not needed after merging Towns with Cities for South Africa category, see Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 5. Fayenatic (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Given the lack of contents, this can go ahead despite the above ("People by city") being withdrawn. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2011 (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:Century farms

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * century farms


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. As I read the main article, basically a farm that has been in existence for 100 years. So basically an arbitrary number of years for inclusion. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment To be a century farm the farm needs to have been officially recognized as such by a government body. The number of years is chosen by the government bodies, not by wikipedia.  Inclusion for a number of years is only arbitrary if the number is chosen internally by wikipedia.  If we create a category to reflect outside decisions on something being notable for having been operated for a certain amount of time than it is not a case of arbitary inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the Junior Farmers' Association of Ontario a government body? Or the New York State Agricultural Society? In any case, this appears to be just another awards category that is not defining for the farms.  Add to that the criteria is different by group and country and even with size restrictions and this is not best covered in a category.  If the information is important, it should be in a list within the main article at this point. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify the nom, a Century Farm is not just a farm that has existed for 100 years, but one that has been in the same family for 100 years. And the Oregon Department of Agriculture, in one state that awards the designation, is a government body. But if we're going by the Wikipedia guidelines stated here, it appears that being a century farm is not a defining characteristic. Also, I think most of the American century farms I know about that would be notable enough for Wikipedia are notable for being listed on the NRHP. As as subset of those, it seems like the Century Farm category would have limited potential for growth. Valfontis (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And according to the article, Oregon is based on Sesquicentennial Farms which is I think 150 years. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I guess the article is unclear, I'll see if I can rewrite it. Oregon has both century and sesquicentennial designations. The century award has been around since just before Oregon's centennial in 1959 and they added the sesqui one in 2008, 50 years later. Which is really nifty, but still doesn't necessitate a Wikipedia cat, I reckon. Valfontis (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the article, and expanded it by adding the content of Centennial farm, which is the same thing by a different name. Which still doesn't mean there should be a category for these. As noted above, a list within the article might be a good idea. Valfontis (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; arbitrary choice of category inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2011 (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:Christopher Hitchins

 * 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 rename C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Christopher Hitchins to Category:Christopher Hitchens
 * Nominator's rationale: There should be no misspelled category. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 06:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the misspelling was an error. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename although the contents barely justify the category (WP:OC). - Fayenatic (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought a category was justified because Christopher Hitchens keeps on doing stuff and more articles about him are likely to be written. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2011 (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 Apprentice (U.S. TV series) contestants
<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: withdrawn. Nominator has opened a discussion on the intended category here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * the apprentice (u.s. tv series) contestants


 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent cat: we don't need to categorize by TV series and season. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Q: didn't you mean to nominate Category:The Apprentice 5 candidates? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Yes, I did! Whoops! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn Per above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯


 * 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:O Broadcasting System
<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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * o broadcasting system


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently contains only O Broadcasting System. I suggest deletion unless some other appropriate articles can be added. The article is currently quite short. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2011 (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:Claudius
<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: Upmerge to Category:Staurotypinae. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Claudius to Category:Claudius (genus)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't know if this category is needed, but if kept it needs to be renamed since the genus is not the principal meaning of Claudius: see also Claudius (disambiguation). The main article is Narrow-bridged musk turtle, and Claudius (genus) redirects there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and upmerge to parent. Per the article on the turtle, "It is the only species in the genus Claudius." I.e., the category has no growth potential, absent the genus expanding or some huge news about this species causing so much material to appear that the article has to be split into a bunch of subarticles. Neither are likely. If kept, rename per nominator. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated the sentence with a reference to say "As of 2010 it is the only extant species in the genus Claudius recognised"; so it may more easily be understand that turtles often are recategorised and it shows the possibilities of extinct species. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Staurotypinae per SMcCandlish. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on the existence of the category (since it seems to fit the WP:SMALLCAT exemption for recognized categorization schemes, but I don't work a lot in bio articles here so I don't know what standard practice is) but if kept, it definitely needs to be renamed - the genus is something like my fourth or fifth thought when I hear "Claudius." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to allow for principal meaning per nom. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (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.