Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 5



Category:Ivor Novello Award 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: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 03:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

However, I see that that "Novello award winner" 3,660,000 Ghits, plus 560Gbooks hits. That sounds good, but I see only 1 Gnews hits. So in the end I'm not really sure how defining this award is; it scores highly in web searches, but much less so when the search is restricted to reliable sources. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:Ivor Novello Award winners
 * Nominator's rationale we generally discorage awards categories. They lead to category clutter.  Some of the people who have won this award are in three other award cats.  This leads to excessive numbers of categories being places on articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – this is a prestigious long-standing annual national award and has been kept unanimously (other than the nom) in 2008 and by consensus in 2006. Oculi (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment when people can be in four awards categories it is high time we decide to limit the number of awards categories. It is not enough for the awards to be prestigious, they should be the top award that the person is likely to get.  Few if any people should be in multiple awards categories.  The discussion five years ago only had four participants, including the pro-delition nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I was inclined to support Oculi's comment about this award being prestigious, but then I see that Ivor Novello Awards says "as of 2009, over 1,000 statuettes have been awarded." That's a rate of about 40 award-winners per year, which is rather more widespread than other awards.
 * Keep The award is still a notable and strong defining characteristic that is unique in the music industry in recognizing songwriting, rather than performance. Looking back at the 2008 CfD, the arguments still stand and the fact the banned User:Otto4711 and I found a subject that we both agreed to keep is a near-miracle that argues for retention in and of itself. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Only a weak keep -- WE allow award categories for the moist major awards. I am doubtful of this counts.  Lists do the job much better.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep if there are no other awards for British (or UK or Commonwealth or all, as the case may be) songwriters per se.♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2013 (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:Captain Marvel (DC Comics) films

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Captain Marvel (DC Comics) films to Category:Works based on Captain Marvel (DC Comics)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like others nominated at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_19, this is too small to keep. However, it would be OK to rename it as "works based on", and then put the sibling TV category within it. The current contents should also be upmerged to the film-specific parent categories Category:Films based on DC comics and Category:Superhero films. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: the TV category has been upmerged, so The Kid Super Power Hour with Shazam!, The Secrets of Isis and Shazam! (TV series) could be moved down into the proposed new category. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename and rearrange as FL suggests. Rassin' frassin' New 52 turning Billy Batson into a delinquent low-down no-good varmints... - The Bushranger One ping only 13:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Films based on DC comics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2013 (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:Sesame Street actors

 * 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. These by-performance categories never get endorsed on CFD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:Sesame Street actors
 * Nominator's rationale this is a performer by performace category. We have consistently deleted such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and vast number of precedents. Category:Sesame Street human characters is the way to go for this, not by categorizing the real-life actors who played the characters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:OC. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep For the individuals listed in this category (exceptions noted below), performing on Sesame Street is not only their primary defining characteristic, it's the one and only reason they have an article in Wikipedia. To review the individuals and their lead sections (with birth/death dates and formatting/linking omitted, and bold/italics used to focus on their claim to notability):
 * Alison Bartlett-O'Reilly is an American actress known for portraying Gina Jefferson on Sesame Street.
 * Linda Bove is a Deaf American actress who played the part of Linda the Librarian on the children's television program Sesame Street from 1971 to 2003.
 * Northern Calloway was an American actor, voice artist, and comedian, ''best known for playing David on Sesame Street from 1971 through 1989, and he also voiced Muppet characters, including Same Sound Brown.
 * Desiree Casado is an actress ''most notable for the role of Gabriela Rodriguez on Sesame Street, the daughter of longstanding main characters Luis and Maria.
 * Emilio Delgado is an American actor. He is best known for his long-running role as Luis, the friendly Fix-it Shop owner, on the children's television series Sesame Street.
 * Olamide Faison is an American actor. He plays Miles Robinson on the children's television show Sesame Street.
 * Alaina Reed Hall was an American actress ''best known for her roles as Olivia, Gordon's younger sister, on the long-running children's television series Sesame Street, and Rose Lee Holloway on the NBC sitcom 227.
 * Chris Knowings is an American actor and twin brother of actress Christy Knowings. He attended Brooklyn Technical High School in Brooklyn, New York and majored in Electrical Engineering. He joined the cast of Sesame Street in August 2007 as Chris Robinson. 
 * Will Lee was an American actor and comedian, best known for playing Mr. Hooper on Sesame Street, from the show's debut in 1969 until his death in 1982.
 * Sonia Manzano is an American actress and writer. She is best known for playing Maria on Sesame Street since 1971.
 * Bill McCutcheon was an American character actor known for his roles in film, television, and theatre, several of which won him Emmy and Tony awards.
 * Bob McGrath is an American singer and actor best known for playing the human character Bob on Sesame Street.
 * Alan Muraoka is an actor and theatre director who plays Alan, the current owner of Hooper's Store on the television show Sesame Street.
 * Roscoe Orman is an American actor and comedian, best known for playing Gordon on Sesame Street.
 * Nitya Vidyasagar is an Indian-American actress best known for her role as "Leela" on Sesame Street.
 * Other than Alaina Reed Hall (who had another notable acting role) and Bill McCutcheon (who had a long career as a character actor), all of these individuals are united by their acting on Sesame Street as their defining characteristic. Deleting this category, so that at best these articles are united by Category:American television actors, removes a rather effective aid to navigation across articles united by a rather clear and objective defining characteristic solely based on a hyper-rigid interpretation of WP:OC. While listing every show for every actor might lead to "category clutter" (though it is not a problem for athletes), listing the defining and signature performance -- perhaps best indicated as the primary role/series listed in the lead of the actor's article -- will only enhance Wikipedia and make it a much more effective resource for readers. Alansohn (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as overcategorization. What a defining/signature performance is would lead to much debate and potential edit warring. (And OT - I believe there is category clutter for some athletes, particularly Major League Baseball players being categorized by every minor league team they played for.) -- Star cheers  peaks  news  lost  wars Talk to me 17:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * keep and rewrite "performer by performance"
 * We have a practice of not using such categories for performers. Yet we certainly do have them for sports players. What's the difference?
 * The only difference I can see is length of tenure, and thus number of groups. As sportspeople tend to play for a similar team for long periods, usually multiple seasons, then we have a limited number of groups to put them into, "clutter" is avoided and we support their categorization.
 * For many actors, especially film actors, a performance is brief and only one of many. If we listed every performance, then we would indeed have a clutter problem. However in some cases, the performers are part of a troupe. That troupe is long-lasting, and warrants categorization. Where there is a cross-over into television, this "rule" doesn't seem to hold up at all. We seem to have no problem with Monty Python members (even though this almost fails under SMALLCAT as a category that surely isn't going to grow) or even listing just the band. These are all right and proper: they're not a performance, they're a troupe. Troupes have as much long-term stability as football teams. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, troupes equate to sports teams. They don't, however, equate to television shows - note, for instance, we don't have Category:NFL players who have played on Monday Night Football - that is performer by performance, whereas Category:Jacksonville Jaguars players (or Category:Monty Python members) is employment. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WE have a long standing convention that we do not allow performance by performer categories. Even where there is a long run, actors are laible to be doing other work too.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - As mentioned above, starring on a TV show, even one as long-lasting as Sesame Street, isn't something we should be categorising by. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the fact that a show does not equal a troupe is importants to bear in mind. This is by show not be troupe, so we should scrap it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2013 (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:Automata

 * 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: split to Category:Automatons (computation) and Category:Automata (mechanicals). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose splitting Category:Automata to Category:Automata and Category:Automata theory
 * Nominator's rationale: Split to Automata (i.e. clockwork) and either merge to Category:Automata theory or create a new Category:Automata (computation) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Split apart to Category:Automatons (computation) and Category:Automata (mechanicals) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2013 (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.

User contacts

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting user contacts


 * Propose deleting user contacts/my76stra


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories were created and are only used by a single user. It appears that the subcategory, while hidden, is added by the editors signature.  It is also listed as an administration category which this clearly is not and appears to be a duplication of information available elsewhere for each editors contributions. Imagine how many categories would appear on popular pages if everyone jumped on this bandwagon!  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you make a good point. I have discontinued populating the category. I do not object to its deletion. It is redundant to the what links here feature, except that it allows order where what links here does not. But I expect to resolve that by other means. I will be depopulating the category over the next several days, unless I am advised not to.&mdash;My 76 Strat *talk*email  22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that you created these categories, I personally would not see a problem with you emptying them before this discussion closes. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2013 (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.

Nonagenarians

 * 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: result. The Bushranger One ping only 13:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting nonagenarians


 * Propose deleting nonagenarians by nationality


 * Propose deleting american nonagenarians


 * Propose deleting canadian nonagenarians


 * Propose deleting dominican republic nonagenarians


 * Propose deleting french nonagenarians


 * Propose deleting german nonagenarians


 * Propose deleting italian nonagenarians


 * Propose deleting japanese nonagenarians


 * Propose deleting norwegian nonagenarians


 * Nominator's rationale: Complete WP:OVERCAT of a non-defining attribute. Reaching 100 yes, but a category for everyone who's reached 90? Simply not needed.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep completely harmless, and I think it is a useful category for a number of reasons (for example, it allows for easier monitoring of people approaching their 100th birthday) and would direct people to articles of interest about people who lived or have lived much longer than is normal, and were also notable people, but didn't quite make it to 100 or haven't as of yet. I also don't think being notable and living to be 99, 96, or even 90 is really any less notable than being notable and living to be 100 or 105, and this is proved by the fact that no one or almost no one is on here just for being a centenarian (supercentenarian, yes, but centenarian not so much). And even now most people don't even live into their 80s, and almost no one is even "supposed to" (except Japanese women) (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy). And we drown (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "for example, it allows for easier monitoring of people approaching their 100th birthday". You don't need categories for that - you can add the following text into the search box: +incategory:"Living people" +incategory:"1913 births".  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories such as this are not harmless, because they add clutter to articles. Categories are restricted to defining characteristsics to avoid clutter. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nominator as a non-defining characteristic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-defining and somewhat arbitrary. I added Category:Nonagenarians to the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Would cover far too many articles to be useful or defining. Canadian   Paul  19:18, 7 February 2013 (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:Lists of AGM plants

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Lists of AGM plants to Category:Lists of Award of Garden Merit plants
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME, category titles should not have acronym —hike395 (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think that the lists have outstayed their welcome,  then WP:AFD is your friend. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support AGM is highly ambiguous -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support expansion of AGM required. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support to match the title of the parent article Award of Garden Merit, as well as the articles included within the category, such as List of Award of Garden Merit magnolias. Alansohn (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as discoraged award category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec with GO) This is not actually a category of plants which have been given awards, so your concern doesn't apply here. It is a category of lists, and so long as those lists exist we should categorise them.
 * Support – it is a category of lists, not an 'awards category'. Oculi (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename or delete No comment on whether we should have a category for this topic, but "AGM is highly ambiguous" is definitely correct. Upon seeing the nomination, I figured that it was "A_____ Genetically Modified plants".  Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:AGM Plants, whose abbreviation will (I hope) be expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2013 (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:AGM shrubs

 * 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: pruned aka delete . The Bushranger One ping only 13:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:AGM shrubs to Category:Award of Garden Merit shrubs
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME: category titles should not have acronyms —hike395 (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think that the lists have outstayed their welcome,  then WP:AFD is your friend. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. When is a shrub not a plant? When it's a—— Also category empty. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * delete as BWC says, the category is emplty. But in any case AGM awards are for cultivars, not for the species and genuses which we write articles about. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as discoraged award category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not actually a category of plants which have been given awards, so your concern doesn't apply here. It is a category of lists, and so long as those lists exist we should categorise them.
 * Rename per nom to expand acronym . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But there's nothing in it! Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:OC. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per emptiness + discouraged award category (presumably). Oculi (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As nom, I am fine with Delete, per WP:OC —hike395 (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as empty. contnets are already in another AGM category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2013 (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:AGM plants

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:AGM plants to Category:Award of Garden Merit plants
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME: category titles should not have acronyms —hike395 (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support AGM is highly ambiguous -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OC. Any listification should be responsibility of category creator, not of nom or CFD admin. DexDor (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete—the plants receiving this "award" are not defined by the award. As the plants in this category range from requiring hothouse to being hardy outdoors (per the different parts of the award) they also have no links to each other. Lists are by far the better option for navigation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * delete AGM does not give awards to species, but to specific cultivars, and we don't except in very rare cases have articles on specific cultivars. I do not see a category of "species which have AGM-awarded cultivars" as a useful category. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as discoraged award category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OC. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As nom, I am fine with Delete, per WP:OC —hike395 (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a trivial award cat (as differentiated from the above). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support i.e expand abbreviation -- The Royal Horticultural Society is the leading body in its field in UK. Accordingly plants that are the subject of its competitions, which is what I assume this category is about, is a legitimate category.  WP:OC discourages categories for award winners, but I susect that is not what this is.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2013 (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:Saturn Award 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:Saturn Award winners
 * Nominator's rationale we generally discorage award categories. They lead to category clutter and just add more categories to people who tend to already be in lots of categories.  I think we should delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe on their home planet this is a big deal and no offense to the Saturn Foreign Press Association, but here on Earth no one seems to care that someone has won a Saturn Award. As such, it does not appear to be a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Saturn Awards covers over 30 categories. The winners category has 1578 members, which is much too big for a useful navigation aid.  Category:Saturn Awards would make an appropriate category for all the list articles, but a winners' category is definitely overcategtorisation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2013 (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:Pre-1910 comedy film stubs

 * 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:Pre-1910 film stubs and Category:Silent comedy film stubs. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting pre-1910 comedy film stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant category, not enough articles to populate, and the existing articles are already in the parent category. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Upmerge into Category:Comedy film stubs and the silent cat too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:34, 5 February 2013 (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.

Syrian names

 * 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.

I have closed these two discussions together, since the topic and the issues are the same in each case. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Arabic given names.

Category:Syrian given names

 * Propose deleting syrian given names


 * Nominator's rationale: Syrian given names are generally Arabic in origin in terms of language, and we already have a category for that. MSJapan (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete overly specific and likely to duplicate 12+ other nationalities if all formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Syrian is not a language. Just imagine if we had names by countries in which someone happens to be so named and the Category:American given names that would likely encompass nearly all the real given name articles we have (and most of disambiguation pages that also host given names). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The nighmare is here, since we do in fact have Category:American given names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Given names are likely to depend of the person's religion and language. Most of the names will be Arabic or Muslim, not not specifically Syrian.  Some members of Category:American given names will be specifically (or principally) American, because they are the surnames of famous Americans, but I am not sure of the merits of that category either.   Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Syrian masculine given names

 * Propose merging Category:Syrian masculine given names to Category:Arabic given names
 * Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure why this cat was broken out to put one name in it, but said name is already in Arabic given names, and I see no reason to overcat it as particularly Syrian (which it apparently isn't). MSJapan (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge even the target level of categorization seems a bit much. The first person on this list is described as "Urdu or Persian".  Given names have a tendency to reccur in multiple cultures, so we might want to think how much we want to subdivide them.  I see no reason to go below the language-level when we have multi-national languages like Arabic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Given names are likely to depend of the person's religion and language. Most of the names will be Arabic or Muslim, not not specifically Syrian.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2013 (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:Hospitals on the National Register of Historic Places

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Hospitals on the National Register of Historic Places to Category:Hospital buildings on the National Register of Historic Places
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following the discussions on school buildings and hotel buildings, this might well be processed as a speedy. The NRHP nomination is about the building and not the organization that occupies the building. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * rename per nom To match the category content.  Various subcats of this category also need to be renamed in the same way.  Hmains (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they will follow as speedies following the trend for the last set of similar nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Hospital buildings" is unnecessarily wordy; we always refer to them simply as "Hospitals", and we have Category:Hospitals but not Category:Hospital buildings, so this rename would put it out of sync with our other hospitals categories.  Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Rename Category:Hospitals is intended to include current and former healthcare institutions, and if the hospital moved its former location would no longer be included in that category, even if it was later listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the case of this category, it's the building that is on the NRHP, not the hospital, though highlighting the original purpose of the building describes and groups listed buildings by their original / primary purpose. During my time in Chicago, I've seen St. Luke's Hospital (Chicago, Illinois), which was originally a hospital but is now an apartment building, and this is the case for many of the buildings included in this category structure. Alansohn (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2013 (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.