Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 12



Category:Danna Paola

 * 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) 19:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting danna paola


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Minimal content for an eponymous category. Films and television shows are not categorized by its stars due to potential overcategorization. The songs and albums subcategories here can stand on their own with a hatnote to one another. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete My biggest reason to say this is one of the contents is María Belén, a television show. What next will we create Category:Dean Cain and Category:Terri Hatcher and add Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman to both categories. We don't do performers by performance, but what is being done here is performance by performer. That is a path down which we do not want to go, it will lead to things like an article being in 70 categories. Oh wait, that is already happening with Akihito, but let's not repeat it for other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I exaggerated slightly in my last comment, Akihito is only in 67 categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 13 September 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:Grand Masters of the Order of the Loyalty to the Crown of Kelantan (Malaysia)

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting grand masters of the order of the loyalty to the crown of kelantan (malaysia)
 * Nominator's rationale 1- This category violates the general principal of WP:OC. 2-The award here does not even have an article, so it is an especially egregious violation of the rules against award categories, since it is unclear this award is even notable. 3-2 of the three people in this category are also in the Knights category, which is also up for deletion, as well as lots of other categories. They are notable for being regional monarchs, and are categorized as such. We do not need to put them in categories for all the various honors, awards and recognitions they have received as such, that just leads to category clutter. Maybe, if we want and do not have it, we can create a list for this, but we do not need a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Order of the Loyalty to the Crown of Kelantan (Malaysia). We do not need the split between classes, but this is a national award to its people and the target should be kept.  Does that need the disambiguator "Malaysia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 13:25, 16 September 2013‎ (UTC)
 * This is not a national award, it is a sub-national award. It is awarded by the state of Kelantan. This is similar to if Hawaii or Texas were giving out awards. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Loyalty to the Crown of Kelantan. Although the nom makes a strong case for deletion, we should consider the two classes (Grand Masters and Knights Grand Commander) together, and not in two separate discussions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify/Delete per WP:OC and WP:COP. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —  dain  omite   07:23, 11 October 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:Zurich

 * 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 all, and leave category redirects for ease of navigation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Zurich to Category:Zürich
 * Nominator's rationale: I missed the recent RM Zurich→Zürich, but seeing as the article was moved, I suggest its eponymous category should be renamed too. As a matter of course, the related categories should also be renamed in batch. I suggested this to the admin who closed the RM, whose reply was that I take this to CfD. Jared Preston (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Plus rename the following related categories:
 * Category:Zurich-related lists to Category:Zürich-related lists
 * Category:Buildings and structures in Zurich‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Zürich‎
 * Category:Churches in Zurich‎ to Category:Churches in Zürich‎
 * Category:Museums in Zurich to Category:Museums in Zürich
 * Category:Zurich culture‎ to Category:Zürich culture‎
 * Category:Media in Zurich‎ to Category:Media in Zürich‎
 * Category:Districts of Zurich‎ to Category:Districts of Zürich‎
 * Category:Altstadt (Zurich) to Category:Altstadt (Zürich)
 * Category:District 10 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 10 of Zürich‎
 * Category:District 11 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 11 of Zürich‎
 * Category:District 12 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 12 of Zürich‎
 * Category:District 2 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 2 of Zürich‎
 * Category:District 3 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 3 of Zürich‎
 * Category:District 4 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 4 of Zürich‎
 * Category:District 5 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 5 of Zürich
 * Category:District 6 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 6 of Zürich
 * Category:District 7 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 7 of Zürich
 * Category:District 8 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 8 of Zürich
 * Category:District 9 of Zurich‎ to Category:District 9 of Zürich
 * Category:Education in Zurich‎ to Category:Education in Zürich
 * Category:Geography of Zurich to Category:Geography of Zürich
 * Category:Parks in Zurich to Category:Parks in Zürich
 * Category:Squares in Zurich‎ to Category:Squares in Zürich
 * Category:Healthcare in Zurich to Category:Healthcare in Zürich
 * Category:History of Zurich to Category:History of Zürich
 * Category:Mayors of Zurich to Category:Mayors of Zürich
 * Category:Organisations based in Zurich to Category:Organisations based in Zürich
 * Category:Companies based in Zurich‎ to Category:Companies based in Zürich
 * Category:People from Zurich‎ to Category:People from Zürich
 * Category:Sportspeople from Zurich‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Zürich
 * Category:Sport in Zurich‎ to Category:Sport in Zürich
 * Category:Transport in Zurich to Category:Transport in Zürich
 * Category:Streets in Zurich‎ to Category:Streets in Zürich
 * Category:Zurich S-Bahn lines‎ to Category:Zürich S-Bahn lines‎
 * Category:Visitor attractions in Zurich‎ to Category:Visitor attractions in Zürich

I may have missed a few, but I also left some out where I was in doubt. Jared Preston (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that umlauts are hard to create on an English-language keyboard, so each of the existing categories should be re-created as a category redirect. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename - Per Jared Preston, to match Zürich article. Just a note: technically, I'm the creator of Category:Zurich but... I created it 3 years ago as a cat redirect to the Category:Zürich (at that time the real category for the Swiss city). Btw, if the category will be moved to "Zürich", I suggest to maintain the category "Zurich" as a category redirect. PS: of course, I extend my rename vote to all the subcategories. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The rename was brought about by long-time pushing with clear opposition to it. There is not a clear consensus. Added to that, it is just much easier to not use confusing marks on word names. We should favor people easily being able to type in words, which means we should avoid non-English markings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the moment. Although the Zürich article has been moved (with "consensus in favor of moving slightly more than 2:1" at Talk:Zürich) many/most of the articles about the city with English-language titles currently use the non-umlaut form - e.g. District 2 (Zurich) and Zurich Opera House.  The text of articles in Category:Sportspeople from Zurich most/all use the non-umlaut form.  If, at some point in the future, WP articles (not just the eponymous article) mostly use the umlaut (in titles and content) then I would support a rename of the categories. (Unlike changing the title of the eponymous article) a category rename would hit the watchlists of many articles and make categorizing articles a bit less easy. DexDor (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree that a renaming would render categorisation "less easy" (on what grounds?), especially for the eponymous category, and especially with gadgets like Hotcat. In fact, there are a number of related articles which already had the umlaut in before the RM of the main article. Zürich S-Bahn, Kunsthalle Zürich, C. G. Jung Institute in Zürich etc. The place of birth of sportspeople could and should be adjusted along with the original renaming of the article; that really isn't a problem. And as DerBorg pointed out, the main category can be redirected, just like the main article. There isn't much more we can do for the incompetence of some people towards the umlaut. This has been discussed at many different venues, this CfD probably isn't the best place to continue that discussion about "squiggly lines" or "strange dots" on letters. Fortunately one can type "Zurich" into Wikipedia and without a problem be offered the article (or for that matter, category!) "Zürich". At the very least, the main, parent category should be renamed to Category:Zürich first. I can't see any reason here not to do this. Jared Preston (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:UE. Wikipedia contributors should be given more credit than some comments above would seem to suggest. The "ü" character is widely recognised by non-German speakers and easily reproduced on a non-German keyboard using the combination Alt 0252. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to match main article Zürich. This is standard practice across categories: in fact, it is a speedy criterion. Keep a redirect on the old categories to resolve any issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename all While it's often been said here that the cat name needn't match the article name. When a large discussion has been had, and a consensus reached, only a bloody good reason ought to derail conformity. I don't seen that reason. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename all per WP:C2D to match the head article. It has been moved, and the move has been upheld at Move review/Log/2013 August ... and while I personally think that the move was a bad idea, there was a clear consensus to do. So the categories should be renamed to match.
 * Rename but also Redirect Spellings in categories should match those that appear in the primary defining article. But as BrownHairedGirl says, most English speakers (me included) would have to search to find how to locate a "ü" on their keyboard, especially readers on mobile devices. Liz  Read! Talk! 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename but re-create all existing forms as a cat-redirect. Spellings should be correct in articles, but likely incorrect spellings should have redirects.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename all per C2D and BrownHairedGirl. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 18 September 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:Economic and Technological Development Zones

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Economic and Technological Development Zones to Category:Special Economic Zones of the People's Republic of China
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, somehow I created the target category and put a merge template on the two main articles before realizing that another category structure already exists. So this makes the merge issue rather more urgent. Do we have a duplication or is the nominated category a subset of my just-created parent cat -- or the other way around? I can't see from the main articles if there is a meaningful distinction here, or just terminology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestion To move this along: I could withdraw this, depopulate and speedily delete my just-created category, make sure the preexisting one is fully populated, while retaining the merge template on the two (duplicate?) main articles. I'll watch to see if there's a closure here, non-admin or otherwise, and pledge to do this promptly, if so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - This blog on the website of UCBC, a China-oriented non-profit organization, and this list of ETDZs, might shed some light on the issue. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the blog makes it sound like they ARE one and the same. Here, from the lead: "... special economic zones (SEZ), officially called Economic and Technology Development Zones." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 September 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:Personality with a animal survived

 * 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 articles were in any of the categories at the time of closing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting personality with a animal survived


 * Also nominated are all subcats. These are:


 * Nominator's rationale: Quite aside from the poor English in the title, there seens to be no criteria for inclusion in this category. I'm not even sure what the category is for, but it and its subcats seem to have been created specifically for an article that is both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. It's unlikely to include any more articles  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that none of the subcats were nominated but if the article gets deleted as it should, the line of categories in which each was placed will be eligible for speedy deletion as being empty. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Issue: Hello, I am the user that I created this category . When I heard Simon Kruger, a small boy Australian in seven year old who knows lost in quarrels after he receives flowers for her mom. At night, he says he knows a kangaroo and sleep with him and it had occupied during the night, mentions in the news and I think if it's a good idea for this page and also I create some categories because if people who survived traveling with animals when he knows where lost when part of the adventure . So my dear users can search somewhere people survived with an animal may be somewhere on Wikipedia and Internet to search. Expect before this category will be removed, users will do their best to find people survived traveling with a pet to sleep with at night where the break. Ah yes, I think you can also change the name of Category:People with animal survived instead Category:Personality with a animal survived. Thanks, Godinpédia ( talk) 12 September 2013 ( UTC)
 * Comment: Even with your explanation, Godinpédia, I still don't understand what this category is for and how it connects to other categories in the Wikipedia category tree. It sounds like it might be an article, but not a category. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Issue: But, this is a category, and this is not an article Liz, then you can put something with other category, if you want. Godinpédia ( talk) 12 September 2013 ( UTC)


 * Delete Even if the one article, 4 levels down, somehow survives (which is very doubtful, it is up for Prod deletion, and if it survives that will probably go to Afd, because Wikipedia is not news), I have to be the second user to say I have no clue what the title of this category means. Actually, even if the article survives, I do not think this is worth categorizing by. For a category to be useful it either has to a-be part of a larger schema or b-have more than one article (some would even argue ideally it has both a and b, and we will delete 4 article categories that are not part of larger schemes on size issues), I see no evidence that this is likely to ever be either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NONSENSE, really. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete along with nonsense-sounding sub-cats. The correct English for what user is trying to add would be Category:Famous people assisted by animals to survive. This would get short shrift here for the "famous" let alone the rest. The more neutral Category:People assisted by animals to survive would include those with any trained support animal, which would not be defining. (My read on the content of user's responses and article is that they have used an auto-translate program to provide their English.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lamentably, we have no choice but to Delete this category (along with all of its sub-cats) for all of the reasons that have already been adduced. I say "lamentably" because seeing it has given me much enjoyment. :) (I will say no more, not wanting to offend its well-meaning creator...) I do believe there is a list somewhere of, er, unusual category names. Cgingold (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's at Deleted articles with freaky titles. Graham 87 08:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! Thanks, I hadn't seen that particular list before. There's another list somewhere that's entirely for categories. User:BrownHairedGirl will probably know. Cgingold (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I, for one, can only think of the amusing list of examples at Overcategorization. Graham 87 07:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, obviously. Graham 87 08:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, along with all subcategories. I have a very hard time seeing this as a noteworthy characteristic of someone, let alone a defining one. Robofish (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Issue It is a good idea to Beeswaxcandle instead name Category: Personality with animal has survived, it can create when he asks if he wants me to change its name to Category:Famous people assisted by animals to survive. Godinpédia ( talk) 13 September 2013 ( UTC)
 * Delete Clearly not a useful way of classifying people Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete – although a fully-fledged tree for Category:Children with a kangaroo survived by nationality would be fascinating. (Where I am, a child who survived overnight with the help of a kangaroo would be an instant celebrity, as would the kangaroo.) Oculi (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here they're just a bloody nuisance when you're driving. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural comment. The sub-categories are neither tagged nor listed in the nomination. Unless they are properly included in the discussion, they cannot be deleted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Category titles have been added and the subcats have been tagged. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- This whole tree is supporting one article on a child to whom WP:BLP1E applies. That article is subject to PROD.  Deletion will leave us with an empty tree.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the issue of the basis of sitting with a prodded article. Sheer nonsense and lack of understanding what categories are for that matter what WP:ABOUT is about. sats 14:51, 17 September 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:Degraded Extra Knights Companion of the Garter
<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: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting degraded extra knights companion of the garter
 * Nominator's rationale: This category is in general violation of WP:OC. In this case it is an award given to foreign royals, a class of people who get lots of awards just for being who they are. We have categories for specific royal people in specific positions, we do not need to categorize them by the various and sundry awards and honors attached to them. It is even worse when we categorize them by having been depived of an award. This type of thing is not useful as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised and this fits in two category trees. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify then delete. The list is interesting in that it consists of German royalty who were foreign ("extra") members of the order, but removed from it during WWI. However it should be a list (probably in the artiucle on the Order of the Garter.  It falls by the test that I applied in yesterday's list to other similar categories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - If deleted, shouldn't this be upmerged to Category:People stripped of a British Commonwealth honour? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because in this case the people getting the honor was not defining, they were being used as pawns in diplomacy, and their being stripped generally had nothing to do with their action as people, it was the result of actions of government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Listify/Delete per WP:OC and WP:COP. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —  dain  omite   07:23, 11 October 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:Operas by Frank Desprez
<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:Libretti by Frank Desprez. The current convention of Category:Opera libretti by writer is Libretti by FOO; to change it, please initiate a group nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Operas by Frank Desprez to Category:Libretti by Frank Desprez
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Frank Desprez is not a composer but a librettist. "Category:Operas by" is generally used for composers (cf. Category:Operas by composer). For librettists, "Category:Libretti by" seems to be used (cf. Category:Opera libretti by writer). --Tijd-jp (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename but the target should be Category:Opera libretti by Frank Desprez. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 16 September 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:John Jay College
<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, retaining a category redirect at Category:John Jay College. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:John Jay College to Category:John Jay College of Criminal Justice
 * Propose renaming Category:John Jay College faculty to Category:John Jay College of Criminal Justice faculty
 * Nominator's rationale: Official name of the university – Muboshgu (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The nominator's proposal is correct, but the rationale is entirely wrong. Naming policy is based on the common name of the topic, rather than the official title. If we followed Muboshgu's logic, we would have an article entitled College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin. In this case, I did wonder whether the head article was named correctly, but having checked Google News and Google Books, it seems clear to me that reliable sources predominantly use the full title. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per WP:C2D to match the head article John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
 * Comment Would it be possible to have a redirect from Category:John Jay College? As a local, most people just use the name John Jay College rather than the full name. I don't think there is more than one John Jay College. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 17 September 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:Births of the September 11 attacks
<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. Category was empty at the time of closing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting births of the september 11 attacks


 * Nominator's rationale: Oddly-phrased WP:SMALLCAT for two people who happened to have been born on September 11, 2001. McGeddon (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, people are not categorised by birthday, only birth year. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The births coincidentally happened on the day of the attacks, but otherwise have no connection to the event. Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't make sense, no one was born while under attack. Those born on 11 Sept were not a party to the attacks. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Mackenzie Aladjem is not notable for being born on September 11 and Christina Taylor-Green isn't notable at all.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 10:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Trivial. Certainly their parents weren't trying to time the births to coincide with a terror attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Issue : Hello, I am the user I created this category. McGeddon sent me this message that this group will be deleted. I thought if it is a good idea to put personalities born on this day, the attacks of 11 September 2001 and also by some years when the children of the day will be great people , we could put personalities of the world who were born that day. So my dear users, before this class will disappear , think well before this page will disappear.– Thanks, Godinpédia (talk ) 12 September 2013 ( UTC)
 * Godinpédia, this sounds like a great idea for a list, not a category. If you had the information as a list, you could include people who are not notable enough to have a WP article written about them. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good Idea Liz, i even think that creating a page (List of people is born on the day of the September 11 attacks). But we will wait for other users if we can keep this category and also Liz where others users can make this page for me. If you have any questions you can send to my talk and whether users are French, you can write in French, and I am francophone of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, county of Canada. Godinpédia (talk) 12 September 2013 ( UTC)


 * Delete. While this date might have significance for some Americans, I can see where similar categories, for large scale disasters/acts of terror, in other countries would be just as legitimate (like, People born the day of the London bombings, people born the day the Indonesian tsunami hit, etc.) if this category is allowed to persist. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is so trivial, that the one person who is in this category presently that their article does not even mention "person x was born on the same day as the September 11th attacks". True, you can infer that from the article, but there is no in text mention of the attacks of that day. What next will we have Category:Briths of the Pearl Harbor bombing, Category:Briths of the John F. Kennedy assasionation day and Category:Deaths on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the declaration of Indepdence. Before I looked closely I was expecting this to be Category:People born to widows of victims of the September 11th attacks. Even that would be trivial, but it would be less trivial than this. I vaguely remember a news magazine, although it more featured Shannon Spann (widow of Johnny Micaheal Spann, the first American killed in Afghanistan) and her child born after her husband was killed there).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I would actually discourage trying to make a list either. Do we have List of people who died on July 4th, 1826, which is clearly a more notable group with more significance to them than this would be as a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as a non-defining characteristic. One of the longest-standing areas of consensus on categorisation is that we don't categorise people by birthday; categorising by a specific day of birth is an even worse idea. Robofish (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- We used to have lots of categories by date but they were all deleted a long time ago. We should not reinstate them.  This category is empty anyway.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and DO NOT create a list instead. The mere fact that a person happens to have been born on September 11, 2001 is not a defining characteristic, nor is it something that makes them inherently notable (or something that's any more likely than any other birthdate to make its possessors "great people", as Godinpédia claims above), nor is it a date that would automatically justify the inclusion of non-notable people who didn't have any other reason for us to be writing about them at all. It is simply not something that warrants any form of special treatment on Wikipedia above and beyond that given to any other birthday. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 17 September 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:Grand Officers of the National Order of Vietnam
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Recipients of the National Order of Vietnam. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Grand Officers of the National Order of Vietnam to Category:Recipients of the National Order of Vietnam
 * Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. There is only one recipient in this category, and this order was only awarded by South Vietnam, an entity that no longer exists, and only existed for a short time. 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is overcategorization by award. We do not need to categorize by every award received. The one person in this category is in 20 awards categories. This is not needed and not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Discretionary honours and decorations awarded by national governments should be categorised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:National Order of Vietnam. I have voted the same way on Grand Crosses.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 16 September 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:Knights Grand Companion of the Order of Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu (Malaysia)
<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: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting knights grand companion of the order of sultan mizan zainal abidin of terengganu (malaysia)


 * Propose deleting Category:Supreme Classes of the Order of Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu (Malaysia)
 * Nominator's rationale: We generally prefer to categorize articles about people by what makes them notable (e.g. being a politician or being a member of a royal family) rather than what awards they have received as it is not usually a WP:DEFINING characteristic (see WP:OC) and can lead to articles being in a lot of categories (e.g. see Mohd Khalil Yaakob). For info: These 2 categories currently contain only 3 articles and could be listified to the Order of Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu article. DexDor (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm the guy who made these categories. I'm only at the begining of my work about Malaysian decorations. I don't know how many people there could be in these categories in the end. Leave them so far and review in a few months if you want. Mimich (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just curious Mimich but why did you choose categorization of these awards/honours over a list? (From Categories, lists, and navigation templates) —  dain  omite   07:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is going to lead to overcategorization by award. Lists of this are much better than categories. These awards are not what defines the people who receive them, their position as consort to the monarch of a particular Malay state or other positions and accomplishments are what defines them. I hate to admit it, but if George Marshall was in as few award categories as Yaakob, things would not be nearly as bad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The issues involved is "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." I see nothing to indicate that this award is part of the rare exceptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This appears to be a national award for people of that nation. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a sub-national award, given out by a sub-unit of Malaysia, not given out by Malaysia itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - Is there a reason that Category:Grand Masters of the Order of Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu (Malaysia)‎ is not included in this nomination? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify/Delete per WP:OC and WP:COP. Listify on the the corresponding award/honours article. Being a recipient of this honour is not a defining characteristic for an individual. Also, generally speaking people who get these honours are awarded a half-dozen of other awards/honours of a similar nature and none are a defining characteristic of a person. Having a half-dozen or more of these categories (which is common if you look at the recipients) leads to excessive category clutter. —  dain  omite   07:23, 11 October 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:Australian Knights of the Thistle
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge, and a reminder to focus one's comments on the quality of the arguments rather than the nature of the participants.


 * With regard to Post-nominals and its category data templates for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, I would like to note that, as far as I can discern, the data template for Australia is the only one that generates a nationality-based subcategory of the main category. For example, for the code "GCVO", Post-nominals/NZL-cats adds:
 * Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order;
 * Category:New Zealand recipients of a British knighthood; and
 * Category:New Zealand knights


 * On the other hand, Post-nominals/AUS-cats adds Category:Australian Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, which is a nationality-based subcategory of Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.


 * There may need to be a wider discussion about this practice. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Australian Knights of the Thistle to Category:Knights of the Thistle
 * Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to all parents. There's currently only one article in this category, it'd be better to use the two parent categories directly. 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support merge, no need for a subcat of one. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support merge: Menzies is the only Australian to date that has been appointed a Knight of the Order of the Thistle, in which case there is absolutely no need for a seperate national category of one. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 *  Do not oppose Information: Actually, I'm rather ambivalent about the proposal. The reason that the category was created was to be consistent with, and within, the post-noms template. There is no worthiness in any of the "reasons" stated for supporting the merger, because no reasons have been stated - only Ps-O-V. But if the apparent zealots are prepared to live with an inconsistency in the template, so can I. I assure you that the world will not end - it will just be more difficult to maintain the template because this will become an exception.  (Hang on! Are these zealots going to maintain the template? No. OK, so they want to create a problem that they are not prepared to deal with. Goodness gracious me, how unusual!)  I don't care what the final consensus is, but I am NOT going to take responsibility for the future maintenance of the template. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Addressing the points mentioned:
 * it'd be better to use the two parent categories directly - I don't see why; yes, that's your POV, but it isn't an explanation.
 * "no need for a subcat of one"" - More POV without explanation.
 * "in which case there is absolutely no need for a seperate national category of one" - Like most statements that include the word "absolutely", it is complete crap to say "there is absolutely no need for a seperate national category", (even if/when you spell "separate" correctly). Again, POV without explanation.
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The entire contents of the category is an Australian Prime Minister. He is notable for being Prime Minister, not for the awards and recognitions he got as a result of such. Categorizing him this way lead to just way too many categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! He is notable for MANY things - not just for being PM. One of these is for being the first and (to date) only Australian KT. (At the time, this was a BIG DEAL - check the Australian press of the time.)
 * Categorizing him this way lead to just way too many categories - More nonsense. This is simply your opinion; how about something concrete to back up your POV?
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way: The proposal is to merge, not delete. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is just a way to create more category clutter. He is notable because he is prime minister. What did he do to be made a knight. He was prime minister, it is a recognition of his position, not independent from that. Categorization should be by core notability and importance to the person, and these high level recognitions that some people have 50 or more of are not notable to the person. These categorizations go against the rules set down at WP:OC. The awards need to be defining to the person, and in this case the award is not defining to the person. We should delte. Just because the press make a big deal about something does not mean we should categorize by it. We need to categorize by core defining characteristics, and most awards are not such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're pretty consistent in failing to answer questions you have been asked, aren't you. You also seem to be pretty good at making statements not based on any evidence.
 * So far, I've yet to see you express anything other than your point of view, and even then you haven't produced anything to support your point of view.
 * This is just a way to create more category clutter. - You still haven't defined "category clutter", much less provide a supporting reference. You may as well speak Swahili if you are not going to explain yourself.
 * He is notable because he is prime minister. - I've already addressed that and refuted it. Why are you ignoring what I've told you? Do you even know who "he" is, or what he did?
 * What did he do to be made a knight. - Quite a number of things. Do your homework and you'll very quickly find out.
 * it is a recognition of his position, not independent from that - What's your supporting evidence for that false statement?
 * Categorization should be by core notability and importance to the person - Again, despite my request, you still haven't defined that, or provided a supporting reference.
 * and these high level recognitions that some people have 50 or more of are not notable to the person. - Your ignorance is truly impressive. I suggest you educate yourself before you continue to make such false sweeping generalisations. PARTICULARLY given that you are unwilling to provide any evidence to support your false sweeping generalisations. Given that you have no basis for your initial statements, I see little point in proceeding further. Pdfpdf (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You will not proceed with your merger proposal, Pdfpdf? Because you had several votes of support. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Liz, please note that it is not my merger proposal - the proposal was made by 70.24.244.158 (talk).
 * In fact, I neither support nor oppose the proposal. I simply point out that the reason the category was created was to be consistent with, and within, the post-noms template. However, nobody seems to have paid any attention to that issue.
 * A further confusion is that the proposal is for a merger, but User:Johnpacklambert has come up with a "delete" response, and has not explained what he wants to delete.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It is getting really frustrating with how much people want to insult me for trying to improve the category system. We have a rule against most award categories, but all people do is insult me for bringing up WP:OC:AWARD. I see no reason to have this award category. The one person in it is a Prime Minister. They get lots of awards and probably should be categorized by none of them. When I have seen multiple articles with 50 and more awards categories tagged on to them, I know it is high time that something be done to correct this major glut of unneeded categories. I also think it is very uncivil of users to go around attacking me for expressing this well reasoned view. Awards categories lead to clutter and need to be eliminated. If we do so, we will have a much more controllable number of categories. It is too easy to get lots of awards to make it worth categorizing by them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A) It is getting really frustrating trying to get you to explain yourself. All you do is say "This is my opinion, and I'm right".
 * I have asked politely, several times in several places for you to supply links to the Wikipedia policies that support your opinions. You have not done this.
 * I have politely pointed out that you have made several sweeping generalisations that are false. But you continue to repeat them. I have pointed out to you that your false sweeping generalisations show that you have no knowledge or understanding of the subject matter. But you continue to repeat your false sweeping generalisations. I have suggested that you educate yourself on the subject matter. But instead, you continue to repeat your false sweeping generalisations.
 * B) " how much people want to insult me for trying to improve the category system."
 * At no time, and in no place, have I ever insulted you.
 * At no time, and in no place, have I ever made any comment about you "trying to improve the category system".
 * What I have done is 1) observe that you have opinions about the category system, asked you to clarify some of the terms you are using, and asked you to point me to the policy statements that support your opinions and your points of view, (you appear to refuse to do this) and 2) observe that have made a series of sweeping generalisations which are false, (and you appear to simply repeat these false sweeping generalisations.)
 * C) In response to your posting:
 * It is getting really frustrating with how much people want to insult me for trying to improve the category system. - I have not seen any evidence of anyone insulting you, but I admit that I haven't gone looking for any. I see no evidence of you trying to improve the category system. I see no evidence of you discussing changes in the appropriate forums. I see no evidence of you gaining consensus before making changes. What I do see is lots of evidence of you trying to bully people and force your opinion on them, and when they ask you to supply information about the policies that support your opinions, you refuse to supply them - you just continue to bully them.
 * We have a rule against most award categories - What rule? Please state what this rule is, and supply a link to it.
 * I see no reason to have this award category. - What a strange statement. How should I respond? To what should I respond? How about: "Well, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to your own opinion, but I do not share it."?
 * The one person in it is a Prime Minister. They get lots of awards and probably should be categorized by none of them - I have already explained to you that the above statement is false. As you have not disputed my explanation, I assume you must agree with me. Or not. I wouldn't know - you refuse to explain yourself. I fail to see how continually repeating false statements adds value to the conversation. What you have seen in other, different , situations is irrelevant. He is not "they"; he is dead, so he's not getting any awards; when he was alive, he did not get "lots of awards"; the awards he did get were not just because he was Prime Minister; and many of them did appropriately categorise him.
 * When I have seen multiple articles with 50 and more awards categories tagged on to them, I know it is high time that something be done to correct this major glut of unneeded categories. - And how is that relevant to this situation and this discussion? (You are not seeing that in this situation.)
 * I also think it is very uncivil of users to go around attacking me for expressing this well reasoned view. - I have not seen any evidence to support the statement that this POV is "reasoned", much less "well reasoned". In fact, I have yet to see any evidence of you attempting to explain anything. And further, no one is attacking you for expressing your POV.
 * Awards categories lead to clutter and need to be eliminated - a) What is your evidence that "Awards categories lead to clutter"? b) What is your supporting argument that they "need to be eliminated"?  c) What is your evidence that this is a problem?  This may be your point of view, but you provide no reasons or explanations that might lead me to share your POV, so at this point I can only say: "Well, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to your own opinion, but I do not share it".
 * If we do so, we will have a much more controllable number of categories. - a) What is your evidence that we want or need "a more controllable number of categories" Your statement implies that we currently have an uncontrollable number of categories. b) What is your evidence that we currently have an uncontrollable number of categories?
 * It is too easy to get lots of awards to make it worth categorizing by them. - I'm afraid I don't understand that sentence. Could you clarify it please?
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are overpersonalizing this John Pack Lambert. When people ask an Editor to explain the rationale for their decision making, it is not an "insult", it is asking for further information. This happens on Wikipedia all of the time, to everyone. I see no name-calling here, just requests for explanations which you can choose to or refuse to supply. If one proposes a lot of categories for deletion at CfD and I think one should expect to be challenged by those who want to preserve the status quo. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support merge to Category:Knights of the Thistle. There is no doubt that the KT is a very high honour. It is certainly not one that Prime Ministers routinely get awarded even when they do have a link to Scotland, which is what this order of knighthood is about. However, there is no point in having a sub-category of one. Categories are supposed to have several entries, so just put Menzies in the parent category for the KT. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  09:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment How many cluttered in way too many categories articles do I have to link to like Akihito and Douglas MacArthur and George Marshall and Haile Selassie I, and Nelson Mandela and a few others for people to accept that having awards categories is leading to clutter. How many articles to I have to mention that have literally been put in 50+ awards categories for people to pay attention to the issue?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The rule against award categories is WP:OC. It is too easy to get an award for people to be categorized by it. It does not take a long time, aned it does not require a major investment of effort. People can at times get many awards for the exact same thing. These are not defining to the people involved and not worth categorizing by. This has been cited at times. I am tired of people who refuse to take the time to look at it attacking me for trying to implement it. Going and posting on a talk page instead of just at CfD is inherently beliegernet, especially when you make rude, cutting remarks accusing people of "not getting back" and trying to claim others have no defence. We have way too many award categories, they are being tacked on too abundantly to articles. We have people in award categories for countries that there is no mention of them having ever set foot on in their articles. Something needs to be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The particular statement is "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." I see no evidence that this is a defining characteristic. Rare exceptions should mean that only very rarely do people show up in multiple awards categories. The fact that the individual here does shows this is not living up to the rare exceptions rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see attacks or belligerent, "rude, cutting remarks", just Editors looking for explanations which you have provided (several times). Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it anything other than rude to open a response to my comment with "nonsense"?18:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment CfD is an open forum, we often delete even when a proposal was originally for merging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:Australian knights is sufficient to group all Australians who have received orders of knighthood. More specific categories will just lead to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Category:Knights of the Thistle. Readers of the article will find little value in a category containing one entry and never likely to contain any others, given Australia's abolition of imperial honours. By contrast the broader category gives readers a sense of context for Menzies' receipt of this award. The issue of lists v categories is a separate discussion best pursued (if anyone wishes) by proposing the deletion/listification of the parent category rather than this one. Euryalus (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge -- The Knights of the Thistle is a British order of Chivalry, wholly or mainly for Scottish people. If kept, it ought to be Category:Knights of the Thistle of Austrialian citizenship.  The one member was Prime Minister of Australia, but probably of Scottish descent.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * INFO The " post-nominals template" spoken of in this discussion is this one (for information) : Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats, a well established system with many effective Aussie categories .... Mimich (talk) 14:44, 19 September 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:Works about the Virginia Tech massacre
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Works about the Virginia Tech massacre to Category:Virginia Tech massacre
 * Nominator's rationale: Small category with only one entry. Propose upmerging.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Upmerging - There's no real need for this tiny category. However, it should also be upmerged to both of the other parent cats (for Works about violence & crime). Cgingold (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge  per Cgingold's suggestion. Dimadick (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per Cgingold makes the most sense to me. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge -- we cannot need to split a small subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. We do not need to divide categories so finely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 17 September 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:British architecture by period
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:British architecture by period to Category:British architecture by period or style
 * Nominator's rationale: Only 9 of 26 entries are actually periods, of which some are defined or named after a style, like "Gothic", and some by monarchs etc, like "Elizabethan". The rest are styles that overlapped within their period with other styles, mostly from the 19th & 20th centuries. I see no point in splitting the two types of category; better to rename it correctly. On a quick look most other national subcats of Category:Architecture by period are the same, but in none is the problem so acute.  This might be viewed as a test-case for the lot, which I would support changing. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - On the whole this proposal seems to make pretty good sense. I'm just wondering whether it's entirely necessary to include the word "period" in the name of the category, since in this context it is construed as equivalent to "style" in any event. Which is to say, it might suffice to simply rename to Category:British architecture by style. Just throwin' that out for consideration. :) Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you have a point. Some of the categories are a bit of a mix. Not everything in Category:Elizabethan architecture is in what is meant by the "Elizabethan style" - the theatres for one example. Category:Anglo-Saxon architecture is quite mixed in terms of style. It wouldn't work so well for some of the other countries in Category:Architecture by period, which have pure date-based categories. Unless the whole tree was renamed, this cat would have to drop out of that tree I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment style and period ought be separate. One could construct a tudor-style house today, or a victorian-style house, and a slew of "revival" categories doesn't seem apropos. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? This is in fact impractical and undesirable. 7/26 of these categories are already "neo-" or "revival" ones, rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Rename per nom. My initial reaction was negative, but when I looked at the contents it is clearly right.  Some of the categories are about periods, but some are about styles, often seeking to mimic earlier ones.  This is largely about British architecture, so that comments from elsewhere may be unhelpful.  Yes, one could build an Elizabethan-style house, but it would not be Elizabethan.  It might count as Jacobethan.  The attempt to separate out period and style (while alluring) is in fact impracticable.  I was brought up in a house of Regency style, a term that strictly applies to 1810-20, but is applied to 1810-37, but the house's makeover was actually done in 1839.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 16 September 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.