Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 21



Category:Monster Beverage

 * 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) 03:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting monster beverage


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT. Not counting redirects, this has only three entries, too small to warrant a category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:23, 31 March 2014 (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:Rega Research

 * 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) 04:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rega Research to Category:Rega Research images
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not needed for two articles at this time. Can be recreated if there are more articles. If the images can be moved to commons, it is not clear why there are notes about not doing so, then this can simply be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2014 (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:Countesses of Cilli

 * 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) 08:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Countesses of Cilli to Category:Countesses of Celje
 * Nominator's rationale: to match Count of Celje Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The spelling appears to depend on whether it should be in Slovenian, German or Hungarian. Styria, where the place lies is now in Slovenia, so that Celje is certainly the right spelling for the place.  However, Styria was (I think) a land of the Austrian crown, so that the German (or possibly Hungarian) spelling might be appropriate for the title.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2014 (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:House of Cilli

 * 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) 08:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:House of Cilli to Category:House of Celje
 * Nominator's rationale: to match Counts of Celje Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * REname to match the outcome of the CFD on Countesses above, whatever that may be. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2014 (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:High-end audio

 * 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) 08:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting high-end audio


 * Nominator's rationale: Completely subjective category that invites original research and introduces neutral point of view issues for included articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yea, it does look subjective when you include Category:Lossless audio codecs‎ and Category:Compact disc‎.  How can a commodity item also be high end? If the article gets rewritten to make the topic less subjective then I'd reconsider. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is kept it should be renamed to "Hi-Fi audio" per the common name for this thing -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the rename would help. High fidelity dates back to the 50s or 60s for better quality.  Not sure if they can be considered the same.  CES always has the High-End Audio equipment in a separate building. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2014 (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:Non-Irish bishops in Ireland

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Non-Irish bishops in Ireland to Category:Bishops in Ireland
 * Nominator's rationale: We normally don't do "non" categories. Not sure I see the value of this one. "Irish" nationality is an anachronism. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep How is "Irish" nationality an anachronism? Why is Irish in quotes? The cat is necessary because there are cats for bishops by nationality (Irish bishops) and also bishops in Ireland generally, who are either Irish or non-Irish. This cat is needed to fill the gap. After the Norman invasion of Ireland, most bishoprics fell into the hands of Norman appointees for several centuries. It's useful to know that for a considerable part of church history, most bishops in Ireland were not Irish nationals. This is surely unique in modern European church history. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like an intersection. We have a full tree of and another whole tree of, so presumably there are many cases where someone is a bishop in a country which isn't their own. For example, within a few seconds, I found Luis_Ignatius_Peñalver_y_Cárdenas and Francisco_Porró_y_Reinado who were both Bishops in the US but who weren't from the United States. Shall we create a  category to hold these fellows? This list is chock full of foreigners. I don't think we should start this scheme, it's overcategorization, this is the only instance and should be nipped in the bud.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply I deliberately confined myself to Europe above. Clearly the same logic would never arise for the New World since the vast majority of bishops in the New World were, until the 20th century, non nationals. Again, as I mentioned above, it's possible that the scheme might not be applicable outside the British Isles. Possibly only Scotland would merit a similar treatment. I can't think of another country in the Old World where the entire episcopacy was supplanted by non nationals for a significant period of time. So these two are exceptions but notable exceptions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge per nominator. This category appears to be a rather pointy way of labelling people. Sure, how any generations did Anglo-Norman people need to be in Ireland before losing the label "non-Irish"?  What about descendants of Vikings -- were they "non-Irish"? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply Since when is nationality a label? BHG sees malice where non is present. Nationality is a matter of fact, not opinion. If the article says that the bishop was born and raised in England and spent a lot of his career in England before being appointed as bishop, then he is non-Irish. The category currently, to my knowledge, contains no bishops born in Ireland. Any Viking bishops born in Norway are non-Irish; those Vikings born in Viking Dublin are Norse-Irish and I would hesitate to include them in the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge -- This might make an intersting subject for a list, but the before the 1920s, it is debatable what "Irish nationality" consisted of. There were probably a lot of Englishmen appointed to Church of Ireland sees, but the gap between them and gentry of the Protestant ascendancy was too narrow for it to be clear who were "Irish".  BHG also makes a good point about the Anglo-Norman aristocracy.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply So there were no Irish nationals before 1920? Interesting theory. As for the gap, it's not narrow - it's as wide as the Irish Sea; one is either born & bred in England or in Ireland. There is very little wiggle room and little need for speculation as to the criteria for admission to the category. There is no need for speculation about the bishop's political or national leanings. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge per nominator. Laurel Lodged seems to assume that someone born and raised in Foo makes them fooish, which is not so. In any case there is no Category:Non-Irish people in Ireland. Oculi (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Query On what basis then, have the articles in Category:Irish bishops been populated. By Oculi's rationale, it cannot be down to where they were born and bred. Some other criterion must be at work. What could that be? If non-Irish bishops is invalid, how can Irish bishops be valid? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable point, but doesn't get past the fact that it is highly non-standard to classify by a not - we might as well have Non-communist leaders of Russia and Non-Lithuanian actors in Lithuanian films, and so on and so forth - you can always construct the inverse of any given category through a set difference operation, but that doesn't make such valid as a categorization. Are there reliable sources which talk about these fellows as a group? Did they behave in significantly different ways than people born in Ireland? Also, FWIW, seems to be a top-level container, holding all Bishops in Ireland, no matter where they are from. That whole tree is rather confusing, and seems to have duplication between  and, but also some differences, I'm not sure what's going on...Category:Bishops_from_Ireland purports to contain Bishops from there, but who didn't serve there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge We avoid "non" categories. This one will also bring up, when do Anglo-Irish people become Irish? Is this Irish by nationality or by ethnicity? Do we include bishops who in some sense get "naturalized" to Ireland, and how does that work if the bishop was born in England in 1802 and died in 1880? What if he moved to Ireland when he was 2?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2014 (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:Strongmen

 * 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) 03:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Strongmen to Category:Strength athletes
 * Propose merging Category:Iranian strongmen to Category:Iranian strength athletes
 * Propose merging Category:Australian strongmen to Category:Australian strength athletes
 * Nominator's rationale: I can't tell the difference between these categories - as far as I can tell they are basically the same. I don't think we need to make a distinction between different types of strongmen vs strength athletes. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom.--Grahame (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge all, and redirect the head category. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly reverse merge We also have Category:Strongwomen. Is this a gendered sports competition, like say Category:Women's basketball players in which case we need to preserve the clear connection of gender to the roles being done?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2014 (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:Ancient Greeks sold as slaves

 * 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) 03:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Ancient Greeks sold as slaves to Category:Ancient Greek slaves and freedmen
 * Nominator's rationale: I don't see a need to distinguish which people became slaves because they were captured in war and sold as a slave, vs other ways of becoming a slave (being born a slave perhaps?) - we don't distinguish other slave categories in this fashion, so merging up will be simpler and more consistent here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge -- They saeem to cover much the same ground. I see little point in having a category for those sold into slavery or traded as slaves, distinct from those never sold.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge The distinction is not enough to justify a distinct category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (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:African slaves in the Americas

 * 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 - I'll drop a note on those supporting deletion to see if they want time to do any manual work. - jc37 22:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting african slaves in the americas


 * Nominator's rationale: We don't have a broader scheme of {ethnicity} {slaves} in {location}; in any case the bulk of slaves in the Americas were African, but this wasn't 100% the case - in any case we don't need an ethnic split here. Having such a split means we can't technically include underneath as any non-Africans would have to be removed, or require us to create  as a subcategory of . Ultimately, it's simpler to just delete this category, ensuring that all of the contents are categorized elsewhere, like  and  (currently up for rename/splitting). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but tag to be mainly container only. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest dealing with the issue that the by-country categories may contain non-african slaves?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Manually delete, setting up new national categories where needed e.g. Bayano requires a new Category:Panamanian slaves. All the old/new subcats should be in the New World or N/S America category, see discussion below. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The level to which slaves were of African, European or Native American descent is a complex issue which no one fully knows the answer to. What we do know is that in Maryland and Virginia in the late 17th-century some owners purposesly worked to bring about the marriage of female white indentured servants to male African salves so the former would also become slaves. The levels of Native American slaves is also highly debated. The ethnic origins of the salves are shroded in hard to decipher interchangeable use of words that did not have the same meaning but at times were treated as if they did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2014 (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:Slavery in the New World

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Slavery in the New World to Category:Slavery in North America and Category:Slavery in South America
 * Nominator's rationale: There aren't any other "X in the New World" categories that I'm aware of. We should just split this into the standard by-continent categories; alternately, it could be renamed . My gut it to split, but I could be convinced on a rename as well. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * see for how abolitionism is split by continent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Slavery in the Americas for constistency with African slaves item above. The split is unsatisfactory as it is not celar to me whether the West Indies are north or south.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Caribbean is generally considered part of North America. Nothing prevents dual categorization of a given island if it's disputed who it really belongs to (I think some islands close to S. America are considered part of SA).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Split we split by continent. Also "New World" is a Euro-centric term that ignores the fact that millions of people lived in those areas before Columbus "discovered" it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2014 (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:Slaves of the Muslim world

 * 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. Some of the contents are from modern times, e.g. all 3 pages in Category:Sudanese slaves, so the suggestion for  (or similar e.g. ) will not fit. I will move Category:Ghilman up into Category:Islam and slavery. The other sub-cats will remain parented by . – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting slaves of the muslim world


 * Nominator's rationale: This category groups together too many unlike things - slaves from 12th century arabia are grouped with child slaves from modern-day pakistan. The fact that we don't have is a demonstration of systemic bias. I think it's more neutral to group slaves by country - if necessary we could also create  and  etc to group by timelines, but having this mish mash that brings together slavery across 1000 years of history in majority islamic states violates NPOV. The reasons for slavery today are quite different than the reasons for slavery in the past. It appears this category was originally created to hold people whose nationality could not be easily determined, but this can still be fixed with better categories, e.g., etc. Otherwise the presence of this category and the lack of any categories about other ethno-religious groupings makes it seem like Muslims had a special relationship with slavery, even though it was equally endemic in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. Muslim world is also problematic here since over such a wide sweep of history, Muslim rulers controlled parts of Spain, southern europe, etc. All in all it's much better to group by neutral geographic categories, or time-bound categories vs this one, which is a hodge-podge of any slave in any state which could be called Muslim, at any point in history. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Slaves in the Muslim lands. Medieval Europe had serfs, but the difference is that Christians do not usually allow slavery, whereas Muslims are (according to their religion) only forbidden to enslave floow Muslims, something that seems to be ignored in Pakistan (and India).  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How about - this would bind it to a specific historical period? "Muslim lands" smacks of western-centrism. Read Mahmood Mamdani on same. Also, Christians did allow slavery - we have a whole article on Slavery_in_medieval_Europe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete If we need something that covers some of this we can have Category:Salvery in Western Asia. To assume Slavery in India under Mughal rule, slavery in what is now Indonesia under various sultantes before the Dutch incursion, slavery in the Sokoto Caliphate and slavery in the Ottoman Empire are linked by all being "Muslim" lands seems an unfounded supposition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Category:The Birds of Satan

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no category; request appears to refer to an article, see  – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:the birds of satan to Category:The Birds of Satan
 * Nominator's rationale: It's supposed to be capitalized. iloveartists2 (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2014 (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:East Godavari

 * 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) 02:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:East Godavari to Category:East Godavari district
 * Nominator's rationale: The full name is East Godavari district. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2014 (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:Masks in fiction

 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Propose deleting Category:Masks in fiction
 * Reason: Trivial. Not a plot element. 216.227.255.6 (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment in a few cases the mask is central to the plot, e.g. Man in the iron mask, which is not currnetly in it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: probably could be made useful. I have added The Phantom of the Opera. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not central to the plot itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2014 (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:Environmental 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.

(or purge of articles - see below. DexDor (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC))
 * The result of the discussion was: delete, as the sub-cats have now been deleted, see March 30 re Category:Goldman Environmental Prize winners and the section following it. – Fayenatic  L ondon
 * Propose deleting environmental award winners
 * Nominator's rationale: This category appears (it has no inclusion criteria specified) to be for anyone who has won any environmental award (it contains articles directly rather than subcats for specific awards). That is not a suitable way to categorize people (see WP:DEFINING and WP:OC). Categories like "Fooian environmentalists" and "Anti-fooing activists" etc are much better ways to categorize environmentalists. DexDor (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Subcategories have been created and added to this category. Those subcats are now also at CFD. I suggest that we purge this category of articles or wait for the subcat CFDs complete before closing this CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. This could work as a container, but there aren't any cats I could find for it to contain.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: this now has subcats, and so can serve as a container, but should be a container only. I leave it to others whether the recently created cats should survive or not. CFD tends to be rather picky about award cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -- WE cannot listify this one, since it is not about one award. Category:Environmental awards is a valid category, to contain articles on individual awards, probably commonly largely lists of winners, but we do not generally allow categories for winners.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the editor who started Category:Environmental award winners, I was notified about this discussion at 06:06, 21 March 2014.  I added an inclusion criterion at 19:09, 21 March 2014.  I started Category:Goldman Environmental Prize winners at 18:28, 21 March 2014, and I categorized 90 articles in it.  I started Category:Indianapolis Prize winners at 19:18, 21 March 2014, and I categorized four articles in it.  I categorized both new categories as subcategories of Category:Environmental award winners.  WP:DEFINING suggests that a mention of a characteristic in the lead can be a rule-of-thumb for deciding whether the characteristic is "defining".  I found that many of the articles in Category:Goldman Environmental Prize winners do mention the characteristic (being an environmental award winner) in their respective lead portions.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - While I support deleting almost all "award winner" categories, until we have actually done so, we need a reasonable way to collect winners of environment-related awards. Feel free to rename the category, but I strongly recommend against deleting it, until we have actually cleaned up the "award winner" categories. Which sprout heads and grow like hydras in the absence of routine pruning. --Lquilter (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete. One of the subcategories had noting to do with environment (and was removed), but is about conservation of animal species.  That is a different topic.  The other subcategory is covered by a list in the article.  The remaining content can simply be listified with a see also the the other article which already has a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This does not meet the requirements for award cats, that they be a defining award. This is not even one specific award at all. The sub-cats probably should also be nominated for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2014 (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:Compositions by Ilayaraja
<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:Film scores by Ilaiyaraaja, and clean up as needed. Feel free to boldly merge the albums category at editorial discretion. - jc37 22:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting compositions by ilayaraja


 * Nominator's rationale: Category too identical to Category:Ilaiyaraaja albums. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments – Category:Compositions by Ilayaraja is a category of 327 films (so far), whereas Category:Ilaiyaraaja albums is a category of 5 soundtrack albums. The name is Ilaiyaraaja, not Ilayaraja, and a film is not a composition; and do we have 'Films with music by foo' categories? Oculi (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments - Category:Compositions by Ilayaraja should be promoted as it is listed along the format of all music directors, like Arthur Sullivan, Johann Sebastian Bach, Richard Wagner etc etc. We need to follow that format and not the newly created Category:Ilaiyaraaja albums The name (spelling ) is listed different like Ilaiyaraaja, Ilayaraja or Illaiyaraja....all these takes to main page only.Rajeshbieee (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. As far as I know, we don't categorize films by who composed the music in the film. That appears to be what this is categorizing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This category can be useful for songs composed by Ilaiyaraaja, and not whole albums/soundtracks, and definitely not films. But there is only one song by Ilaiyaraaja that has its own article (Rakkamma Kaiya Thattu), meaning this category is useless. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Film scores by Ilayaraaja (note change of spelling). there is a fairly well-populated Category:Film scores by composer. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Film scores by Ilayaraaja. I agree with Fayenatic  L ondon. If necessary, new "Category:Compositions by Ilayaraaja" can be created as its parent category. --Tijd-jp (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Change new name to Category:Film scores by Ilaiyaraaja per Ilaiyaraaja (Ilaiyaraaja). Also, merge Category:Ilaiyaraaja albums into this one, as Ilaiyaraaja was the composer rather than the artist. If this merge is agreed then there will be no need for a new Compositions parent. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:40, 19 April 2014 (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.