Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 6



Category:Metropolitans of Kyiv and All Ukraine

 * 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:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church following February 21. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting metropolitans of kyiv and all ukraine
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Since only Mefodiy (Kudriakov) is using the title Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine, it made more sense to categorize him together with the other primates of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church into the category that is currently named Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev and all Rus'. This nomination is a follow-up on this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -- It is a pity that the discussions of 21 February are still open. When only one person has held a title, the practice has been to redirect an article on the title to that on the man.  I am afraid that there is too much nationalist politics here for a permanent solution: the church in an independent state does not like being governed by the leader of its equivalent in another. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2015 (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:Nintendo GameCube DK Bongos games

 * 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. MER-C 11:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting nintendo gamecube dk bongos games


 * Nominator's rationale: Seems like WP:SMALLCAT and a trivial intersection. It's not part of an established tree (Games by controller and system?), and we can be reasonably certain that it will never get larger. Conceivably, Donkey Konga 2 and Donkey Konga 3 could get standalone articles, but that's it. BDD (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree this is WP:SMALLCAT, unlikely to grow. Forbes72 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2015 (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:WikiProject Computer science stubs

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:WikiProject Computer science stubs to Category:Computer science stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category (both these categories are categorizing article pages, not talk pages). Wikiproject categorization should be on talk pages (e.g. Category:Stub-Class Computing articles). DexDor (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support and can we also make sure that remains non-hidden even though  is hidden. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment These categories are, or at least were, not duplicates. Category:Computer science stubs is a regular stub category for articles tagged with (and only with) comp-sci-stub. Category:WikiProject Computer science stubs is a meta-category that contains all stub articles within the scope of WikiProject Computer science. This includes not only comp-sci-stub, but also prog-lang-stub and soft-eng-stub among many other. It is used to count the total number of stubs in scope of the project, to generate lists of recent changes to the stubs, as an input the the article alerts rapport and various other tools running on the toolserver. —Ruud 22:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:WikiProject Computer science stubs should not exist, it is an administrative category, but this should be handled through which uses Category:Stub-Class Computer science articles instead. The wikiproject should not be indicated in aa stub-tree category name. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most articles with a stub tag, do not have a project tag on the talk page. Even if all existing stub articles would be tagged via the talk page, new stubs will be created in the future that would not get tagged immediately on the talk page. These categories should not be merged, I see no compelling reason to delete them. —Ruud 14:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You could ask ask to send in  for a "WikiProjectTagger" run, see User:AnomieBOT, first row. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


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

Category:People excommunicated by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People excommunicated by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) to Category:People excommunicated by Latter Day Saint churches
 * Nominator's rationale: Only a single page in category, and unlikely to be many more. p  b  p  16:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. If upmerged, would also need to be merged to . Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * keep. I would be inclined to keep, simply because the proposed target is more like a "container category" for people who were excommunicated from a class of denominations. In my opinion, the target is not really intended to contain individual articles, just subcategories. (I created the nominated category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that several of the subcategories contain 5 articles or fewer, and are likely never to contain many more than that. I grant that the situation is not ideal, but at present, the category should be deleted for failing WP:SMALLCAT.  p  b  p  14:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would doubt that they will never contain more. But WP:SMALLCAT doesn't really apply: the category will not by its very definition only have a few members (this church still exists and still excommunicates people). WP:SMALLCAT is often misunderstood to be a reference to all small categories, which it is not. It is a reference to categories that by their very definitions can only ever have a limited number of articles. It can also be argued that it's part of an overall categorization scheme that subdivides by sect. That said, it's not a particularly "large" overall scheme, so the latter argument is not as good as the former. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support double merge, it seems very reasonable if the target category would consist of its two bigger child categories and 11 individual articles (which would require 3 more merge nominations). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Double Merge Per Marcocapelle. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - There are literally several hundred sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. To merge the excommunicated from.... pages into one category would put them all under the same umbrella as the LDS Church, which is very POVish toward the biggest of the Latter Day Saint sects.  It would be no different then putting the LDS Church in a category like "People excommunicated from Christian churches".  It isn't specific enough.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 18:03, 20 April 2015 (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.

Latter Day Saint hymnwriters by nationality

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


 * The result of the discussion was: upmerge Scottish and Welsh to British, no consensus on others. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Upmerge Category:British Latter Day Saint hymnwriters to Category:British hymnwriters, Category:British Latter Day Saints and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters
 * Upmerge Category:English Latter Day Saint hymnwriters to Category:English hymnwriters, Category:English Latter Day Saints and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters
 * Upmerge Category:Danish Latter Day Saint hymnwriters to Category:Danish hymnwriters, Category:Danish Latter Day Saints and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters
 * Upmerge Category:Dutch Latter Day Saint hymnwriters to Category:Dutch hymnwriters, Category:Dutch Latter Day Saints and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters
 * Upmerge Category:Scottish Latter Day Saint hymnwriters to Category:Scottish hymnwriters, Category:Scottish Latter Day Saints and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters
 * Upmerge Category:German Latter Day Saint hymnwriters to Category:German hymnwriters, Category:German Latter Day Saints and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters
 * Upmerge Category:Welsh Latter Day Saint hymnwriters to Category:Welsh hymnwriters, Category:Welsh Latter Day Saints and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters
 * Nominator's rationale This is the only case where a sub-category of Category:Hymn writers is split by nationality. Even Category:Christian hymnwriters, which is the parent of Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters is not split by nationality in general. Last rung categories are not supposed to be by religion. No other hymnwriters in any of these nationality categories are seperated out by religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure why the overall parent category is with a space. Some have argued that hymns are limited to Christian religions. This is not true. For example there are Zemirot, that are Jewish hymns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support all except one per WP:SMALLCAT. Keep the English category and further diffuse Category:English hymnwriters parent by denomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Danish, German, Dutch, etc. LDS theology is so different from other Christians that they need separate categories, even if small ones.   Keep British, but merge into it English, Welsh, Scottish.  The British category is unlikely to be sufficiently populated to need splitting by country.  If the Welsh writer's hymns were in Welsh, we might keep that one too.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You consistently ignore the fact that the main categories are not religion specific. By putting Later Day Saints in a separate category but no other religion at the national level, you imply that Later-day Saints have less claim to the nationality at stake than others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment An example that disproves Timrollpickering's Peterkingiron's claim is Come, Come Ye Saints. This hymn has appeared in hymnbooks of both the United Church of Christ and the Seventh Day Adventists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What claim by Timrollpickering is being referenced here? (That user has not commented in this discussion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I used the wrong name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2015 (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.

American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Upmerge Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters to Category:American hymnwriters, Category:American Latter Day Saints and Category:Latter Day Saint hymnwriters
 * Nominator's rationale This is a triple intersection of nationality + religion + occupation. Triple intersection categories are highly discouraged. Beyond this, this is the only subcategory of Category:American hymnwriters. Hymnwriters of all other faiths are categorized as American, but Latter Day Saint hymnwriters are categorized in a sub-category. The current set up also violates the rule that categories by Religion, ethnicity or sex should not be the only way a person is categorized in a given occupation. So people in this sub-category need to also be in a non-religion specific sub-category of Category:American hymnwriters. I tried to fix the problem, but my fix was reverted by an extremely experienced editor who is an administrator. This shows that counting on non-diffusal rules to stop dispersion into poorly named categories does not work. The best solution is to upmerge this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment No other sub-category of Category:Christian hymnwriters is subdivided by nationality. Category:Roman Catholic hymnwriters is not. There is no good reason to subdivide the Latter Day Saint category in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and further diffuse Category:American hymnwriters parent by denomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Previous discussion ended in no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Due to its very different theology LDS (also Jehovah's Witnesses) need separate categories. Other Christians are unlikely to sing LDS hymns.  I am doubtful about splitting the others by denomination as Baptists will sing Methodist (Wesley) hymns, Congregationalist (Isaac Watts) hymns etc.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claim has been shown to be false with citations to non-LDS use of the hymns of Orrin Hatch and Janice Kapp Perry. They have had work recorded by non-Latter-day Saints in Nashville. Beyon that, you ignore the reality that the category is not split by religion at all. This is the only subcategory of Category:American hymnwriters. The current system suggests that Latter-day Saints are less American than any other religious group in the United States. This is the ultimate in ghettoization. Your attempt to justify it by claiming that Later-day Saints are fully marginalized in fact, which I can disprove, is more disturbing. Religious oratorios by Rob Gardner (composer) have been performed by Christian organizations with few if any Latter-day Saints involved in them. The use of Wikipedia to justify and further the marginalization of a specific group of people in a profesion on religious grounds is objectionable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2015 (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.

Georgia (U.S. state) colonial people

 * 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:People of Georgia (British colony). -- slakr  \ talk / 02:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Georgia (U.S. state) colonial people to Category:People of colonial Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Nominator's rationale We should make it clear that colonial is modifying the place, not the people. I listed this one seperately because I am not sure that this is the best format. I am not sure if there is a better way to call Georgia in the pre-United States era that makes it unambiguous what we are referring to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Category: Georgia (British colony) people ? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a whole cluster of categories whose names don't make sense here, the oddest one probably being Category:Pre-statehood history of Georgia (U.S. state). I share 70.51.200.101's thought that the problem is with the parenthetical itself, not the order in which it appears.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest Category:People of Georgia (British colony), combining the nomination and the previous comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternative Rename to Category:People of Georgia (British colony). Seems like a reasonable compromise. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Prefer the last suggestion. The other is anachronistic.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am in full support of Category:People of Georgia (British Colony) being the result.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like we have consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2015 (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.

American colonial people

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename the following:


 * Rename Category:Florida colonial people to Category:People of colonial Florida
 * Rename Category:Rhode Island colonial people to Category:People of colonial Rhode Island
 * Rename Category:Pennsylvania colonial people to Category:People of colonial Pennsylvania
 * Rename Category:North Carolina colonial people to Category:People of colonial North Carolina
 * Rename Category:New York colonial people to Category:People of colonial New York
 * Rename Category:New Jersey colonial people to Category:People of colonial New Jersey
 * Rename Category:New Hampshire colonial people to Category:People of colonial New Hampshire
 * Rename Category:Maryland colonial people to Category:People of colonial Maryland
 * Rename Category:Delaware colonial people to Category:People of colonial Delaware
 * Rename Category:Connecticut colonial people to Category:People of colonial Connecticut
 * Rename Category:Maine colonial people to Category:People of colonial Maine

The full list in the original nomination, however, does not appear to have clear consensus. In the future, I'd recommend not batching different-subject renames (e.g., "people" with "colonial governors" with "women"), as it makes it a pain to figure out who's actually supporting what (and whether it's merely implicit or safe to assume it's so) when they're opposing half of the nomination but not explicitly supporting the other half, so here if I had doubts as to the intent, I tried to go with the more conservative assumption.

-- slakr \ talk / 02:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:American colonial people to Category:People of colonial America
 * Rename Category:Florida colonial people to Category:People of colonial Florida
 * Rename Category:American colonial women Category:Colonial American women to Category:Women of colonial America
 * Rename Category:Rhode Island colonial people to Category:People of colonial Rhode Island
 * Rename Category:Pennsylvania colonial people to Category:People of colonial Pennsylvania
 * Rename Category:Colonial governors of Rhode Island to Category:Governors of colonial Rhode Island
 * Rename Category:Colonial governors of Pennsylvania to Category:Governors of colonial Pennsylvania
 * Rename Category:North Carolina colonial people to Category:People of colonial North Carolina
 * Rename Category:Colonial governors of North Carolina to Category:Governors of colonial North Carolina
 * Rename Category:New York colonial people to Category:People of colonial New York
 * Rename Category:Colonial governors of New York to Category:Governors of colonial New York
 * Rename Category:New Jersey colonial people to Cateogry:People of colonial New Jersey
 * Rename Category:Colonial governors of New Jersey to Category:Governors of colonial New Jersey
 * Rename Category:New Hampshire colonial people to Category:People of colonial New Hampshire
 * Rename Category:Colonial governors of New Hampshire to Category:Governors of colonial New Hampshire
 * Rename Category:Maryland colonial people to Category:People of colonial Maryland
 * Rename Category:Colonial politicians from Maryland to Category:Politicians from colonial Maryland (or of colonial Maryland, I am unsure which is better)
 * Rename Category:Colonial Governors of Maryland to Category:Governors of colonial Maryland
 * Rename Category:Delaware colonial people to Category:People of colonial Delaware
 * Rename Category:Connecticut colonial people to Category:People of colonial Connecticut
 * Rename Category:Colonial governors of Connecticut to Category:Governors of colonial Connecticut
 * Rename Category:Maine colonial people to Category:People of colonial Maine


 * Nominator's rationale The issues is that the place these people are connected to is "colonial Pennsylvania", "colonial Flordia" etc., not that the people themselves are in some way "colonial". Colonial is modifying the place, not the people. We do not have Category:Michigan territorial people but Category:People of Michigan Territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support all except one per nom. For the first one, Category:American colonial people, we should find a better name. Perhaps Category:People of colonial North America and I'm open to other suggestions. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:American colonial women already has the sub-cat Category:North American colonial women in warfare. I want to keep focused as much as possible on the issue of the naming of the state categories to start with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then it might be an idea to nominate the American one separately. Again, for the state categories this nomination makes a lot of sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is now Category:Colonial American women in warfare. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support all except one per John. Forbes72 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose colonial governor ones. The phrase "colonial governors" is well-understood, I'm not seeing the ambiguity. Neutralitytalk 17:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose colonial governor changes. The phrase "colonial governors" is used for such categories and articles from many countries not just here. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would rather maintain support for the governors nomination. "Colonial governors" implies that it's a particular type of governor or a particular title but in fact these people were just governors. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * oppose Category:American colonial people to Category:People of colonial America. It is clear in WP that 'American' refers to the US and it people, including governing entities of the US area prior to there being a US.  On the other hand, it is not clear that 'colonial America' includes just and only the US area; it could include colonial Canada, Newfoundland, Mexico, central and south American and so on. This category does not include and is not meant to include anything more than it does now: US land area.  The rename would not make that clear. Hmains (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the alternative Category:People of colonial North America? Obviously this name would broaden the scope a bit but at least it would make it clearer. Also, in colonial times, a clear separation between American colonies on the one hand and Canadian colonies on the other hand didn't exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is about the areas that became the US and not about the areas that became Canada. Nor about Mexico and the Central American part of the North American continent. Clearly, this is not about 'North America'. Hmains (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * oppose Category:American colonial women to Category:Women of colonial America. 'American colonial women' seems to a phrase common in literature while 'Women of colonial America' seems rather unused. Hmains (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Common usage is not a good guidelines when the common usage is misleading and inaccurate. Colonial + people implies a certain status of the people. It is hard to see how we can tag Pocahontas or Molly Brant as a "colonial woman", but they clearly are women of colonial America.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2015 (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:CERN Personalities

 * 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. MER-C 12:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:CERN Personalities to Category:People associated with CERN
 * Nominator's rationale: Common style for categories of this sort, compare for instance Category:People associated with the University of Oxford and countless others. Favonian (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename to conform to common usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you very much for your comments, I appreciate it. I will rename the category asap, but what are you proposing on the linking that I want to do with my category and Cern's website?
 * Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellipapa (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you can't do that yourself as it requires changing all the articles that are included in the category. Just lean back and wait for the process to take its course. Favonian (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment technically it is possible for a user to unilaterally rename a category by changing it in all articles, and this has been done. However, it is considered out of process and not the way things ought to be done on wikipedia. If one wants to rename a category one should nominate it here, and wait for an adminsitrator to close the nomination, then the renaming will be done automatically.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename - as above. Neutralitytalk 15:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am wary "associated with" categories, because they are liable to be open-ended, which cannot be allowed. I do not like the present name, but the target is even worse.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, you should probably start a discussion on the WT:Category names or similar. According to this listing, there are more than 400 categories named thus. Favonian (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Adopting another common format would be . I think I favour that general format, simply because it's shorter and somehow a little less squishy and vague than using "associated with", even though the ultimate meaning is essentially the same. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, ? Those demarcates the category much more clearly. Universities tend to have "faculty" cats. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "People" can be good precisely because it keeps it broad. Because of its size, we would want this category to be relatively comprehensive, and not by implication omit anyone who should be categorized in relation to CERN. A narrower category might do so inadvertently. Universities have more people to categorize, but they also often have "people" categories, which houses subcategories of alumni, staff, faculty, chancellors, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2015 (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.

Massachusetts

 * 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 Category:Massachusetts colonial people to Category:People of colonial Massachusetts; no consensus on the governors. -- slakr  \ talk / 02:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Massachusetts colonial people to Category:People of colonial Massachusetts
 * Rename Category:Colonial governors of Massachusetts to Category:Governors of colonial Massachusetts
 * Nominators reason In these categories, what is colonial is Massachusetts, not the people. We already have some categories that reflect this fact like Category:People from colonial Boston, Massachusetts. The first is a category of people by location, so the location name should be kept unified. The LG category also already follows the suggested form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Another point is we do not have categories like Category:Territorial people of Utah but Category:People of Utah Territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just curious: for the sake of MOS consistency, should we rename People from colonial Boston, Massachusetts to People of colonial Boston, Massachusetts?? Quis separabit?  15:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That might make sense. However it is a sub-category of Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts. The of/from divide is complex, in part because functionally they are sort of the same word, although not always overlapping in meaning. Category:Massachusetts colonial people is a sub-cat of Category:People of pre-statehood Massachusetts which is a sub-cat of Category:People by era in Massachusetts which in turn is a sub-cat of Category:People from Massachusetts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Once I've seen a suggestion to replace 'of' by 'in', with the purpose of differentiating it more clearly from 'from'. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose colonial governor change. The phrase "colonial governors" is used for such categories and articles from many countries not just here. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will you then support the creation of Category:Colonial governors of Utah because after Brigham Young there were much more colonial officials than any governor of Massachusetts before 1776 ever was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support including the governors category. "Colonial governors" implies that it's a particular type of governor or a particular title but in fact these people were just governors. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2015 (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:Estonian freedom fighters

 * 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. MER-C 11:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename DELETE Category:Estonian freedom fighters due to subjective wording, i.e. "freedom fighters". Quis separabit?  04:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note/comment. This is sort of an "award" category, not a purely descriptive one: the definition is "people who have been formally recognised by the Estonian state, via an award such as the Order of the Cross of the Eagle, as a 'Freedom fighter'." Absent some sort of explanatory article, I think it should probably be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, too much overlap with Category:Recipients of the Military Order of the Cross of the Eagle. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2015 (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:Red and white flags

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- slakr  \ talk / 01:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting red and white flags
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure about this, but I'd like to see a discussion on it. This is the only category I can find that categorizes flags by specific colours. We do have categories that group them by other design features: . I'm not sure that specific colour is a way we want to divide flags, so I lean towards deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. On the one hand, one can't deny that red and white is a defining characteristic. On the other hand, one may regard shared colors as similar to shared names, so we might delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, but that's probably not a very convincing argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points, and I think that's why I am unsure. It's pretty defining, but it still feels like categorization that is a bit arbitrary for some reason. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. If this category stays, I would expect Category:Red flags and Category:white flags to exist. If the parent's descriptiveness is in question, we shouldn't need to address the subcategories. Secondly, the divisions of color in a flag are somewhat subjective.(WP:SUBJECTIVECAT) Does the blue in Argentina's flag deserve to be in the same blue category as the much darker European Union flag, or do we split to light blue flags? Does the little bit of red in the Vatican's flag make it a red flag, or is only white and yellow? Too many trivial mostly subjective questions to implement colored flag categories. Overall, not a super strong case, but I think it's enough to settle on delete. Forbes72 (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I don't share my fellow editors' sense of ambivalence on this one. Grouping flags from different times, different places, with different symbols together because they share two colors doesn't seem to aid navigation to me.  Color certainly could be part of a solid category like Category:White Ensigns but not by itself. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we're ambivalent only because color is such a defining characteristic of a flag. I've seen flag books that divide flags up and categorize them by color scheme, so it's not an idea that this category has invented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, they *are* visual devices after all. I guess I look at them more symbolically than visually. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So does this have implications for your vote? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For me, I can see both sides, but I think that ultimately, Forbes72 makes some good points as to some of the problems we would encounter if we undertook to expand this type of thing and categorize flags by color scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, just trying to understand both perspectives. I'm afraid this would lead to categories with every possible color combination. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I'm having second thoughts based on the Coat of Arms nominations. By "look" might work for visual symbols but I would lean toward listifying. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Listify This is a valid idea to explore from a vexillology perspective, but by no means does every single article on a red and white flag require direct navigation to every other red and white flag (which is the purpose of a category). The flags' being red and white is overwhelmingly incidental, rather than being a choice related to other such-coloured flags. SFB 19:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This seems to be a valid form of categorization - (unike the coats-of-arms-by-charge categories) each flag article should only be in one by-colours category. DexDor (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at List of flags by number of colors, I'm not sure each flag would be in just one color category. The ones at the bottom of the list with 10+ colors would probably too unusual to create a single category for. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But surely Category:Red and white flags is for flags that have only those colours. DexDor (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes—that's how this category is currently populated—with flags that only have red and white in it, and no other colours. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with this category, I just meant, if we expanded out this flag by colors tree, other flags with many colors would probably be in multiple categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather prefer DexDor's idea of having each flag in (max) one color category. In other words, flags with three or more colors would then just not be categorized in a by-color tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Flag of Malta and Flag of Gibraltar are not strictly two-color. Choor monster (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2015 (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.