Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25



Byzantine bishops

 * 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: do not merge. MER-C 11:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:8th-century Byzantine bishops to Category:8th-century bishops
 * Propose upmerging Category:9th-century Byzantine bishops to Category:9th-century bishops
 * Propose upmerging Category:10th-century Byzantine bishops to Category:10th-century bishops
 * Propose upmerging Category:11th-century Byzantine bishops to Category:11th-century bishops
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:NONDEF, the respective bishops are mostly characterized just as "bishop of [place]", not as "Byzantine bishop" - which is not at all surprising because the traditional "official" year of separation between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine) churches was as late as 1054. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose due to false understanding of the category's nature. "Byzantine" is not a religious denomination, but a nationality, i.e. this category concerns prelates from, or active in, the Byzantine Empire. And I request the nominator to restore the other related categories "X-th century Byzantine bishops" to the many articles he deleted it from. The category is a subset of "X-th century Byzantine people" by occupation, and is of use independently of the Great Schism. Constantine  ✍  22:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that is really a good idea. It means you need to find bishops of Thessaloniki in the Byzantine category in one century but in the Eastern Orthodox category in another century. I'd say that in case of bishops a stable categorization by see is more important than nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the problem is. A Byzantine bishop of the 9th century is two things: a Christian bishop and a Byzantine subject. A Byzantine bishop of the 12th century is two things: an Eastern Orthodox Christian bishop and a Byzantine subject. If you make the EO category a parent category after 1054, then there really is no problem. And for the few who were Byzantine but Catholic, say in the 15th century, you can add extra categories. Anyhow, I consider it important to have a "Byzantine bishops" category, much like "Byzantine monks", because these people are distinctive groups with a major role in the history of Byzantium. And given how many there are, subcategorizing by century also makes sense. Constantine  ✍  08:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With monks we have a similar problem, Byzantine is a defining characteristic of monks of the category only if this person has been closely affiliated to the Byzantine court. Otherwise monks are characterized as Christian or Eastern Orthodox. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "only if this person has been closely affiliated to the Byzantine court" Huh? Where is this written? Are Category:Italian monks affiliated closely with the Italian court? "Byzantine" is a nationality (and ipso facto, at least in later centuries, a specific cultural identity). Someone born a Byzantine who went to become a monk in Mount Athos remains a Byzantine. Place of birth, language, religious practice, recognizing the Byzantine emperor as ruler, all of this matters as to whether someone was "Byzantine". Proximity to the court has nothing to do with this. Constantine  ✍  19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't get me wrong. I was just reading the articles, and this was my empirical observation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it. It is just that we usually know of such people to the degree that they came into contact with the court, and thereby to the attention of historians. However there is still lots of ground to cover in the area, rest assured. Constantine  ✍  22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose This refers to subjects of an Empire who happened to be bishops. Not to anachronistic Eastern Orthodox bishops. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Byzantine is a nationality. The empire was largely Greek-speaking and headed (religiously) by the Patriarch of Byzantium, rather than the Pope of Rome, who headed the Latin-speaking church.  I do not think we need to make the Great Schism a dividing point.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not primarily to make the Great Schism a dividing point here, I was planning to propose an upmerge to Eastern Orthodox bishops for the 12th to 15th century in a later stage, which I'd better postpone given the amount of opposition at this nomination. Anyway, the point at stake really is whether Byzantine is a defining characteristic. Given the varying borders of the Empire in the course of time it nearly requires OR to determine whether or not a provincial town was still within the borders of the Empire in a particular century - which is opposite of what a defining characteristic is meant to be. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that last argument is pure nonsense. In most cases we know pretty well when a bishop was under Byzantine imperial authority. And nationality always is a pretty defining characteristic for a person, as is evidenced by the host of nationality-based categories we have. Churchmen are no different in this regard. I really don't understand how you suggest religious affiliation might displace nationality; they are two different things... And, I feel I have to stress this to avoid future discussions, "Byzantine" is not coterminous with "Eastern Orthodox" or even with generic "Christian", whatever that might be; there were plenty non-Chalcedonian bishops in the 4th-7th centuries, a few Uniates in the 15th, and Armenian Apostolic ones in the 10th-11th centuries. Constantine  ✍  19:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nationality is actually a rather new concept. For example, I really wouldn't know what "nationality" an 18th-century parish priest in Nassau would have. The more ancient we go, the more speculative nationality becomes, unless people are related to a monarch's court (and fortunately for WP categorization, the more ancient centuries have a higher proportion of notable people related to a monarch's court). With Byzantine people, from what I saw, they are regularly mentioned in Wikipedia without a nationality or sometimes as being Greek (is that having Greek "nationality"?). As for your last remark about Byzantine and Eastern Orthodox, I know and agree with what you're saying. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted that nationality in the modern sense is a recent development, but in the sense of belonging to a people/state/culture/etc it is by definition as old as the first social/political organizations, which is why we have nationality-like categories for Babylonians, Romans, Athenians, Sasanians, etc. This is in the same vein: "Byzantine" as in part of the Byzantine political and cultural sphere, not necessarily "Byzantine" as in pure Byzantine Greek descent... There were plenty of Armenians, Syriacs, Bulgarians, etc. who came from the margins or outside the Empire and became assimilated so as to be undistinguishable from the other "Byzantines", after all. Constantine  ✍  22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Byzantine has a many-layered tree structure that I would be loath to see unravelled. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The splitting of occupations by what country the subject is a national of is a well established pattern.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 5 June 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.

2nd-millennium BC executions

 * 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. MER-C 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:11th-century BC executions to Category:2nd-millennium BC executions and Category:11th-century BC deaths
 * Propose upmerging Category:12th-century BC executions to Category:2nd-millennium BC executions and Category:12th-century BC deaths
 * Propose upmerging Category:14th-century BC executions to Category:2nd-millennium BC executions and Category:14th-century BC deaths
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support we do not need a plethora of small ancient categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 26 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.

1st-millennium BC executions

 * 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. MER-C 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose upmerging Category:7th-century BC executions to Category:1st-millennium BC executions and Category:7th-century BC deaths
 * Propose upmerging Category:8th-century BC executions to Category:1st-millennium BC executions and Category:8th-century BC deaths
 * Propose upmerging Category:9th-century BC executions to Category:1st-millennium BC executions and Category:9th-century BC deaths
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in each category. (Starting in the 6th century BC there is sufficient content for century executions categories.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support we do not need a plethora of small ancient categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 26 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.

Category:English feminists

 * 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: do not merge. MER-C 12:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:English feminists to Category:British feminists
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The UK is a unitary sovereign state. England is not a country any more than Hawaii is. I cannot find, for example a category for Texan feminists or Bavarain feminists. Having a separate category is disorganised. It reduces the impact (American feminists category has 597 members, British has 100, English has 132) and relevance of categories. The majority of people in England identify as British first, and a massive majority identify as British combined. It is wrong to reject this identity and nationality AusLondonder (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment It's a part of the wider Category:English people (and associated article English people). That category has been stable since 2004. I'm inclined to keep it. Brandmeistertalk  12:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Length of existence of a category does not mean it is appropriate. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep British articles are typically subcategorized to English, Scottish, and Welsh categories. This is far from unique. Dimadick (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the best argument. Look at my argument. Having separate categories is ludicrous. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep UK is not homogeneous. We have many categories split according to the four home countries.  There are significant differences (for example) between English and Welsh.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would strike that comment, User:Peterkingiron. It is an unnecessary personal reflection on another contributor due to their implied nationality. Stick to the issues, and explain why, despite an absolute majority of people residing in England identify as British first, that identification should be ignored in a unitary sovereign state. There are differences between New Yorkers and Texans, but separate categories do not exist AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comments are a very serious breach of WP:TALKNO, User:Peterkingiron. Would you be making such a reflection on me if my username was AfricanLondonder or ChineseLondonder? AusLondonder (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Peterkingiron - See also WP:WIAPA which states 'Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.' WP:NPA states 'Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly racist or sexist insults) should not be ignored' AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to have offended, and have deleted (not merely struck) the offending words. I was not intending to be racist.  I was questioning whether the nominator was sufficiently familiar with UK to say that it is homegeneous: it is not.  London is probably the most cosmopolitan part of UK.  I refrain from commenting on local issues in other countries, or if I do make my lack of knowledge clear.  We have national and ethnic categories in WP galore; and many US categories have 50 or so subcats, one for each state.  The argumetn thus has a false premise.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. However, I do not accept that I have little knowledge on UK issues. My edits usually relate to topics about the UK ie politics, books, individuals and organisations. With regards to categorisation in the US, these subcategories rarely relate to individuals. For example, the American feminists category has only Puerto Rico (a special case, similar to an overseas territory) as a location-based subcategory. If both categories are retained, I think individuals should be placed in both the English and British categories, given the fact the vast majority of people residing in England identify as British. AusLondonder (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also point out there are not significant differences between the parts of the UK and feminism, see Feminism in the United Kingdom AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This seems like a reasonable point of diffusion on what would otherwise be a large category. No opinion on whether feminism is homogeneous across Great Britain. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The point is User:RevelationDirect, feminism is the same across the UK, see Feminism in the United Kingdom. It does not make sense to have separate categories, just as it wouldn't make sense to have separate categories for Alabamian feminists or Rhode Islander feminists. AusLondonder (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep in the same way as I would say weak keep for Alabamian feminists or Rhode Islander feminists if they would exist as a category. I appreciate these large categories to be diffused some way, although geographical diffusion may not be the best way of diffusing in this particular case. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - for reasons of diffusion as above. There is a whole other discussion to be had on the status of England, which is not necessary here. Eustachiusz (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been shocked by the poor quality of this debate. No credible reason actually exists to keep this category. It is an example of overcategorisation and deliberate destruction of British identity, even when a majority of people in England identify as British first AusLondonder (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then what would be your preference of diffusing the large British (and American) categories, if not geographically? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:14, 5 June 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:9th-century Roman Catholic bishops

 * 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 23:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:9th-century Roman Catholic bishops to Category: 9th-century bishops
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge as the categories for Roman Catholicism extend back to the 11th century only eg Category:11th-century Roman Catholicism or Category:11th-century Roman Catholic priests or Category:11th-century Roman Catholic bishops. NB:The category is rather lacking in parent categories, as it should (if kept) link also to Category: 9th-century bishops And the 11th to 17th centuries also need the category for Roman Catholic clergy by century (eg Category:14th-century Roman Catholic clergy) as a parent category for priests, bishops etc in that century. NB: the subcategories of Category:Popes by century eg Category:14th-century popes do not have any link to the appropriate category for the particular century, i.e. similar to Category:18th-century Roman Catholic clergy or Category:18th-century Roman Catholicism (Not sure about pre-11th-century popes though). Hugo999 (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. The Great Schism occurred in 1054. Prior to that AFAIK all bishops were "Roman Catholic" anyway, so I see no need for separate categories earlier than the 11th century. However, from 1054 there were Roman Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox bishops, so there is a logic for separate cats from then on. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support upmerge. There were a few minority churches in (eastern) Christianity as early as the 9th century, but belonging to the far majority is not a defining characteristic. (By the way, the parenting issue has been solved.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support upmerge. Anachronistic category. Dimadick (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- This is the counterpart to the nom relating to Byzantine bishops (above), where a consensus to keep is emerging. The Western Church looked to Rome as the eastern one did to Byzantium.  It generally spoke Latin (not Greek).  Even if we should amalgamate Catholic and Orthodox before the Great Schism, there were other denominations already not in communion with them, such as Coptic and certain other oriental ones.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I referred to in my comment as well. However, I think we should have Coptic subcategories rather than Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox subcategories. Coptic is clearly defining, while Roman Catholic is not (at least not in this century). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Re Category:Non-Chalcedonian Christians some are part of Oriential Orthodoxy while some Armenian, Ethiopian and Coptic Christians are not. They would be in the main category e.g. 16th-century bishops, 16th-century Christians etc. unless individual subcategories are warranted. Hugo999 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, we should have Coptic etc. categories since the Coptic Church became independent and we should have Roman Catholic categories since there is a separate Roman Catholic Church (usually dated in 1054). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Pre-schism there is no point in making the distinction. It's not a "by nationality" category so the Greek/Latin argument does not apply. If there's enough content for Oriental bishops, fine, create it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There were many bishops not part of the Byzantium/Roman network in the 9th century, various Oriental Orthodox Christian would be an example. The Roman Catholic name seems to specific, but undifferentiated bishops would be too unspecific. I guess the best solution might be to create Category:9th century Chalcedonian bishops.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the rules of "vast majority is not defining" have not generally been applied in religious cases. For example, roughly 98% of those in the Latter Day Saint movement are part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this is way more than the % of the Chalcedonic to non-Chalcedonic in 9th century Christianity, but that does not stop us having specific categories for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We cannot treat religious outliers with the same rules used for ethnic minorites, or even for subdividing a nationality by religion. We should avoid any categorization in religion that proclaims one group as the norm and others as the outliers. In the case of Christinity, the Western bias is to almost completely ignore the non-Chalcedonian Christians. They were a much larger group within the entirety of Christianity in the 9th century than in the 15th century, for much of northern and eastern Europe was not yet Christian in the 9th century, and while the Islamic Empire had made major political expansions, the erosion of the Christianity of the population would largely come in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This category for Roman Catholic bishops seems to be the only 9th-century “Roman Catholic” category, so if retained would we also need 9th and 10th century categories for Roman Catholic clergy, Roman Catholics etc. And back to when? (5th century, 3rd century or 1st century)? Hence start all “Roman Catholic” categories from the 11th century or 1054. Also the starting century for Eastern Orthodoxy. Note that the category Category:History of Oriental Orthodoxy does not have the equivalent century subcategories of Category:History of Eastern Orthodoxy. Hugo999 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 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:Cars having sold 10 million units

 * 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. If someone wants to create a list later, they can do that but there's none now. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting cars having sold 10 million units


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:ARBITRARYCAT most likely. Brandmeistertalk  11:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the ten million mark is not one that is significant culturally for car production (cf. 10-second barrier). No opposition to making this into a list about car models by most units sold. SFB 18:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Listify into list of highest-selling cars -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:53, 26 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.

1st to 5th century BC births

 * 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. MER-C 12:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE: this was later reversed (where the dates were justified), see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

See: Category:1st-millennium BC births
 * Propose merging Category:1 BC births to Category:1 BC and Category:0s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:3 BC births to Category:3 BC and Category:0s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:4 BC births to Category:4 BC and Category:0s BC births


 * Propose merging Category:5 BC births to Category:5 BC and Category:0s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:8 BC births to Category:8 BC and Category:0s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:9 BC births to Category:9 BC and Category:0s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:10 BC births to Category:10 BC and Category:10s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:11 BC births to Category:11 BC and Category:10s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:12 BC births to Category:12 BC and Category:10s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:13 BC births to Category:13 BC and Category:10s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:14 BC births to Category:14 BC and Category:10s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:15 BC births to Category:15 BC and Category:10s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:17 BC births to Category:17 BC and Category:10s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:19 BC births to Category:19 BC and Category:10s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:20 BC births to Category:20 BC and Category:20s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:21 BC births to Category:21 BC and Category:20s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:22 BC births to Category:22 BC and Category:20s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:23 BC births to Category:23 BC and Category:20s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:25 BC births to Category:25 BC and Category:20s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:27 BC births to Category:27 BC and Category:20s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:30 BC births to Category:30 BC and Category:30s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:31 BC births to Category:31 BC and Category:30s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:32 BC births to Category:32 BC and Category:30s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:35 BC births to Category:35 BC and Category:30s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:36 BC births to Category:36 BC and Category:30s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:38 BC births to Category:38 BC and Category:30s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:39 BC births to Category:39 BC and Category:30s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:40 BC births to Category:40 BC and Category:40s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:42 BC births to Category:42 BC and Category:40s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:43 BC births to Category:43 BC and Category:40s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:44 BC births to Category:44 BC and Category:40s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:45 BC births to Category:45 BC and Category:40s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:46 BC births to Category:46 BC and Category:40s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:47 BC births to Category:47 BC and Category:40s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:48 BC births to Category:48 BC and Category:40s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:50 BC births to Category:50 BC and Category:50s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:51 BC births to Category:51 BC and Category:50s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:53 BC births to Category:53 BC and Category:50s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:54 BC births to Category:54 BC and Category:50s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:55 BC births to Category:55 BC and Category:50s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:58 BC births to Category:58 BC and Category:50s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:59 BC births to Category:59 BC and Category:50s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:60 BC births to Category:60 BC and Category:60s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:63 BC births to Category:63 BC and Category:60s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:64 BC births to Category:64 BC and Category:60s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:65 BC births to Category:65 BC and Category:60s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:69 BC births to Category:69 BC and Category:60s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:70 BC births to Category:70 BC and Category:70s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:71 BC births to Category:71 BC and Category:70s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:74 BC births to Category:74 BC and Category:70s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:75 BC births to Category:75 BC and Category:70s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:76 BC births to Category:76 BC and Category:70s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:77 BC births to Category:77 BC and Category:70s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:78 BC births to Category:78 BC and Category:70s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:82 BC births to Category:82 BC and Category:80s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:83 BC births to Category:83 BC and Category:80s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:84 BC births to Category:84 BC and Category:80s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:85 BC births to Category:85 BC and Category:80s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:86 BC births to Category:86 BC and Category:80s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:87 BC births to Category:87 BC and Category:80s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:88 BC births to Category:88 BC and Category:80s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:89 BC births to Category:89 BC and Category:80s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:90 BC births to Category:90 BC and Category:90s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:91 BC births to Category:91 BC and Category:90s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:93 BC births to Category:93 BC and Category:90s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:94 BC births to Category:94 BC and Category:90s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:95 BC births to Category:95 BC and Category:90s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:96 BC births to Category:96 BC and Category:90s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:97 BC births to Category:97 BC and Category:90s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:98 BC births to Category:98 BC and Category:90s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:99 BC births to Category:99 BC and Category:90s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:100 BC births to Category:100 BC and Category:100s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:101 BC births to Category:101 BC and Category:100s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:102 BC births to Category:102 BC and Category:100s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:103 BC births to Category:103 BC and Category:100s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:104 BC births to Category:104 BC and Category:100s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:105 BC births to Category:105 BC and Category:100s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:106 BC births to Category:106 BC and Category:100s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:107 BC births to Category:107 BC and Category:100s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:108 BC births to Category:108 BC and Category:100s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:109 BC births to Category:109 BC and Category:100s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:110 BC births to Category:110 BC and Category:110s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:114 BC births to Category:114 BC and Category:110s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:115 BC births to Category:115 BC and Category:110s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:116 BC births to Category:116 BC and Category:110s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:117 BC births to Category:117 BC and Category:110s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:118 BC births to Category:118 BC and Category:110s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:120 BC births to Category:120 BC and Category:120s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:121 BC births to Category:121 BC and Category:120s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:123 BC births to Category:123 BC and Category:120s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:124 BC births to Category:124 BC and Category:120s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:125 BC births to Category:125 BC and Category:120s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:127 BC births to Category:127 BC and Category:120s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:128 BC births to Category:128 BC and Category:120s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:130 BC births to Category:130 BC and Category:130s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:132 BC births to Category:132 BC and Category:130s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:134 BC births to Category:134 BC and Category:130s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:135 BC births to Category:135 BC and Category:130s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:138 BC births to Category:138 BC and Category:130s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:139 BC births to Category:139 BC and Category:130s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:140 BC births to Category:140 BC and Category:140s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:148 BC births to Category:148 BC and Category:140s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:152 BC births to Category:152 BC and Category:150s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:154 BC births to Category:154 BC and Category:150s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:156 BC births to Category:156 BC and Category:150s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:157 BC births to Category:157 BC and Category:150s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:158 BC births to Category:158 BC and Category:150s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:159 BC births to Category:159 BC and Category:150s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:160 BC births to Category:160 BC and Category:160s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:161 BC births to Category:161 BC and Category:160s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:163 BC births to Category:163 BC and Category:160s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:164 BC births to Category:164 BC and Category:160s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:165 BC births to Category:165 BC and Category:160s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:168 BC births to Category:168 BC and Category:160s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:169 BC births to Category:169 BC and Category:160s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:170 BC births to Category:170 BC and Category:170s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:173 BC births to Category:173 BC and Category:170s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:179 BC births to Category:179 BC and Category:170s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:180 BC births to Category:180 BC and Category:180s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:182 BC births to Category:182 BC and Category:180s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:183 BC births to Category:183 BC and Category:180s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:184 BC births to Category:184 BC and Category:180s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:185 BC births to Category:185 BC and Category:180s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:186 BC births to Category:186 BC and Category:180s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:187 BC births to Category:187 BC and Category:180s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:188 BC births to Category:188 BC and Category:180s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:189 BC births to Category:189 BC and Category:180s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:190 BC births to Category:190 BC and Category:190s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:195 BC births to Category:195 BC and Category:190s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:200 BC births to Category:200 BC and Category:200s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:202 BC births to Category:202 BC and Category:200s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:204 BC births to Category:204 BC and Category:200s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:208 BC births to Category:208 BC and Category:200s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:209 BC births to Category:209 BC and Category:200s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:210 BC births to Category:210 BC and Category:210s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:214 BC births to Category:214 BC and Category:210s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:215 BC births to Category:215 BC and Category:210s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:216 BC births to Category:216 BC and Category:210s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:217 BC births to Category:217 BC and Category:210s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:220 BC births to Category:220 BC and Category:220s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:221 BC births to Category:221 BC and Category:220s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:227 BC births to Category:227 BC and Category:220s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:228 BC births to Category:228 BC and Category:220s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:229 BC births to Category:229 BC and Category:220s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:230 BC births to Category:230 BC and Category:230s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:232 BC births to Category:232 BC and Category:230s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:234 BC births to Category:234 BC and Category:230s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:235 BC births to Category:235 BC and Category:230s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:236 BC births to Category:236 BC and Category:230s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:238 BC births to Category:238 BC and Category:230s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:239 BC births to Category:239 BC and Category:230s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:241 BC births to Category:241 BC and Category:240s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:243 BC births to Category:243 BC and Category:240s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:245 BC births to Category:245 BC and Category:240s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:247 BC births to Category:247 BC and Category:240s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:250 BC births to Category:250 BC and Category:250s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:253 BC births to Category:253 BC and Category:250s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:254 BC births to Category:254 BC and Category:250s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:256 BC births to Category:256 BC and Category:250s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:257 BC births to Category:257 BC and Category:250s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:260 BC births to Category:260 BC and Category:260s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:262 BC births to Category:262 BC and Category:260s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:263 BC births to Category:263 BC and Category:260s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:264 BC births to Category:264 BC and Category:260s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:265 BC births to Category:265 BC and Category:260s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:268 BC births to Category:268 BC and Category:260s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:269 BC births to Category:269 BC and Category:260s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:270 BC births to Category:270 BC and Category:270s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:271 BC births to Category:271 BC and Category:270s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:275 BC births to Category:275 BC and Category:270s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:276 BC births to Category:276 BC and Category:270s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:280 BC births to Category:280 BC and Category:280s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:281 BC births to Category:281 BC and Category:280s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:285 BC births to Category:285 BC and Category:280s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:286 BC births to Category:286 BC and Category:280s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:287 BC births to Category:287 BC and Category:280s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:290 BC births to Category:290 BC and Category:290s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:291 BC births to Category:291 BC and Category:290s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:295 BC births to Category:295 BC and Category:290s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:297 BC births to Category:297 BC and Category:290s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:299 BC births to Category:299 BC and Category:290s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:302 BC births to Category:302 BC and Category:300s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:304 BC births to Category:304 BC and Category:300s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:305 BC births to Category:305 BC and Category:300s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:309 BC births to Category:309 BC and Category:300s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:310 BC births to Category:310 BC and Category:310s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:313 BC births to Category:313 BC and Category:310s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:316 BC births to Category:316 BC and Category:310s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:319 BC births to Category:319 BC and Category:310s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:320 BC births to Category:320 BC and Category:320s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:323 BC births to Category:323 BC and Category:320s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:324 BC births to Category:324 BC and Category:320s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:326 BC births to Category:326 BC and Category:320s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:327 BC births to Category:327 BC and Category:320s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:330 BC births to Category:330 BC and Category:330s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:331 BC births to Category:331 BC and Category:330s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:334 BC births to Category:334 BC and Category:330s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:335 BC births to Category:335 BC and Category:330s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:337 BC births to Category:337 BC and Category:330s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:339 BC births to Category:339 BC and Category:330s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:340 BC births to Category:340 BC and Category:340s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:341 BC births to Category:341 BC and Category:340s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:342 BC births to Category:342 BC and Category:340s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:343 BC births to Category:343 BC and Category:340s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:345 BC births to Category:345 BC and Category:340s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:350 BC births to Category:350 BC and Category:350s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:351 BC births to Category:351 BC and Category:350s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:354 BC births to Category:354 BC and Category:350s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:355 BC births to Category:355 BC and Category:350s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:356 BC births to Category:356 BC and Category:350s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:358 BC births to Category:358 BC and Category:350s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:359 BC births to Category:359 BC and Category:350s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:360 BC births to Category:360 BC and Category:360s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:361 BC births to Category:361 BC and Category:360s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:362 BC births to Category:362 BC and Category:360s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:363 BC births to Category:363 BC and Category:360s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:367 BC births to Category:367 BC and Category:360s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:368 BC births to Category:368 BC and Category:360s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:369 BC births to Category:369 BC and Category:360s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:370 BC births to Category:370 BC and Category:370s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:372 BC births to Category:372 BC and Category:370s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:375 BC births to Category:375 BC and Category:370s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:380 BC births to Category:380 BC and Category:380s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:381 BC births to Category:381 BC and Category:380s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:382 BC births to Category:382 BC and Category:380s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:384 BC births to Category:384 BC and Category:380s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:389 BC births to Category:389 BC and Category:380s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:390 BC births to Category:390 BC and Category:390s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:394 BC births to Category:394 BC and Category:390s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:395 BC births to Category:395 BC and Category:390s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:396 BC births to Category:396 BC and Category:390s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:397 BC births to Category:397 BC and Category:390s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:400 BC births to Category:400 BC and Category:400s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:401 BC births to Category:401 BC and Category:400s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:402 BC births to Category:402 BC and Category:400s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:408 BC births to Category:408 BC and Category:400s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:411 BC births to Category:411 BC and Category:410s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:417 BC births to Category:417 BC and Category:410s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:418 BC births to Category:418 BC and Category:410s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:424 BC births to Category:424 BC and Category:420s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:425 BC births to Category:425 BC and Category:420s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:428 BC births to Category:428 BC and Category:420s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:429 BC births to Category:429 BC and Category:420s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:431 BC births to Category:431 BC and Category:430s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:432 BC births to Category:432 BC and Category:430s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:433 BC births to Category:433 BC and Category:430s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:434 BC births to Category:434 BC and Category:430s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:435 BC births to Category:435 BC and Category:430s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:436 BC births to Category:436 BC and Category:430s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:440 BC births to Category:440 BC and Category:440s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:444 BC births to Category:444 BC and Category:440s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:445 BC births to Category:445 BC and Category:440s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:446 BC births to Category:446 BC and Category:440s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:448 BC births to Category:448 BC and Category:440s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:450 BC births to Category:450 BC and Category:450s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:459 BC births to Category:459 BC and Category:450s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:460 BC births to Category:460 BC and Category:460s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:465 BC births to Category:465 BC and Category:460s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:470 BC births to Category:470 BC and Category:470s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:474 BC births to Category:474 BC and Category:470s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:480 BC births to Category:480 BC and Category:480s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:481 BC births to Category:481 BC and Category:480s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:484 BC births to Category:484 BC and Category:480s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:487 BC births to Category:487 BC and Category:480s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:490 BC births to Category:490 BC and Category:490s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:495 BC births to Category:495 BC and Category:490s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:496 BC births to Category:496 BC and Category:490s BC births
 * Propose merging Category:498 BC births to Category:498 BC and Category:490s BC births


 * Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one or two articles in each category. This proposal is merging everything into birth categories by decade. It's a follow-up after the 6th-century BC births nomination that is still open for discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A request for automated tagging has been posted here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated tagging has succeeded. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support -- the precise date of birth is in any event probably only approximate in many cases, being based on aged xx in xxx BC. However, I do not like "0s BC" and would suggest "births 9 BC—1 BC" in this case and "births 1—9 AD" (these only).  Note the year after 1 BC was 1 AD.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And of course you're welcome to propose a rename for the 0s but I suppose that will require a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support all but the decade upmerge. There is really no need for upmerging to the decade categories.  Just upmerge to the century category.  Why fragment information when it is easier to find on one page rather then 10? Upmerge the decade categories to the century ones.Vegaswikian (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a bit more extreme than proposed. I think it has value to stay with the proposal and have the births by decade (provided there were at least a couple of births per decade) because otherwise the births category would nearly coincide with the people category (e.g. Category:1st-century BC births to Category:1st-century BC people). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I understand the smallcat rationale but if we're going to have categories like Category:350s BC animal births and Category:326 BC animal deaths, there's no reason not to have it for people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a clear case of WP:OSE. These aninmal categories should be merged as well, obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. In retrospect, I support a merge to the decades categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 1 August 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.

The implementation of the above leads to problems: you can't go around with a bot to replace one category by two categories on biographical articles: pinging the bot operator of the bot that apparently proceeded with the task without taking account of bot policy and the WP:Categorization of people guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:Bot policy: assigning of an additional category (which is different from renaming/merging a category) can not be done by bot but only manually: these articles have to be opened manually, with an assessment of which of the proposed replacement categories is suitable.
 * 2) WP:COPDEF: only year of birth is a "standard biographical detail" for categorization; a "year" category is not, "year" categories are not even part of the "people" categorization tree, so can not be slammed on biographical articles, and certainly not by bot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the bare year categories are not for biographies.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:LGBT Olympians

 * 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. MER-C 10:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Convert Category:LGBT Olympians to article List of LGBT Olympians
 * Nominator's rationale: Being LGBT and having competed at this competition are no related enough ideas to warrant direct navigation between all the containing articles. The link is especially tenuous for the many in this group, like Brian Orser, whose sexuality was never an element in his Olympic career at all, but much afterwards. A list is a much better format as information like year(s) of competition can be added and whether they discussed their sexuality in relation to the Olympics or not. SFB 01:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Listify per nom, and upmerge to all parents -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Listify per nom.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Listify -- Not a useful classification. People compete as men or women not as LGBT.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Listify seems to have the voting momentum, but I believe it will be important to make sure that the List is equally prominent in all relevant pages. Categories are quite easy to find and I don't believe this information should get buried.--MorrisIV (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Listify - agree with above. Neutralitytalk 21:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Listify per nom. Even as somebody who's actively participated in populating this category, I've always been of two minds about whether it was really valuable as a direct intersection — a list is perfectly adequate, and can delve more deeply into nuances like whether they were out while competing as Olympians or not (which, as correctly noted by SFB, very few ever actually were prior to the 2010s). A separate list might also not really be necessary; the alternative also exists of simply embedding the list directly into the existing article LGBT Olympians rather than maintaining two distinct titles. Also noteworthy that it was created by a now-banned user — so even if it does get kept (which I doubt it will, given the way consensus is stacking up), it should be deleted and then recreated by another editor for "denial of attribution" reasons. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 1 June 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:Sportsmen with retired numbers

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sportsmen with retired numbers to Category:Sportspeople with retired numbers
 * Nominator's rationale: This category does not lead into male-gendered categories, but genderless ones instead. Sportswomen with retired numbers, like Alana Beard, should also be reasonably included in this category tree. SFB 01:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this a defining attribute to the people in the sub-cats? I know it's more an American-centric idea to retire numbers, but my understanding of categories and defining is per WP:NON-DEFINING - "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Picking a few at random, Sid Abel, Lance Alworth, Steve Bartkowski, Hank Aaron, Roberto Alomar, Alvan Adams, etc, none of them mention this in the lead portion.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm less familiar with the significance to American sportspeople, so I'm open to making this information available in the articles in Category:Lists of retired numbers rather than as a category, but suggest that if there is not consensus to delete then we change the name. SFB 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This seems to be an American category and should be described as such. However having a retired number appears to be an award.  Is it notable enough to fall inot the exception on WP:OC?  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename/Open to Listify Proposed name is superior to what is there now. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. While in reality I agree that this is noteworthy enough for us to maintain some information about but not WP:DEFINING enough of the individuals to justify a category, the problem is that this category doesn't actually directly contain any articles except the main one on the concept of retiring a sports figure's number — the actual people are all filtered into sport-specific subcategories which haven't been nominated here. So any move to listifying would have to proceed from a separate renomination of the individual subcategories, rather than resulting from this discussion. Nominator is correct, however, that this category should not be gendered — especially now that women's team sports have become much more prominent and visible in 2015 than they were even five or ten years ago. There are already women who have earned this distinction, and there will only be more in the future — and it's not an instance where we would need separate categories for men and women. A followup batch nomination to have the whole shebang listified instead might be worthwhile, but the current discussion cannot directly spring a surprise consensus to do so onto subcategories that haven't already been tagged for discussion. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and Listify. This is not defining to the sportspeople involved. This is especially so since if they played in high school or college, the number can be retired at that level, but generally only their professional level playing even made them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 21 June 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.