Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 14 April 16 >

April 15[edit]

Category:United States citizens in the Holocaust[edit]

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 as OCAT. Not every intersection of facts needs a category. In addition, while true, this may be defining for the one individual in the category, this is not part of a larger scheme. One-article categories do nothing for finding "like articles". There is nothing to be gained by a one-article category that the sentence "This person is a United States citizen who was in the Holocaust" to the article would achieve. Renaming has the same inherent problems, as we would end up with again, a one-article category. Kbdank71 18:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States citizens in the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I think that this category amounts to overcategorization on the basis of a non-standard intersection of citizenship and association with an event. This is, as far as I know, the only people associated with [Event] by citizenship-type category. Deleting it will not remove either of its members from the "The Holocaust" category tree, since both are already in country-specific Holocaust-related categories. Category creator notifed using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to less ambiguous Category:American Holocaust survivors. Wikipedia does have a precedent of event-nationality intersections. See for example Category:Murder victims by nationality.--Anewpester (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one article which per nom, won't be axed from the tree - I removed the other article which didn't qualify as he was interned as an enemy alien in an internment camp not a concentration/extermination camp - much like German and Italian and Japanese citizens were interned under international law (as opposed to American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were interned wrongly) in the USA after the declaration of war - and was not part of the Holocaust. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Consider Rename While there is only one current article, the category captures a defining characteristic and has ample room for expansion. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename The one person categorised is some one who sought to obstruct the holocaust. How about Category:American heroes of the holocaust? It is unlikely that there were American perpetrators. Furthermore, US citizenship should have allowed potential victims to escape abroad or after 1942 to be interned. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. Category:American Holocaust survivors could work as a different category. Category:American heroes of the Holocaust could not because of the hopelessly veriable and POV meanings of "heroes". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Public universities by location[edit]

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 per original nomination. Kbdank71 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Public universities by location to Category:Public universities by country
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with our "by country" naming conventions. It might be worthwhile to consider the option of adding "and colleges" to the title (i.e. Category:Public universities and colleges by country), but I am hesitant to suggest that due to the fact that the main article is at Public university and Public college is a redirect to that title. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to Category:Public universities and colleges by country to make sure people know public colleges can be listed in the category as well. I don't see an issue with the Public university article being the main article of the category. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I just wasn't sure whether "public university" and "public college" had different meanings in different countries. If the category is renamed to add "and colleges", I will nominate the non-conforming subcategories in a follow-up nomination. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal. I oppose User:Nihonjoe's suggestion above, as "university" and "college" have quite different meanings in many countries (for example, Australia and New Zealand). Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support original nom, but oppose "colleges" version. The terms are not interchangeable for many readers, and "universities" is clear enough. See discussion below as well. -- Avenue (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Universities in Iran[edit]

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. Kbdank71 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Universities in Iran to Category:Universities and colleges in Iran
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate scope; consistency with Category:Universities and colleges by country. Category creator not notified because: bot account. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Universities in Iceland[edit]

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. Kbdank71 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Universities in Iceland to Category:Universities and colleges in Iceland
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate scope; consistency with Category:Universities and colleges by country. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Universities in Jamaica[edit]

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. Kbdank71 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Universities in Jamaica to Category:Universities and colleges in Jamaica
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Universities and colleges by country. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's fully support.--TM 13:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

People by university in (Country)[edit]

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 to rename - That said, no prejudice against immediately re-nominating for renaming. Though the concerns below about usage of the word "college" the other countries are noted, and should probably be taken more into consideration by the nominator. (Who, in my experience, usually does more reasearch on such things : ) - jc37 22:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:

::Category:People by university in Australia to Category:People by university or college in Australia ::Category:People by university in Austria to Category:People by university or college in Austria

Category:People by university in Brazil to Category:People by university or college in Brazil
Category:People by university in the Caribbean to Category:People by university or college in the Caribbean
Category:People by university in Chile to Category:People by university or college in Chile
Category:People by university in China to Category:People by university or college in China
Category:People by university in the Czech Republic to Category:People by university or college in the Czech Republic
Category:People by university in Egypt to Category:People by university or college in Egypt
Category:People by university in Estonia to Category:People by university or college in Estonia
Category:People by university in France to Category:People by university or college in France

::Category:People by university in Germany to Category:People by university or college in Germany

Category:People by university in Ghana to Category:People by university or college in Ghana

Category:People by university in Hong Kong to Category:People by university or college in Hong Kong

Category:People by university in Iran to Category:People by university or college in Iran
Category:People by university in Iraq to Category:People by university or college in Iraq
Category:People by university in Ireland to Category:People by university or college in Ireland
Category:People by university in Italy to Category:People by university or college in Italy
Category:People by university in Lebanon to Category:People by university or college in Lebanon
Category:People by university in Mexico to Category:People by university or college in Mexico
Category:People by university in the Netherlands to Category:People by university or college in the Netherlands

::Category:People by university in New Zealand to Category:People by university or college in New Zealand

Category:People by university in Pakistan to Category:People by university or college in Pakistan
Category:People by university in Romania to Category:People by university or college in Romania
Category:People by university in Russia to Category:People by university or college in Russia

Category:People by university in South Africa to Category:People by university or college in South Africa

Category:People by university in Sweden to Category:People by university or college in Sweden

::Category:People by university in Switzerland to Category:People by university or college in Switzerland

Category:People by university in Turkey to Category:People by university or college in Turkey
Category:People by university in Ukraine to Category:People by university or college in Ukraine
Nominator's rationale: This is one of several planned follow-up nominations to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 16#Category:People by university, which resulted in a consensus to rename Category:People by university to Category:People by university or college. Per discussion in the March 16 nomination, I have deliberately left out from this nomination Category:People by university in the United Kingdom; please strike through any others that may require separate discussion. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom & previous discussion. Cgingold (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are colleges used in a manner akin to universities in these countries? If not, then they maybe shouldn't be renamed. Do colleges exist in these countries? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That issue was addressed in the previous CFD (which was the basis for proceeding with this one). Cgingold (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wasn't an overwhelming amount of participation in that one. Perhaps an RfC should be done? That one also deals with the general case, and not the particular case, while this one deals with specific countries. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, consistency, precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm striking out the New Zealand line, because if something in NZ is called a College, it's usually a high school. See Category:Secondary_schools_in_New_Zealand for many examples. I just happened across this nom; has the nominator notified the WikiProjects for the other countries (where they exist)? -- Avenue (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the nominator seemingly has not done any research to ascertain the validity of their proposed new names, I suggest scrapping this mass nomination and going through this one cat at a time. The nominator should have been aware that North American naming conventions just don't apply everywhere and this has been pointed out several times before such as the Medical doctors (sic) debacle. Colleges in Australia are in the main High Schools, mainly private ones such as Wesley College, Melbourne but sometimes public ones such as Staughton College. This name, ostensibly an attempt to standardise category names, will actually create more confusion. There is nothing wrong with having different category names for similar entities for different geographical locations. Standardisation and consistency should not take precedence over common naming conventions in use in those localities. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Black Falcon's defense, s/he ostensibly did say "please strike through any others that may require separate discussion" -- precisely because of the very issue that you raise. Certainly nobody would insist on imposing a misleading name purely for the sake of consistency. So please feel free to strike thru the Australian category. Cgingold (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - striked through Australia - (after having been to the Australian noticeboard first - are all other projects adequately notified?) SatuSuro 09:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't it strike you as strange that someone would propose a category name without any idea if it was actually suitable? Given that Australia and New Zealand were incorrect, why should anyone have any confidence that any of the others are appropriate. If say, the proposed renaming of the Ghana category (let's say) was wrong but there was no objections to the rename (because no editors with an understanding of education naming conventions in Ghana had the category watchlisted), should this category be renamed? Because that is what happens in these mass CfD nominations. This nomination should be withdrawn and a separate CfD for each category should be listed so consensus for each specific renaming can be demonstrated. Further, renamings should not be proposed without at least an attempt to ascertain if the proposed name is appropriate, not just relying on an assumption with no real idea if the assumption is correct. That is how poor decisions are made. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't speak for other countries but in Australia and New Zealand, "college" is entirely incorrect. Going to "college" here means you are doing a one-year trade or vocational certificate at a TAFE. Are we going to start listing anyone who attended a TAFE? Some public and private high schools as others have said above also style themselves "College" - eg Aquinas College, Perth, Como Secondary College, Belmont City College, Sevenoaks Senior College, Brisbane Waters Secondary College. I don't doubt this sort of thing applies to many current or former Commonwealth countries too. This inane proposal needs to be retired and carefully rethought. Orderinchaos 01:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      After careful checking I've removed Hong Kong and South Africa. This sort of naming encourages errors such as that made by Cgingold on 9 March in classifying alumni of a Hong Kong secondary college (i.e. high school) as alumni of a university. People need to research these things better. This will need a followup cfd to rename back several "Alumni by university or college in..." in countries where it is incorrect. Orderinchaos 01:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename for all listed After checking all 29 countries, this rename would actually be fundamentally incorrect and inconsistent with local usage in all but three of the countries listed. A CfD to undo the damage in other areas (eg Alumni) will be necessary in the near future. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia and people over there should stop trying to dictate "standards" to the rest of the world just because they can't speak the language properly. Orderinchaos 04:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to hop off that big, tall horse of yours for a moment, Orderinchaos, and assume some good faith here. For one thing, it just so happens that the nominator, Black Falcon, is not even American, to the best of my knowledge. More importantly, your accusation that this is all about people "over there" (the U.S.) "trying to dictate 'standards' to the rest of the world" is not just wrong -- it's completely out of line, so I hope you will retract & strike thru it. Lastly, would you care to share the fruits of your research with the rest of us, and identify the three countries that you believe would be properly renamed as proposed? Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all renames. Given the number of entries already struck through, I have no confidence that the nominator has done his homework and that the rest of the proposed changes are valid and will not just cause more confusion. No objection to each one being relisted individually if it can be shown that the terms "university" and "college" are used interchangeably in a particular country. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment these would be legitimate provided they are only PARENT categories, without any articles in them. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose block renaming for reasons given above - please work it out case by case. And in any event I have struck through the three German-speaking countries, as the German lang equivalent "Kollegium" ( / "Collegium") doesn't mean the same as "college/university".HeartofaDog (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per Black Falcon. Reducing undue complexity is good. --Wassermann (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How does making the category name unnecessarily longer (not to mention plain wrong) "reduce undue complexity"? -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Universities and colleges in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina[edit]

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, as the name of the main article changed towards the end of the discussion. May be immediately renominated for renaming.--Aervanath (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina to Category:Universities and colleges in Raleigh, North Carolina
Nominator's rationale: Raleigh and Durham are two, totally different cities (even though the area is often referred to Raleigh-Durham, making it sound like one large city). The category even includes UNC, which is located in Chapel Hill (Orange County). I suggest creating separate categories for each city (or county; Wake County is home to at least two colleges not located in Raleigh) or renaming to one of the following: Category:Universities and colleges in The Triangle, North Carolina, Category:Universities and colleges in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill metropolitan area. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Famous Job Corps Alumni[edit]

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. Kbdank71 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Famous Job Corps Alumni to Category:Job Corps alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As with other alumni categories, the standard of inclusion should be notability, not fame. Also, Wikipedia style requires that Alumni be in lower case. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of notable people who are not famous, so my proposed rename would widen the category's scope. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is obvious that the rename is needed if the category is to be kept. So the issue is, how defining is this for the individuals? While there may be one or two individuals where being in the Job Corps was defining, for the majority it was not. So unless we really want another category that will need someone to maintain the contents on a full time basis, we really need to Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator, I'd accept deletion. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sega[edit]

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: procedural close, cat already deleted. Kbdank71 18:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Sega (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Former WIkiProject category, now a task force of WP:VG.
  • Depopulate and delete this category and all subcategories. –xeno (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice left at the task force to see if anyone objects, if no objections I would suggest deletion. Note I would've just deleted this as G6 back when I nominated it, but it was getting late, so I nominated it more of a reminder to myself. –xeno (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Convention centers in Las Vegas[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Convention centers in Las Vegas to Category:Convention centers in the Las Vegas metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These rightly cover the metropolitan area. Only one is in the city. Either this should remain as is, or be renamed to reflect the fact that most of these are not in the city. A city specific category is an inappropriate option when there is an appropriate category structure available. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that today's paper uses Las Vegas as the short name for the Las Vegas Metropolitan area. Clearly supporting the blending of those two terms. It also uses Kansas City in the same way.[1] Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Convention centers in Las Vegas, Nevada. These articles all have addresses in Las Vegas. This is going to be my standard for whether or not I recommend something gets put into a "Las Vegas, Nevada" category. (I'm aware there are unincorporated areas that give out Las Vegas addresses. This is true in my town too. My address is in unincorporated Renton, and everyone thinks I'm a Rentonian. Or Rentonite. Or whatever.) There will be some Las Vegas metro area categories I'll support, but this isn't one of them. Please note that despite my polite disagreement with the nomination, I do want some resolution to this and the other Las Vegas categories, even if it's not the way I would do it; I definitely don't want a no-consensus result.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Given the large difference between a city, a post office, and a metro area, we should carefully maintain those distinction. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add to this that Las Vegas should probably remain as the name for these but since there is a push to not keep names associated with cities undisambiguated I made the above proposal. The fact is, Las Vegas is primary know as a brand and it is marketed as such. The marketing is so successful that it is the second best know brand in the United States.[2] Given the clear strength of the brand, why are we insisting on renaming to a category that ignores the probable primary use or worst, confuses it with a city? Plain and simple Las Vegas is a brand and we need to acknowledge that fact. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced - wouldn't this argument apply to any city anywhere in the world with a metropolitan area? For example I live in Perth, Western Australia which has a reputation for being a very distributed city and has many institutions and services 20-40 miles (32-64 km) from its central business district. Most of the categories pertaining relate to Perth regardless of whether they are in the downtown area or not. Orderinchaos 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bingo! That is the argument that was rejected over time. The consensus in place is that the anything related to the city should specify the city and the state, even if it happens to include more then the city. I lost the argument a long time ago to leave the general name, say Las Vegas or Los Angeles, for the general area and add the state qualifier when you are only talking about the city. So the proposed rename seeks to avoid a rename that would be city specific. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago etc are cases where even someone on a hilltop in remotest Kyrgyzstan or some forgotten island nation would likely know exactly what you meant, so it seems silly to add the state qualifier for those. My city's a weird case because although it's fairly well known, there is a Perth in Scotland established early last millennium, population about 80,000, and their supporters are adamant that every single thing anywhere about Perth should be disambiguated. Ah well. Orderinchaos 09:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Convention centers in Las Vegas, Nevada per Mike. --Kbdank71 18:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename While I find the fact that many of these locations have Las Vegas, Nevada mailing addresses, mailing address has absolutely nothing to do with the actual municipality where these facilities are located. The United States Postal Service's ZIP codes often reflect municipal boundaries, but it has no obligation to do so. Mailing address is simply NOT where its located. The use of Las Vegas metropolitan area most accurately reflects the actual locations. Alansohn (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. - I have two problems with the premises thus far. The first is I would presume that these each are listed in some city's records somewhere. I think the USPS is awesome, but these should be categorised based upon where they pay taxes, what laws they fall under. In other words, where they are registered. Problem number 2 related to the City of Chicago Illinois. If you ask someone from Calumet City where they are from, they will likely tell you Chicago. That doesn't mean that places and such in Calumet City should be categorised as if they are in Chicago. There are a lot of greater metropolitan areas, but unless, until the city actually annexes the surrounding area, whatever is located in the surrounding area should be categorised as they are, not what they may colloquially be referred to. That said, Rename to Category:Convention centers in Las Vegas, Nevada, per various recent consensus, and prune/recat as appropriate. - jc37 12:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. To Category:Convention centers in Las Vegas, Nevada, per above arguments. — Σxplicit 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References[edit]
  1. ^ "For lasting stimulus, parties have to play nice". Las Vegas Sun. 2009-04-06. Retrieved 6 April 2009. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Spillman, Benjamin (2009-04-15). "LVCVA: What works here, stays here". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved 15 April 2009. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
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:Production shows in Las Vegas[edit]

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--Aervanath (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Production shows in Las Vegas to Category:Production shows in the Las Vegas metropolitan area
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename as nom or to Category:Production shows on the Las Vegas Strip. None of these are in the city and should not be placed in the city category. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm less-than-convinced that "production shows" is the correct naming configuration. It strikes me as redundant (shows are productions and productions, shows). Otto4711 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there are many google hits on this, but for many types of things. 'Ulalena is described here as a production show. Another example is on board cruise ships. There are others. It is the only term used for major productions in Vegas that I can recall being used for these shows. If there is a better alternative, I'm open to suggestions. However, this may well be a case of local usage driving the common name for these productions. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Production shows in Las Vegas, Nevada. These articles all are located in places with addresses in Las Vegas. No opinion on whether "Production shows" is the right term; "stage shows" might be an alternative.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another example of using the USPS for location information. I believe that if you check, you will find that none of these are in the city! The USPS is not a source for correct location information. I have spent about 60% of my life with a mailing address from the USPS that was not where I actually lived. This is common across the US. If anything, the USPS designation is proof that keeping an unqualified Las Vegas category covering a broad area is the wiser choice. But that is not going to happen. Again if there are questions, use the county assessors database. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I realise I'm coming a bit late to this party, but how are these not WP:OC#VENUES and/or WP:OC#Performers by performance venue? - jc37 11:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jc37 above - it seems to me that this is an example of overcategorisation. We don't normally have categories for events by venue - or, we shouldn't, as those links make clear. Robofish (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Anti-Turkism[edit]

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 as POV. While this may or may not have the same issues as other anti-foo categories, I don't think we need to have an all or nothing situation. And the fact that "it happens" is more of a reason to keep an article, not a category. People aren't going to be "aware of" this or "fight against it" because of the category, they'll do so because of the article (although I'm not sure that to "fight against" anti-turkism is a reason to keep either). Kbdank71 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-Turkism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category unlikely ever to be neutral. "Anti-Turkism" implies racism against Turkic people, whereas this category has been used for any person or organisation which has had a disagreement with the later Ottoman Empire, the Young Turks or the modern Republic of Turkey (e.g. every Armenian and Kurdish political party seems to have been added to this category). Great potential for violation of WP:BLP. Most notoriously, Taner Akçam, a Turkish historian who questions the Turkish government's attitude to the Armenian genocide, was tagged with this cat. Its creator has been using this category as nothing but a form of polemic. Folantin (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -->David Shankbone 16:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: previously deleted. The category was deleted last October after a discussion that attracted a small amount of comment. The re-creator is not the same user as the original creator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's striking (but perhaps not entirely surprising) to see that this category is primarily being used to cast aspersion on Armenian & Kurdish groups, etc. which have faced repression in & by Turkey, when there is, in fact, considerable anti-Turkish sentiment in places like Greece, the Balkans, and Germany. I don't think we would be having this discussion if it was being used for articles of that sort. Cgingold (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Folantin's convincing nomination. I note that this could formally be speedied, but since the previous discussion had very little input, it might be better to let this run its course to get a more solid result. BTW, I'd be happy to see all the other sub-cats in that parent category checked too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -- this is only the tip of the iceberg. I would love to see the excessive discrimination-cruft piling up on Wikipedia kept in check, but the deletion of individual categories isn't really a solution. Strict enforcement of WP:RS and WP:SYNTH would be. Why, the Anti-Turkism article was whining about "discrimination" in the "anti-Turkish sentiment" during the Turkish Wars. I mean, how the hell is hostility towards a huge, thriving empire comparable to discrimination of some poor marginalized ethnic minority? Yet it's all in a day's work for Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination. Somebody said something not nice? Write a "discrimination" or "anti-sentiment" article about it! We do indeed need an effort "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Discrimination topics", but this isn't what this project seems to be doing. Such an effort would need to focus on ruthlessly cleaning out WP:UNDUE material. The nature of Wikipedia entails that material documenting alleged discrimination is piled up magically at our doorstep every night. The "effort" would be in sorting out the mass of bad stuff and keeping the tiny kernel of worthy material. If this was being done, there would be no problem even with having an "anti-Turkism" category, applied judiciously. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S., note the abomination that is {{Discrimination sidebar}}. A textbook illustration of "Wikipedia gone wrong". {{Discrimination sidebar}} is in fact a guide for anyone willing to help cleaning up the mind-boggling amount of discrimination-cruft clogging Wikipedia. Make sure to view it in its full uncollapsed glory by clicking the "show" tags. Needless to say, we also have a Portal:Discrimination. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I believe all Anti-Nationality categories should be deleted as inheritably POV. When somebody paste category Anti-Turkish or Anti-American or Russophobe or or Polonophobe or Anti-Semite they do not have an ability to attribute the opinion. And the opinions on such matters vary widely. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Alex Bakharev above. Pure POV category. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, endemic pov cat. --Soman (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV category by definition.Georgeg (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Category has a legit purpose and legit main article: legit because they describe historic facts. WP should not be in the business of trying to sanitize facts because they are unpleasant or politically disagreeable to one group or another. Hmains (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anti-Turkism, otherwise known in scholarship as Turcophobia, is a well known and coined term. You can check it by searching on Google books, JSTOR or other scientific databases. Whether the nominators and supporters like it or not, it exists, just like racism and slavery existed at some point in the U.S. So nothing wrong with keeping the category. Atabəy (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. While I agree that all such categories should be deleted, I don't think it should be done on individual basis, otherwise we will end up in deleting some of anti-someone categories and keeping the others. I suggest that all such categories are nominated for deletion at the same time, and we discuss whether the existence of such categories is appropriate. Turcophobia is an accepted scholarly term, and this category is no better or worse than other similar categories. --Grandmaster 17:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Created to prove a point-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this category is no different than any other of the categories found within its parent category, Category:Anti-national sentiment. Why single this one out for deletion and ignore so many of the others found in the parent category like Anti-Americanism, Francophobia, Germanophobia, Anti-Japanese sentiment, and so forth?
  • Delete as supports rather a point of view, than obvious facts of racism. And as the Turkey has problems with democracy and human rights, many people and organizations who disagree with the government are automatically placed under this cat. Gazifikator (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the term exists. Or delete anti-Armenianism as well. We should be consistent here, can't delete one and leave others. Chippolona (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Throughout history many people were killed just beacuse they were turks from Balkans to Caucasus.Therefore people should be aware of anti turkism and fight against it.Abbatai (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Faryl Smith albums[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Faryl Smith albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is only 1 article to populate this category with and there is no indication Faryl Smith make more albums in the immediate future to put in the category. Overcategorization since the album in question is already in three suitable categories. Delete Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see Wikipedia:ALBUM#Categories- "Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future).". Though I was not involved in said discussions, I do a lot of category work with albums, and if these artist categories were not applied, the albums would not be in the location or genre categories, as album articles should not be placed directly into location categories (for instance, Category:French albums) or genre categories (for instance, Category:Black metal albums)- instead, they should be placed into them indirectly via the Category:Albums by artist subcategories. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J Milburn; and in any case Ms Smith is 15 and further albums cannot be ruled out (her debut album Faryl was released on 9 March 2009 - expecting more by April smacks of impatience). Occuli (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per previous rationale for 1-member cats by artist. Lugnuts (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an aid to navigation, especially given the likelihood of future albums. Alansohn (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Assassins by ethnicity[edit]

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. Kbdank71 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Delete Category:Assassins by ethnicity to Category:Ethnicity-motivated assasins
Nominator's rationale: rename (Delete after talk see below) into encyclopedic title, then check articles. Parallel discussion is going on with Category:Assassins by religion started 2009 April 13. I suggest we apply a conclusion there to be applied here. -DePiep (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be difficult to categorize assassinations by ethnicity-motivations. The exact definition of assassination and ethnicity remain unclear. Combining these two inexact terms with the perennially unclear motivation (the assassin's motivation can be religion, nationality, ethnicity, or a combination of all three) is fertile ground for one big original research mess. --Anewpester (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The current title is undesirable since it encourages creation of trivial intersections of two unrelated traits. The proposed category of Ethnicity-motivated assasins is, as noted by Anewpester, a breeding ground for original research. Firstly, it is often hard enough to distinguish between assassinations and regular killings; adding a further layer of complexity will only create a mess. Secondly, it is unclear how we would determine whether an assassination is "ethnicity-motivated". –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecesssary ethnic category, interestingly singling out Jews alone. Hmmmmm... is their some reason for that. People wonder... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. Occuli (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the nom: change from rename to Delete. Indeed trivial or un-verifiable facts. (But not: singling out jews alone. We are writing an encyclopedia here). The parallel CFD from April 13 gets the same. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stroke out, unbold for readibility. I should not vote twice. See nom ratio. -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - breaking down assassins by ethnicity is overcategorization on the basis of ethnicity and this category will be empty shortly once its only subcat gets deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Hawaiian Revolution of 1893[edit]

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. Kbdank71 18:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 to Category:Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Categories use two names for the same thing. Target category is closer to main article name, Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom (which should probably be changed to "... Kingdom of Hawaii" to match Kingdom of Hawaii, but that's another story). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 assocated with Global Warming[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People assocated with Global Warming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Probable Delete - I don't think this category should be used directly for articles, as it suffers from the same basic defects as the two related categories that are nominated below, also housing the very same article (Lester Brown). In this case, there is a hypothetical possibility that it could serve as a container category for sub-cats for people who are in fact "associated with global warming" (or climate change) in specific ways. I'm referring, for starters, to Category:Climate change activists -- and possibly to others that may exist for say, researchers or ??? But if there aren't at least 3 such potential sub-cats, then it should not be kept. If kept as a container cat it would need to be renamed, either to Category:People associated with global warming or possibly to Category:People associated with climate change. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Category:IPCC lead authors needs renaming too! Scientists and journalists/Al Gore need to be segregated. I might even live with this one as an empty parent cat. Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "associated with"...whatever that means: I drive a car; now I'm categorizable. Great.... Let's see if we can upload the Motor Vehicle Dept databases and create stubs for all drivers and put them here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Climate change environmentalists seems to appropriately cover the intended purpose of the category under discussion. The fact that there are millions more people who might be environmentalists concerned about climate change, all of whom could be uploaded into this category, is not a relevant reason for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 assocated with water depletion[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People assocated with water depletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - Like Category:People assocated with food shortages (see CFD below), this category seems to have been created (by the very same editor) solely for one article. Now I admire Lester Brown as much as anybody, but I don't think it makes very good sense to create multiple categories just for him. This category also suffers from the same uncertainty about its scope & inclusion criteria. Would it include all individuals who have notably contributed to the problem of water depletion? Farmers who have drained aquifers? Operators of coal slurry pipelines? What about William Mulholland? In other words, where do we draw the lines? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Note that the next closest category is "Category:Water and politics," which is even more vague, and the articles included cover a broader range of topics. There should be some way of including a category for environmentalists based on specialties, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your concern, Wikiwatcher -- but I'm not sure that categories are necessarily the best way to deal with that issue. I think the basic problem revolves around the question of how many environmentalists focus exclusively or primarily on one particular issue? We do, for instance, have categories for anti-nuclear power activists. But I'm not sure how many other issues are really comparable. At the same time, if we start giving environmentalists multiple categories for each of their issues, that would run the risk of turning into what is referred to in these parts (CFD) as "performer-by-performance", which is frowned upon since it results in category clutter. Cgingold (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "associated with" and "water depletion"? Isn't the amount of water on the planet rather constant - it's just that it isn't where it may be needed and isn't necessarily in the form we want (clean) - is that depletion. And how is one associated with that? I drink water - I wash my car - I shower - another cat for me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sounds like an attack category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 assocated with food shortages[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People assocated with food shortages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This oddly-named category appears to have been created purely to house a single article (Lester Brown). The potential scope and inclusion criteria for the category are unclear. For example, would it include notorious profiteers, smugglers, black market operatives? If kept it should be renamed to correct the spelling. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More questions: Would it include people involved in famine relief efforts? What about politicians and rulers whose actions resulted in famines? Or perhaps the heads of gigantic agribusiness companies that withhold commodities to manipulate markets? Cgingold (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Outside of the spelling error, my only thought is that because food shortages, starvation, droughts, and the countless organizations set up to feed the hungry around the world, are such major issues, that the category seems reasonable, even if empty. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for joining the discussion and sharing your reasons for creating the category. The thing is, the rationale for what makes for a suitable category has little to do with the importance of any given issue. (Obviously, nobody is going to dispute the importance of these issues.) It's primarily a matter of being well-focused with reasonably clearly-defined inclusion criteria. As currently named/conceived, this category seems pretty fuzzy to me. Perhaps you can suggest a different name that would better address these concerns. At the same time, bear in mind that there should also be a least a few more articles available to populate the category. It's just not appropriate to create purely "speculative" categories. Cgingold (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a category called "Category:Environmentalists" and "Category:Environmentalists - Nuclear energy," so maybe adding other terms besides "nuclear energy" might work. As for filling it in with other people, that might be tricky. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Environmentalists - Nuclear energy?? I sincerely hope not -- but I can't even find whatever it is you're referring to. (If you want to specify & link to a category, just insert a colon (":") right after the double brackets and before the word "Category".) Cgingold (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "associated with" category without meaning: food shortages - is this a category for obese people? people with too many children? Various dictators who use starvation as a means of control? Farmers receiving subsidies not to farm or who sell their products to be made into ethanol? Someone on a binge buying spree at the market - buying up more than their fair share...endless possibilities, but ultimately useless... Carlossuarez46 (talk)
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 associated with solar design[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with solar design (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This category serves no purpose whatsoever: It has no contents except for a single, utterly redundant sub-cat, Category:Solar building designers, which was created at the same time by the same editor. I will provide new parents for that category when this one is deleted. (Category creator stopped editing in 2007) Cgingold (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; "solar design" has many meanings and some people believe that God designed the sun (solar design) and this category cannot have any "people" in it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why a rather unlikely misinterpretation of a category title would be an appropriate rationale for deletion. Can you offer any explanation for why it should? Alansohn (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category seems to have been created to serve as a parent for Category:Solar building designers, and I agree that it serves no purpose as an aid to navigation. There would appear to be various architecture and energy-efficient design categories (of which I am unfamiliar) that would be appropriate parents for this one subcategory. Alansohn (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:Surinamese playwrights[edit]

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. Kbdank71 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Surinamese playwrights to Category:Surinamese dramatists and playwrights
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Conform category name to Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_15&oldid=1144710071"