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.
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The new category name will have the same structure as that of the band's article (see Chicago (band)). The new category name parallels the disambiguation of Chicago articles. Pknkly (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The current title is ambiguous and possibly confusing. Jafeluv (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:04, 11 September 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The new category name will have the same structure as that of the band's article (see Chicago (band)). The new category name parallels the disambiguation of Chicago articles Pknkly (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the band article. The current title is ambiguous and possibly confusing. Jafeluv (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:04, 11 September 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 19:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article (or the current naming style, if a main article does not yet exist). Most of these proposed names omit the extraneous Japanese disambiguator affixed to the current names. (Note: the I-200 to I-201 difference is intentional.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match titles of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 11 September 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Should be renamed for consistency with KwaZulu-Natal and other related articles and categories. snigbrook (talk) 19:36, 9 September 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is this page? An article or a category, and if a category, what links the members of the category? Not just the name, a combination of the name and geometry? Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articlise the text as a dab page then delete. The category content seems to have no coherence but the use of the word. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Peterkington that Trilateral could be a useful dab page and I'm going to go try saving that article from deletion. As a category, however, it's useless. I came across the category when someone added it to Trilateral Patent Offices and that's a prime example of how the category is uselessly linking things that have no relationship in reality. GDallimore (Talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articlize (is that a word) as a dab page then delete. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTrilateral has now been nicely set up as disam page by User:GDallimore. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands at this point, the category essentially only lists items that share a common name. Alansohn (talk) 21:06, 11 September 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 Higher Education in Brazil[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. --Xdamrtalk 14:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – its creator blanked this category (but did not empty it). It is manifestly superfluous. Occuli (talk) 19:49, 9 September 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Inherently subjective and POV category (emptied out-of-process by another editor). R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sure sounds inherently subjective and POV. I would have been curious to see what the category had contained. I can't imagine there were bona fide articles on such "loopholes." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can whoever emptied this category, please repopulate it so that the rest of us can judge its merits? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was Chesdovi. I repopulated it. I even dug up one that was deleted a long time ago. And added two myself that should have been here. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You know, it seems to me that only Fast of the Firstborn is miscategorized. I think I'm leaning towards keep. As POVish as it sounded, these are bona fide loophole articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi makes a compelling argument. I don't know enough about this to cast a vote, I realize. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The pages listed in this category are not loopholes. Eruv is not a weakness which circumvents the prohibition of carrying on the Sabbath. On the contrary. It is a law unto itself to which one whole Talmudic tractate is devoted. Eruv does not contravene the intent of the Shabbat law of hotsa'ah. The Torah says if an Eruv exists, carrying is allowed. The same with Cooking on Shabbat. The only group who may view all these things as rabbinic loopholes, are the Karaite's who only accept the biblical law with out its oral understandings, explanations and relevant boundaries. But for authentic Jews, having warm food on Shabbat is a mitzvah, not a sly deviation of the Divine word. Similarly regarding the Fast of the Firstborn: Jewish law states if you have a Seudat mitzvah you don’t need to fast. It is not a loophole. Loopholes means finding a way of doing something that does not break the law, but achieves the same result as if one has broken the law. But Jewish law explicitly mentions these things as a way of exempting oneself from the law. In other words, these exemptions are provided for within the law. With regard to Prozbul and Heter iska, there is a fine line between Loophole and Legal fiction, and it is the latter to which these both belong. The Torah put the power in the hands of Chazal to make laws as they see fit. They are not finding ways to avoid following what God intended, or to act in a way which is technically breaking His will. Chesdovi (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Rabbinic exceptions in Jewish law - a phrase I see in the articles, or possibly "legal fictions". I can't see what the fast is doing here - there may be exceptions related to it, but it is not one itself. Current name is way too POV. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 10 September 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:Female basketball players by century[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.
Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorisation. No reason to distinguish men from women. Magioladitis (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Male basketball players by century has to merged as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Since sports are segregated by sex, having separate categories men and women is appropriate. However there is no reason for splitting sports categories by century. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. All it's brand new and completely unnecessary. Many players play in more than one position. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom catting by sex by century is at least on step too far, as per recent discussion Mayumashu (talk) 22:23, 9 September 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.
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. --Xdamrtalk 13:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorization by non-defining characteristic. TM 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In that case we should delete all the many Category:African Americans categories! Is it any less defining to be white in Africa than to be black in America? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In a continent where every one except arabs and the descendants of white settlers is black, this is certainly an appropriate category, with subcats for South Africa and Zimbabwe. I have not investigated the few articles included, but most may well belong to those subcategories, as the two with the largest whitre population. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We live in a non-ideal society. I couldn't give a damn if the guy were black in America or yellow in Africa. I would delete any category that reeks of these distinctions. Then again, perhaps that's just because I hate football. Debresser (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFor the same reason Category:Nigerian American sportspeople was deleted, so should this category. White African footballers have faced no history of discrimination or barring from the professional leagues, as African Americans did in the United States, which is why some African American categories and this should not. Merging into Category:White Namibians or Category:White Angolans would also be a better result than keeping.--TM 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On this continent it is a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcategorization of race/ethnicity. 'White African' is not directly analogous to 'African American'. --Soman (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? As far as I can see it combines geographical and racial origin in exactly the same way. No difference whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 15 September 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.
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:Administrative close: already deleted.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already speedied, I apologize if it was out of line but it was an orphan category which was an obvious duplicate. --Golbez (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of process but well-deleted. Please close. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 9 September 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Historic has the same connotations as "famous" or "notable", non-historic derechos would presumably not be included in Wikipedia. New name would match Category:Derechos in the United States. Tassedethe (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I suspect the creator may have meant "historic" as in "in the past", but it's still an unnecessary qualifier - they'd hardly be in the future if there was an article about them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I observe that at derecho is a variety of windstorm. The only other possible qualifier might be "fictional", since we will not have articles about present or future ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename as a better choice. I see I created the category. I can only guess that there were other weather categories at that time that 'historic' in their name and I mimicked them since I cannot think of any other excuse for the name. Hmains (talk) 05:00, 10 September 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename the following:
SupportTassedethe's preferred option. This needs a disambiguator, becasue of two similarly named railways in GB and Ireland. I do not think we need to have "United States", as the expansion will be obvious, as in Category:Georgia (U.S. state)). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change only the US to U.S. to match the article. --NE2 17:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to "Great Northern Railway (U.S.) to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 11 September 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Upmerge to corresponding content categories where possible, otherwise delete. Straight deletion, though initially proposed, seems to have fallen by the wayside in favour of a selective merger.
Per discussion and after seeking some clarification from the nominator, the following to be deleted as having no corresponding content category for merger:
The following to be listed at WP:CFD/W where removal of inappropriate redirects to take place. Once this is accomplished they may be listed at WP:CFD/W for merger to their corresponding content category, as follows:
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a category designed to contain redirects to ballet-related articles. While Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects allows categories that solely contain redirects, this is not how we usually categorize redirects. Redirects are categorized by the type of the redirect, not by the type of the article they point to. The normal categorization scheme includes categories such categories Redirects from abbreviation, Redirects from full names and Redirects from misspellings. This kind of categories have been deleted in the past - recent examples include Artist redirects and Opera redirects. Others, like Arts redirects and Theatre redirects, are currently at CfD. Note that I'm nominating each of the 59 subcategories as well; open the collapsed box to view them all. Jafeluv (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- categorising redirects is pointless. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per guidelines and precedent. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per past AfD decisions and Jafeluv's explanation. Clubmarx (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depite the fact that, "this is not how we usually categorize redirects," consistency can become a hobgoblin.
And these categories are particularly useful, at least to those of us writing articles about ballet. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that consistency should not be an absolute value at the expense of common sense. What I don't see, however, is how these categories are useful for the editors working with ballet-related articles. I have to work with a large amount of redirects as well with jazz standard-related articles (although I admit that the amount of articles there is far smaller than what you have to deal with), but I've never felt a need for a category for the redirects when one can use Special:WhatLinksHere to look at what pages redirect to a given page (example: all pages that redirect to Ballet). My question is, what purpose do these categories serve? Jafeluv (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back and used strikethrough to eliminate those that are not utterly essential. What I mean by essential is those that are needed to complete categories where there are articles missing, mostly names of company dancers and less often names of choreographers and ballets in company rep. and, finally, the über-categories Category:American Ballet Theatre redirects etc. to keep each company's redirects seperate from the other companies'. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comments These dancers seem to have at least 2 names so the article redirects seem useful. Could they be just as useful if they were upmerged into their parent category if the redirect category is to be deleted? Hmains (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a solution that can be used for this kinds of redirects without making a separate category for them. Take, for example, the redirect Elana Altman, which currently points to San Francisco Ballet#Soloists, but could well be expanded into a real article in the future. Per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects (see the section "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category"), the redirect could be included in Category:San Francisco Ballet soloists. When looking at the category, then, redirects are shown in italic text to separate them from actual articles (this is how they're always shown in categories). This helps the editors working with the articles, because they can look at the category and see which soloists don't have an article yet, and which do. This also helps the reader, because by looking at the category they see that Elana Altman is/was a soloist at the San Francisco Ballet, even if she doesn't have an article yet. This solution would not require any separate category for redirects. Any thoughts? Jafeluv (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That is the normal procedure in these instances. The name then shows up italicised in the category, making it perfectly clear that it's a redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I guess what I'm actually arguing for isn't straightforward deletion per se, but (selective) merge into the corresponding subcategories of Category:Ballet. The merging should definitely be done before deleting these categories, otherwise it'll get too laborous for the people working with the ballet articles to update them. Jafeluv (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to the primary dancer category for each. I suspect that this is the real consensus action. These categories are not needed and should be deleted. However, they contain useful information that needs to go someplace. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 21 September 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:Former members of the Executive Council of Hong Kong[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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I would agree that this will best be limited to post-British members, with a new category for those of the colonial era. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and create new category as suggested. - Fayenatic(talk) 21:08, 15 September 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:Christian Education National schools in Australia[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. We have no article on an organisation called Christian Education National (or its former name Christian Parents Controlled Schools), so I wonder why we would bother to subcategorise in this way. It's like categorizing music albums by non-notable producers without articles—we don't do it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of this category and also the following one also proposed for merger. I am aware that there is currently no article on CEN or on CSA, and they are in fact projects I plan to complete shortly. They are both significant national organizations in the field of Christian schooling in Australia, encompassing dozens of schools and thousands of staff, students and parents (see their websites for each - CEN and CSA. They will certainly qualify as notable once the articles are created. (I could do quick stub articles now, but examination of my past articles will show that I prefer to do a proper job from the outset, witness for example my latest article on the Western Australian Athletics Stadium). I have just done a major reorganization of the whole Christian schools in Australia category including bringing schools into Australia-specific denominational groupings from generic (mainly American) non-regional pages. There is also a category for Nondenominational Christian schools in Australia but these tend to be ones without a significant affiliation. The CEN schools and the CSA schools are affiliated to those organizations in a similar manner to / in lieu of affiliation with a specific denomination, and have many characteristics in common. It makes sense to categorize them together, and people with an interest in these schools who might seek information about them on Wikipedia will often be interested in knowing which other schools are of a similar nature / affiliation in the same manner as, say, someone who was interested in Eastern Orthodox schools in Australia. I would ask for patience in not immediately carrying out this proposed merger, and if I must in fact commence stub articles on CEN and CSA I will do so. If a merger must be carried out at least temporarily, it would make more sense to merge into Nondenominational Christian schools in Australia than into the proposed destination category which, as you should see, is a category which is intended to only include subcategories. (It would be inappropriate to categorize these schools directly under Christian schools in Australia because this would seem to give them precedence as somehow more 'Christian' than other schools which are placed under denominational categories; hence the category Nondenominational Christian schools in Australia which is parallel to and consistent with the category Nondenominational Christian schools - but there is a need for considerable cleanup and movement of many schools in the broader non-regional categories, which I will get to eventually). Anyway, I am hopeful that some patience can be exercised in the interim. -- Ishel99 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 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:Christian Schools Australia schools[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This category name doesn't make sense unless we are referring to an organisation known as "Christian Schools Australia" (I assume this was the intent). However, we have no article on Christian Schools Australia, suggesting it may not be a notable organization, so I doubt this is a significant subcategorization. It's like categorizing music albums by non-notable producers without articles—we don't do it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge as the name makes no sense other than as interpreted by nom. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See rationale for keeping this category in comment on previous similar category discussion above. -- Ishel99 (talk) 03:25, 10 September 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Assuming that "private" was used to distinguish from government organizations. "Meteorological companies" is sufficient, especially as "private company" has a specific meaning that may not have been intended here. Trivialist (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per excellent arguments of nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. If the "private" is needed, at least change "M" in "m" on meteorological. Fram (talk) 14:01, 17 September 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We generally don't categorize people by "former" or "current" status in an occupation. All articles are already in appropriate subcategories of Category:Astronauts, so no need to upmerge the contents anywhere. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on current form they'll all be "former" before long. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave new categories as is -- I understand that it has NOT been normal practice to categorize people as "former" or "current". I am questioning why this can't change. As it stands now, anybody who is an astronaut is lumped together in one giant group, it does not matter if they are active, inactive, retired or deceased. I think it would be very benefical to have at least a "current" category so that users can see who is a current astronaut and (for example) might be part of the Return to the moon operation. What is it hurting to have these new categories? Is it really increasing the storage (disk space) of Wikipedia? Or is there another reason for limiting categories? And finally, if it is not normal or right to have a "retired" and an "active" astronaut category, why do we have an "American astronauts", a "Hispanic American astronauts" (only 11 persons in this category), a "Swedish astronauts" (only 1 person in this category), a "Canadian astronauts" (only 11 persons in this category), a "Japanese astronauts" (only 12 persons in this category) and a "Russian cosmonauts" category? RocketmaniacRT 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think typically the rationale has been for maintenance purposes, not space purposes. Astronauts' statuses as "active", "retired", and "living" will eventually change, whereas their nationality or ethnicity generally does not. There has been consensus that for occupation categories, categories should be "timeless", so that they group people by occupation in a manner that won't require continual updating as time passes and people retire or die, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "timeless" standard is understandable. But, I know of two areas in spaceflight alone where this has not been the case. First take the "current spaceflight" tag that is applied to articles ( STS-128 (this won't last long as space shuttle Discovery will be returning to earth very soon and this article will be edited). Second would be the Template:People currently in space. These two will change much faster than an astronaut retiring or dieing. RocketmaniacRT 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and would therefore argue that they too should be deleted if they were categories, which they are not. The current spaceflights category was deleted here and the people currently in space category was deleted here. A distinction therefore has been drawn on this matter between article text and category contents. Obviously, the text of many articles needs to be updated often. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And {{People currently in space}} was created as a result of the categories being deleted and probably does a better job of providing information. Plus it provides a way to look back at a point in time, something a category does not do. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify as other professions are not so divided, but there would be interest in who is retired, who is still space-qualified, and who is not retired but not active. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:59, 14 September 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename - current name is ambiguous. Could mean writers who are or have been physically lost. Could also mean people who wrote for something called "Lost", i.e. Lost (TV series). Otto4711 (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In literature lost work and lost writers are the standard terms. Alt a is silly, and anyone believing b will not do so for long when they reach the category. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I realised later that there should be three categories: 'Lost works'; writers of those lost works; and extant works, the writer of which is lost. 'Lost writers' contains only names so I assume is the second. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this category is intended fo writers of lost works. I have added a short introduction for clarity. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Authors of lost works (or variant thereof) to match title of parent article and to more clearly define the category's content. Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 11 September 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge? - this category is weird. "Campaigners" is a bit puffy. "Activists" is the standard term and we don't appear to use campaigner in this way anywhere else. The category's inclusion criteria are vague and the included articles are all over the place. I have no idea what is intended by "early" or "before the modern movement of the 20th century". Is the "modern movement" the movement that was flourishing in post WWI Germany? The one that included the Society for Human Rights from 1924 in the US? The one that started in 1945 with the Veterans Benevolent Association, or the one that started in 1948 with the Forbundet af 1948 in Denmark or the one that started in 1950 with the Mattachine Society or the one that started in 1969 with the Stonewall riots? I have reliable sources to make the argument for any of those kickoff points (except Denmark but I've no doubt they exist). The category currently includes articles for Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (dead before the 20th century began) and Axel and Eigil Axgil (both born in the 20th century). There need to be some clear NPOV, non-OR definitions here or the category should be upmerged. Otto4711 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Far too subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Both for the word "campainers", as also because the "early" is not clearly defined, and for overcategorisation as well. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 9 September 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:Wikipedians in Ozolnieki municipality[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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete or merge to Category:Wikipedians in Latvia - "Wikipedians by small location" category. Ozolnieki municipality has a population of only 10,000. Too small of a location to efficiently group Wikipedians to support collaboration. Precedent to delete similar categories here. VegaDark (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 9 September 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:African American players of American football[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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sister category Category:African American players of Canadian football has been nominated by me for a deletion, directly below, following comments by other editors that this amount to overcategorization, since 'most of the people who play football are African Americans'. My concern is that a discussion of the Canadian category alone will not garner the necessary attention. American players in the Canadian Football League are no more or less African American than their NFL counterparts. Is there consensus to retain or delete this category, on the basis that African American are so well represented -- or on any other basis. I want to emphasize that I am in favor of retaining, however, I would like to get consensus, either way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per what I said below, having race categories (especially for one that dominates the sport) makes no sense, it's unnecessary categort clutter that has no use.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of several sub-cats of Category:African American sportspeople. Even if these two and basketball were deleted for the reason Giant 27 gives, each bio could and should be linked to the supracat page, so so-called clutter will not reduced at all anyway. Mayumashu (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely comfortable with this being a notable intersection per WP:EGRS#Race. Would the subjects of these articles identify themselves as such? This is one of the problems with the Wikipedia category scheme that all categories must be subdivided for browsing ease. Nobody browses the internet through categories and portals anymore; ever heard of search engines and google? it's made the news. I've silently advocated before for a new scheme where we use most relevant top level categories and an extension like mw:Extension:Intersection that generates a page with a list of articles matching any categories you like. Then we could have here just Category:African Americans, Category:Players of American football, Category:American people, if he also happens to be from San Diego or is a musician or whatever, you can make any kind of intersection you like to have a page of those articles either as a Wikipedia page or as a user page for your own interest. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can answer one question: "Would the subjects of these articles identify themselves as such?" Yes: I have no trouble believing that the overwhelming majority of African Americans athletes would self-identify as such. I also take issue with the statement "Nobody browses the internet through categories and portals anymore" since I for one browse Wikipedia through categories quite often. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't question identifying as African-American, I advocated as categorising as African-American if they self-identify. What I question is if they identify as "African American players of American football"; that seems to me to be a non-notable intersection. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As my concern has not yet been addressed, I update my suggestion to Delete. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:03, 15 September 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:African American players of Canadian football[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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should this category be retained? I'd like to get consensus as User:Giants27 has taken it upon himself to remove the popcat tag while complaining about the category in the edit summary, undo my edits without informing me when I tried to populate it... everything shy of being sufficiently motivated to get off his ass and actually nominate it for deletion. So I'm doing it. Let's put an end to this populating and depopulating. If this is overcat, then delete it. If not, then restore the popcat (and my edits) and let editors who are interested in the CFL continue populating it. I'd be happy with either option: I just hate the wasted time. So... does it stay or go? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might I point you in the direction of WP:CIVIL? As a I expressed on my talk page I was about to nominate it and hadn't noticed that you had been adding it to pages. As I just clicked on random names to remove it, so no need to call me out for doing something I said I was about to do. Now onto the category as I expressed on my talk page I feel there's no need to dissolve the category from Category:American players of Canadian football since most of the people who play football are African Americans.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might, if you'd exercised the slightest bit of civility yourself by contacting me, rather than undoing many of my edits without so much as a comment. So I took the trouble to contact you on your talk page, for which I got grief for a category I did not create, and had the audacity to try and populate. Anyway, I'm not impressed with the way you went about things and I gather the feeling's mutual. Let's see what the consensus is on the category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't want to get in a big thing but I did not "undo your edits". I periodically look at cerain pages and I happended to look at Demonte' Bolden noticed the category (didn't look at the history) and removed it. I then went to the category itself and removed it from some pages. I stopped, planning on nominating it for deletion. That's when you messaged me. And I'd hardly say you got "grief", the conversation was centered around the category not you or your actions. You made this personal not me.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some hurt feelings seem to have been over-blown here. No one has done anything in bad faith that I can see. Shawn in Montreal populated a category. Giants27 removed a category he saw as inappropriate from several pages. Shawn in Montreal wisely asked why, instead of starting an edit war, and Giants27 explained he thought the cats were inappropriate for the articles and now we're here. It started civil and let's endeavour to keep it so. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to, as I said on my talk page I was going to that's when I noticed the other one and was about to, but you couldn't wait no less than three minutes after my comment to make the CfD.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This category has been addressed in one form or another by at least two other CfRs, here and here. While neither was a deletion discussion, per se, at no point was the number of African American players raised as a concern. I'm also a bit leery that a Canadian football category may not get the same attention as, say, a similar nomination for Category:African American players of American football. if one goes, so must the other. I will CfD that one as well, for the fullest possible discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those CfDs you mentioned were this category however the second one does mention it while the first makes no mention of it.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. It was the CfR that created this category.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good catch didn't see that.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of several sub-cats of Category:African American sportspeople. Even if these two and basketball were deleted for the reason Giant 27 gives, each bio could and should be linked to the supracat page, so so-called clutter will not reduced at all anyway. Mayumashu (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Mayumashu. Occuli (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I presume this is about canadian sportspoeple distinguishable by skin colour, not by being US citizens of African descent playing sport in Canada (which would be a quadruple intersection). I hope that User:Giants27 will abide by the outcome of this CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, it is for US citizens of African descent playing Canadian football, a distinct sport only played in Canada. We use the term Black Canadians in categories for Canadians of African descent. Does that change things for you? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why I wouldn't abide by a consensus amongst other editors as I've never been one not to abide by consensus.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Personal comments about editors motivations and possible actions are pretty off-side here. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As my concern has not yet been sufficiently addressed, I update my suggestion to Delete. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category itself is very ambiguously named. At least here in Saskatchewan, if you are trying to be ultra-PC people call people of African descent African-Americans. Here, it has no distinguishing factor as far as country of citizenship. Therefore, anyone who is "black" in the CFL would fit in this category. Besides, I'm not sure that any player subcategories for the CFL aside from league and team specific categories need exist. Since the CFL is not the top football league in the world where players stay generally their entire career, these categories simply clutter pages as they mimmick their NFL counterparts. I'd honestly say we can delete all CFL related categories aside from league and team related alumni. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never had the pleasure of visiting Saskatchewan, but your assertion that in your province African American "has no distinguishing factor as far as country of citizenship" is WP:OR and contradicts the Black Canadians main article. I'm also surprised that someone from Rider country is so dismissive of the CFL and the Canadian game as to call -- if I understand you -- for the deletion of all player related categories. I guess we won't see you at Taylor Field with your face painted green. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am avid CFL fan and attend many games at Mosaic Stadium, but I am not a face painter. However, my point was that my understanding of categories was wide inclusive categories. Ergo, the only ones needed that are league specific NFL, CFL, AFL etc. are alumni based (i.e. Saskatchewan Roughriders players or NFL players). I would say everything else should be football only (i.e. Canadian players of football etc.). Plus you misunderstood what I was implying. I know many "black" people here in Saskatchewan and they would describe themselves of African-American if pressed for a PC term. Therefore, adding the American part of it does not indicate American citizenship, but rather that is the PC term for their race. None of these people refer to themselves as African-Canadians nor does the media or any other print outlet based in Saskatchewan. That was my point. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep to match all its established and accepted sibling sub-categories of Category:African American sportspeople The number or % of such players, whether great or small, is quite irrelevant and not a valid NPOV concern. Hmains (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say that? That's the shortcut already made for an argument to avoid in deletion discussions not mine.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're invoking that as your argument while at the same time disavowing it as your own. Neato. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My argument isn't about deleting it because other stuff exists, it's about unnecessary dissolving of it from the main category.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:08, 12 September 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.
