Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 14

< April 13	April 15 >

April 14[edit]

Category:Algonquian toponyms[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 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Toponyms by language of origin is a coincidence of the name, not of the article - not much different than if we had Category:Greek toponyms so that Antioch, California, Athens, Georgia, and Ypsilanti, Michigan can all be together somehow... There is a list of these, so that if anyone wanted to explain the extent of Algonquian settlement and naming and how that occurred or transfered, it finds a nice place for inclusion. Of course, most of these articles do not have sources as to the basis of their names and the talk page demonstrates that there is not a universal agreement as to what origin some names have: is "Miami" an Algonquian toponym, for instance - it doesn't appear to be on the talk page just derived from either Algonquian words (in Ohio) or not (in Florida), seems a slender basis on which to categorize the various places so named, akin to the various Category:Eponymous places types we have consistently deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the structure is:

Category:Algonquian loanwords

Category:Algonquian ethnonyms
Category:Algonquian personal names
Category:Algonquian toponyms

In the case of Miami, the one in Ohio is an Algonquian word, specifically named after the Miami tribe, but the one in Florida is not. Just as slippery is Savannah, Georgia, which is also Algonquian but the Savannah (the grassland) is not (though the Georgia one is not marked as such).

The original reason for the three subcategories was that the topomyns alone took up majority, so they were split off into a subcategory and then two other subcategories were then also generated. An unresolved issue with all four categories is what to include and what not to include, as currently both the directly-derived (such as Abitibi River), indirectly-derived Algonquian words (such as Algoma) and Algonquian word containing name (such as La Côte-de-Gaspé Regional County Municipality, Quebec) are all thrown in together. If anyone has suggestions on how to keep the categories but tease out the jumble or delete this and the related categories but able to suggest how to recategorize them, that would be helpful. CJLippert (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a case where the List of placenames of indigenous origin in the Americas (and its linked sublists) is clearly superior to a category (which involves various difficulties as adumbrated by CJLippert above). Also, as Carlossuarez46 observes, there is the problem that similarities between the names of articles do not usually lead to successful categories. Eg Manchester and Leicester are 'castle' based names but I don't think these (various) places consider themselves related to the many Newcastles in any particular way. Occuli (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization: "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." For cases like this one, a list is infinitely more suited to the task, as Occuli notes. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an Englishman, I feel ill-qualified to comment, but it seems to me that the fact that a place name is derived from a particular native American language is significant, because it indicates the area occupied by its speakers. The analogy with Greek placenames in America is a false one, since these are non-native names introduced by Europeans settlers, and are essentially random. The cases of Savannah and Miami are similar, these need to be purged from the category, since they do not represent the Algonquian placename (or they should be in a separate subcategory for trans-located Algonquian names). If there are a Manchester and Leicester in America, the Greek case applies to them, but the second element in each case is not "castle" but castra (meaning a Roman military fortress). With a few exceptions (with other origins) the element indicates a Roman town or fortress. Places with this element could correctly be categorised as "places of Roman origin", which would be a proper category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization by shared name characteristic. That a place name is derived from one language or another does not speak to the people who may or may not have lived there previously because there is no limit on the sources from which people draw place names. Place names can be drawn from the languages of people who not only never set foot in the location but were extinct by the time the place was named. Otto4711 (talk) 19:09, 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:Categories named after research institutes[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--Aervanath (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary category layer, since categories can contain both articles and other categories. All of the category's members are in the Research institutes category tree via other routes (including "by location" and "by type"); see [1][2][3]. I think that the approach of subcategorization is a more intuitive one than creating a parallel category structure for eponymous categories. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and outcome of a similar recent CFD, for...what was that for? I forget. Anyway, that one. Otto4711 (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it was criminals. Otto4711 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Criminals was (bizarrely) a merge, not a perfect precedent for delete. Also Category:Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is undoubtedly a 'Category named after a research institute', but is not a subcat of Category:Independent research institutes, because most of its articles are underwater vehicles, as opposed to research institutes. (Or, in the words of WP:CAT, Category:Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a Topic category, while Category:Independent research institutes is a List category, and topic categories are not usually subcats of list categories.) Upmerge to Category:Categories should be safe enough. Occuli (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent (yes, I commented against the criminals one, but let's roll with it - I've gotten over it....). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been created analogous to Category:Categories named after companies to gather a few such cats. If they do not consist of organizations themselves, these eponymous categories may be mostly catch-all categories that can contain virtually anything from the people working at the institution over their projects or equipment and what else. In which case there is no real logical parent for them in the systematic structure unless we want to introduce all the people etc into the category research institutes as well. On the other hand they are named after the institute and this is independent of how exactly the systematic cats are organized, and might actually prevent wrong categorization in cases where the association with the institute is the only defining characteristic. Moreover, to include besides the institutes themselves also a category related to the institute in the country / topic tree effectively lists some institutes twice, while not have the institute but only its cat in the branch does not help browsing either. Therefore I see no reason to delete this or other such categories. On the other hand they are handy in gathering gathering such cats, so hiding them as a maintenance feature is also fine with me. As for precedent, I'd be wary here for the simple reason that many such cats have been created independently in a number of fields so they may make sense to a number of people that are not yet aware of these discussions at all. --Tikiwont (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with articles about people or equipment falling into the "Research institutes" category tree indirectly through an eponymous category? Category trees are not supposed to be so rigid that we demand that any subcategory or sub-subcategory of Category:Research institutes include only articles about research institutes. Is it not useful for readers to be able to find the category for GTRI, along with all of the articles it contains, while browsing the "Research institutes" category tree? Why should we limit them to finding only the head article, and instead force them to search for a Categories named after... category in order to find the GTRI category? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the GTRI cat contains mostly labs and the like that have some administrative autonomy. I am mostly concerned about cats that contain only one institute and related articles such as Category:Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. In such a case the institute should be in the main cat and I'd consider the additional inclusion of the related sub cat there as systematically wrong but also of limited value as the main article should be the better starting point to find related material ad links to the subcat as well. (The GTRI article even has a navigation box.) So i don't think this is about forcing the route through the eponymous cats. Another drawback is that many such generic subcategories can clutter up the main one. I am aware that this is currently not the case for research institutes in particular, but that means on the other hand a certain prominence for those institutes who are also listed via a subcat.
  - Anyway that is my own preference about applying the cats as they exist in one particular niche. Nevertheless, this is about the deletion nomination for the eponymous parent cat, so the real question is what's wrong with grouping together all cats related to some research institute as well and i don't see that. As already said I find their use logical, independent of whether or not or how exactly they are also included in the systematic branch. On the contrary removing the parent carries the implication that all eponymous cats are moved into the Category:Research institutes branch and are only available there. Is it not useful for some readers to be able to find the category for GTRI also while browsing the "Eponymous categories" category tree? Why should we force them to hunt down all such categories scattered between research institutes by topic and country. What i am trying to say is that rather the deletion of those cats that removes options and limits editors to organize and search for things in a certain way.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your detailed response. My problem with this type of category, which I now realize I did not clearly indicate in my nomination, is that it involves categorization on the basis of page name rather than topic (from Wikipedia:Overcategorization: "Avoid categorising ... by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself"). Such categorization reflects a characteristic that is non-defining for the topic of the subcategory (i.e. the actual institutes, not the subcategory per se) and is unintuitive except for the small number of editors who are familiar with the categories. (How many editors who do not know about Category:Eponymous categories would search for Categories named after...?)
      I agree that the main article is a better starting point, and more likely to be used, than the eponymous category, but I guess I don't understand why you would consider indirect inclusion of articles about anything other than a research institute in the Research institutes category tree to be "systematically wrong". I also agree that those institutes which are also listed via subcat will have more prominence, but I don't see that as a negative side-effect: if we have so many articles related to an institute that it needs its own subcategory (i.e. if there are so many notable topics related to that institute), then in a way it makes sense for that topic to have more prominence. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's categorising 'categories by category name', not 'articles by article name'. WP:OCAT is about articles (so far - perhaps it should be extended however). WP:CAT - "If the articles of one category logically also belong to another category, then the first category is made a subcategory of the second." The articles in Category:Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution do not logically belong in Category:Independent research institutes so it's not a subcat (or at least it seems greatly preferable to me to restrict the latter to actual research institutes, otherwise CatScan produces a lot of nonsense). As another example, I would expect Category:The Beatles members to include 6 people-articles and not a host of other items (such as a park and an airport) via Category:John Lennon etc. (this leads to CatScan listing 14 people from liverpool who were members of The Beatles). Occuli (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Thanks for clarifying. For my part returning form a wikibreak, I may not have expressed myself to well either nor am I a CfD regular. Now, i actually see the point with the 'page name' in general but would consider eponymous categories an exception in the sense that they bring by default a 'name' into the game but inherit some defining characteristic from the topics that they relate to, i.e. research institutes or organization or companies etc. I don't think that this guideline intends to limit us from grouping eponymous categories by their topics where those topics are clearly discernible, nor should it. I mean we could not even have Category:Eponymous categories itself otherwise. There may, however, a better name for those subcats. They are, of course, more useful if they are not only listed in Category:Eponymous categories but also included in the related category (as they were in this case in Category:Research institutes) or (recommended) listed there as related category. (I've modified that accordingly). Moreover, the institute article always leads to the eponymous cat anyways.
With respect to your second question: Calling it systematically wrong reflected first of all my intuitive understanding of what I'd expect to find within the subcategories. Additionally i listed the two extremes and find neither appealing: Once populated and followed with consequence we would have every Important Institue categorized twice just because the Eminent director of Important Institute has now also been included in the Category:Important Institute. Nor do i think categorization is about giving prominence but that is a lesser concern and was only a qualifier with respect to the current diffusion of such cats. The basic problem is probably more succinctly reflected in Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous_categories: "Such an eponymous category is a topic category, and as such should not be placed in (made a subcategory of) a list category, even if its corresponding article is placed in that list category." Now, that actually means that the current editorial guideline suggest the opposite of what happens naturally in practice: namely some times after Important Institue someone creates Category:Important Institute copying the cats for the article to the topic cat. If those are removed, the eponymous categories should go somewhere else, but I don't think it'll help readers if they are listed in Category:Eponymous categories itself. I am not blind to the possible dilemma here, namely that as alternative to duplicate entries in one tree we end up in extremis with a duplicated categorization tree but I think readers are best served with a clear systematic in the main tree and will not be particular disturbed whatever we do in the eponymous tree. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see both sides but on balance I think we should probably ditch the "categories named after ..." categories. Let's stick to categorizing by topic, not by naming characteristic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories named after were created when there was no appropriate parent. This was usually the case when they are eponymous and contained a mix bag of things somehow related to the eponymous topic. So if these are to be deleted, what is the parent category for the contained subcategories? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:20, 24 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:Research institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area[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 for now; issue of upmerging left open for future considerations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Research institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Research institutes in the San Francisco Bay Area

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the parent category, Category:Research institutes in the United States. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per Category:Research institutes in the United States (but note that this is the only regional subcat so there is a case for upmerging it to its parents). Occuli (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of the separate category allows all of its members to fall neatly into the "San Francisco Bay Area organizations" category tree, but it does seem odd to subdivide by metropolitan area when we don't yet even have categories for individual states. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:51, 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:Women philosophers[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 to Category:Women philosophers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Women philosophers to Category:Female philosophers

Nominator's rationale: We should choose one or the other. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! But Category:Women by occupation seems about equally split. Unless there turns out to be a policy or whatever, the "Females" here are much bigger & correctly parented. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the main article is Women in philosophy and there are only women in the subcats of Category:Female philosophers … Occuli (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Women philosophers. For me, and in this particular context, the word "women" invokes thoughts about gender, social constructs, and women's studies, whereas "female" invokes thoughts about chromosomes, genetics, and specimens. A category for women/female philosophers is significant because of the social interplay between gender roles and philosophy, and the actual fact of possessing two X chromosomes is not at issue. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I think that since we have been presented with the need to make a choice, Category:Women philosophers is the preferable term, per Black Falcon. Cgingold (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I support "Women philosophers" over female also. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (06:23, April 18, 2009)[reply]
Merge to Category:Female philosophers per common-sense grammatical naming (Female/Male, Women/Men) and neutrality (female is a more neutral term than woman/women). Also, Category:Men philosophers would never be made (Category:Women philosophers was wrongly named to being with), though Category:Male philosophers/Category:Female philosophers is a possibility and more grammatically correct. Since this topic has been brought up, I also recommend beginning the mass-changeover of all of the Category:Women fooians categories to Category:Female fooians. --Wassermann (talk) 01:06, 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:Student societies in Pakistan[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Student societies in Pakistan to Category:Pakistani student societies

Nominator's rationale: Per what seems to be the convention of Category:Student societies by country. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 14 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:S-trains in Copenhagen[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) 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:S-trains in Copenhagen to Category:S-train

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article is located at S-train. The 'Copenhagen' bit is redundant since there is only one system called 'S-train'. Plurality incorrect since it is not a collection of trains of the type S, but refers to a system called 'S-train' (in singular). Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:S-train per nom. The article indicates that S-train is a particular rail network. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to Category:S-trains. The plural is correct. In Danish, the word "train" is the same in singular and plural, so to an outsider it may seem as if "S-tog" can be translated to "S-train" as a name for the entire system. But to native speakers of Danish such as yours truly it sounds completely wrong to name the system by a singular noun without even an article. There is more than one train on the system, so it it is the network of S-trains, plural. Only when compounded into "S-train network" does it become singular. –Henning Makholm (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, "S-train network" may be a better alternative, since the category contains not just articles about individual services but categories for stations and lines within the network (and, of course, the main article about the network). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment S-trains would refer to the trains (i.e. the rolling stock in plural). The network is called S-train, per the article and the English-language web site of DSB [4]. I am a native speaker of Norwegian, which uses the word tog grammatically identically as in Danish (i.e. tog is also both singular and plural in Norwegian). While I understand your comments, tog is not referring to the trains, but the network. Consider phrases like "S-trains lines" and "an S-trains station" etc. They just simply do not work, because S-train is a singluar network. It is not called the Copenhagen Metros either. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course not, because "a metro" refers to a system, not to a train. The train is "a metro train". However, the network is not a train. The network is a network that is serviced by many trains, in plural. That is not changed by the grammatical subtlety that the plural disappears when a compound is formed. Suggesting that the network is a single train is just plain wrong. Your link to dsb.dk does not document anything either way -- it does not even attempt to provide an English equivalent of the company name "DSB S-tog". The article S-train is named for the type of train, and not for the network these trains run on. Nowhere in the article is the network itself referred to as "S-train" in singular. –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One caveat here is that "S-tog" is not really used as the name of the system per se in Danish. It used to be that the system itself was known as "S-banen" (literally something like the S-line or the S-way, in singular), but this word has gone out of use and is known today only by a few enthusiasts and technocrats. People in general speak about using "S-toget" (the S-train) for a particular journey, or use long phrases such as "S-togsnettet" in the rare cases when one needs to specifically need to refer to the entire network, rather than the collection of trains that run on it. –Henning Makholm (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:S-tog and move the article to match. Why editors have translated "tog" but not "bahn" in S-Bahn is an inconsistent choice and S-train should be repurposed as a dab between the tog and bahn articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:S-tog and move the article to match. I agree with Carlos. S-train might as well be confused with S-bahn (although I know Bahn doesn't translate to Train). --Maitch (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Copenhagen S-tog per naming of similar categories like Category:London Underground, Category:Paris Métro, Category:Berlin U-Bahn and Category:Oslo T-bane. Each of these are named by the city ~~following~~ followed by the name of the network in the native language. Not to confuse with Category:S-Bahn which covers several networks in different countries. The sub-categories would also need renaming, as would the articles itself, as already suggested by Carlossuarez46 and Maitch – IbLeo (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Arsenikk's reference to WP:UE below I revise my vote to Copenhagen S-train. – IbLeo (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both article and category to Copenhagen S-train. S-train should be preferred since it is an english word. And the term S-train is used in reports and websites (examples: [5] [6] [7]). Many other systems have an english translation; Beijing Subway and Stockholm Metro are two examples. --Kildor (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first of your references actually say "S-trains"; the latter two other say "S-train X", i.e. as the first part of a compound. It is a common feature of English compounds that the first term loses its plural marker even though it is not logically singular -- e.g., a "letter carrier" is someone who carries letters, or a "shoe rack" hardly ever will hold a single shoe. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both article and category to Copenhagen S-train. We should have the word Copenhagen. S-tog is a brand name. Names should avoided to be translated. When it is translated, then it collides with several German systems, called S-Bahn, which can be translated to the S-train. To emphasize that it is trains, we could still have the word "train", or maybe call the category and article Copenhagen S-tog. --BIL (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. Do you want to call it Copenhagen S-train or Copenhagen S-tog? --Maitch (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would vote for anything with Copenhagen in it, but Copenhagen S-train if I have to choose. Just S-train without Copenhagen would collide with the German and Austrian S-bahn. --BIL (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do not think there is as much confusion as BIL suggests. The German term is S-Bahn, which translates (and is commonly translated to) "S-rail". Bahn means rail, while S-Zug (a term that as far as I am aware has never been used) would translate to S-train. As for the brand, DSB refers to the system as S-train on their English web site, and the system is commonly referred to as S-train in English sources—therefore WP:UE says use English. For instance, similar articles are located at Copenhagen Metro (not Københavns Metro) and Stockholm Metro (not Stockholms T-bana), because this is an English encyclopædia and we try to use English as much whereever appropriate. Particularly in the Nordic Countries, it is very common for public organizations and facilities to have an official translation into English, which also seems to be the case for the S-train. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:32, 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:Universal monsters[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 - Seems obvious that the creator tried to rename this to Category:Universal Monsters film series. - jc37 21:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary redirect, created by the same editor ho created the redirect target. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination may be more suited for RFD, but as long as it's here... delete per nom. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had a bit of a Faye Dunaway moment trying to decide between there and here. Otto4711 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, whatever it is. (As a redirect, it is sadly deficient.) Occuli (talk) 00:59, 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:Athlete-politicians[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) 17:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection: while both characteristics are individually defining, their interesection is not, since being a sportsperson and being a politician are unrelated characteristics. Most people have more than one occupation throughout their life, but creating categories for every intersections is not the best way to categorize that. Maybe these could work as a list, where it is possible to argue why the intersection may be significant for some people, but it's not a suitable basis for categorization. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom and per all the other deleted multiple occupation categories. I thought we cleared this set out a while ago. If for some ungodly reason they are retained they need to be renamed to "sportspeople-politicians" since "athlete" on WP refers only to track and field. Otto4711 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the latest cfd on these was a no consensus attempt to rename. Occuli (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A trivial intersection that could be 'listified', perhaps. (If kept, rename Category:Sportspeople who have become politicians) Mayumashu (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (perhaps renamed). Categorising politicians by previous occupation is appropriate, because they will commonly bring expertise from that occupation into politics and/or continue to take an interest in the old occupation. The paretn should be Category:Politicians by previous occupation. I would not recommend an athletes by subsequent occupation category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what expertise does throwing a football or shooting a basket impart to being a member of Congress? By this argument, any previous occupation could be said to impart experience and people should be categorized on the basis of every job they've ever held along with every intersection. Category:Burger flipper-janitor-politicians anyone? Category:Sunday school teacher-telephone operator-politicians? Otto4711 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - these categories are valid, factual, and quite well-developed: there is no need to delete them at all. --Wassermann (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per keepers, though I don't think the case is as strong as the actor-politicians. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see that anyone's explained how this is a defining intersection of multiple occupations. Seems like a good list candidate, since a list could provide the sport played in and the political office held. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While anyone can try to concoct imaginary categories, this is a real one and there is no doubt that the fact that the individual was an athlete before they sought political office is a defining characteristic. Unlike most politicians, athlete-politicians generally are able to use their notability as an athlete as a means to jump to higher-level elected positions. Athletes in the United States have come from baseball (Senator Jim Bunning), basketball (Senator Bill Bradley), football (Jack Kemp, Lynn Swann, J. C. Watts, Steve Largent, Heath Shuler) and I'm sure I could find a hockey player if I looked hard enough. There's Bob Mathias, an Olympic decathlon gold medalist who went on to win a seat in Congress, and whose obituary in The New York Times ("Bob Mathias, 75, Decathlete and Politician, Dies") focuses on the intersection for this one athlete. Another athlete (even if the word is used to mean track and field) is Jim Ryun a world-record holder and Olympic silver medalist who spent a dozen years in Congress. Our neighbor to the north had its Canadian Broadcasting Corporation publish "10 Athletes Who Became Politicians", listing athletes worldwide who had achieved success as politicians, demonstrating that the combination is treated as a defining characteristic. There's a reason that there's no Category:Burger flipper-janitor-politicians or Category:Sunday school teacher-telephone operator-politicians categories. People don't come from these fields and no one cares enough to create the category. This serves the purpose of aiding navigation across a strong defining characteristic composed of starting as an ahlete and using that renown to become a politician, and should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one who works at McDonald's flipping burgers or as a telephone operator ever goes on to become a politician or otherwise famous? That's a pretty arrogant statement. And you've made a really terrific argument for why an article on sportspeople turning politician would pass notability guidelines, by citing reliable sources, but sadly you've yet again conflated notability with definingness. Otto4711 (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, you're treading very thin ice with your incivility, and calling anyone "arrogant" is only pushing the limit well past the point where the pattern of incivility becomes too strong for even the most tolerant admin to refrain from giving you the block you have earned. I did not say that "No one who works at McDonald's flipping burgers or as a telephone operator ever goes on to become a politician or otherwise famous". The "otherwise famous" part even you would deem irrelevant. You were the one who stated that the absence of categories for the "Burger flipper-janitors" or "Sunday school teacher-telephone operators" that you proposed is because there is not enough to justify a category, if any exist. I'd love to hear your examples and I will be more than happy to consider the retention of these categories when you create them. The examples that I have provided demonstrate the defining connection of athletes who have used their high profile athletic careers as a steppingstone into high level politics. "Former Athletes Turned Politicians" in Sports Illustrated has no trouble defining these individuals as athlete-politicians. I would have to say that providing several different sources that describe dozens of different individuals in variations of "athlete-politician" is rather solid proof that the characteristic is strongly defining. I have no idea what proof you could possibly demand that would exceed what I have already provided and satisfy you, but I'm willing to try. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Former Athletes Turned Politicians" in Sports Illustrated has no trouble defining these individuals as athlete-politicians. - no, SI has no difficulty identifying these people as athletes who became politicians. All sorts of characteristics of people and things can be identified as such through reliable sources; "identified as" in RSes is not the same as "defined as" in WP terms, else, every single fact gleaned from a reliable source would serve as the basis of categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its just a matter of I say its defining and you say its not, at least we're even. I've provided multiple reliable and verifiable sources that show the athlete-turned-politician is a strong defining characteristic. If you want to deal with the sources, you will have to explain why not a single one of them fails to meet your standard. Even better, you might share with us what exactly the standard is under which you decide which sources establish a characteristic as defining and which don't. I also look forward to an explanation for why the absence of the non-existent categories you propose for "Burger flipper-janitors" or "Sunday school teacher-telephone operators" has any relevance whatsoever in deleting this category, despite the presence of multiple strong reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. Without some explanation on your part, "Defined as" appears to mean anything you deem it to be. Alansohn (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used the phrase "athlete-turned-politician", which turned up even more sources directly relevant to the individuals. In India, there's Jyotirmoyee Sikdar, defined as the "Communist Party of India-Marxist's woman candidate and athlete-turned politician" (here), there's Imran Khan defined in a headline as "Athlete Turned Politician Imran Khan Blames Musharraf For Bhutto's Death; Demands His Resignation". Finland's Lasse Virén is defined in the subtitle of an article in The Independent as "Athlete turned politician is helping his country to stage a major event." (here. The same publication defines the former Olympic runner as "athlete-turned-politician Sebastian Coe" (here). With nearly a dozen different sources describing well more than a dozen athletes as an "athlete-politician" or "athlete-turned-politician", it could hardly be clearer that this is a non-trivial defining characteristic, despite the determined efforts to deny what the sources explicitly say. Alansohn (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the United States, U.S. Senator Jim Bunning is defined by the Los Angeles Times ("political+appeal+of+a+popular+athlete-turned-politician"&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en here) as "Kentucky Republicans held onto a House seat by relying on the political appeal of a popular athlete-turned-politician. Jim Bunning, once a star pitcher..." Representative Tom McMillen is defined in an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in an article titled "Athlete turned politician says sports out of control". Even Penn State University's college paper had no trouble with former Pittsburgh Steeler receiver Lynn Swann, who is defined as an "athlete-turned-politician", one "preceded by many others, including fellow Hall of Famer Steve Largent, an ex-Seattle Seahawk and ex-Congressman from Oklahoma, and former New York Knick Bill Bradley..." (here). Again, if not a single one of these sources I've provided so far meet your standard, let me know what the standard is, and i will do my best to try to meet it with the thousands of reliable and verifiable sources available. Alansohn (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; listifying could be useful. --Kbdank71 19:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a clear case where a list would be better suited to provide the citations to show why the first activity really was the reason for the second activity. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 23 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:Southern plantations in the United States[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 19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Southern plantations in the United States to Category:Plantations in the United States ~~(1st choice) or Category:Plantations in the United States by state (2nd choice)~~

Nominator's rationale: There is no need for a breakdown by region in this case since there are relatively few notable plantations in the United States that are not in the South. Also, even if categories were created for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, this would still amount to only 51 categories, which is hardly enough to require subdivision by region. ~~Adding "by state" to the end of the category is one option, intended to make this a subcategory of Category:Categories by state of the United States, but it may be an unnecessary change.~~ –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I would have preferred not including 'by state', since that should be a subcategory of C:Plantations in the United States, if there were multiple sorting means, for instance there was also a C:Plantations in the United States by size (with subcats, (which is probably not a good idea)). Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point. Considering that and the fact that I was unsure about the "by state" option from the outset, I've struck out the suggestion from my nomination. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I've just created Category:Plantations by state to serve as the main subcategory of Category:Plantations in the United States when it is created once this CfD closes. --Wassermann (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Jllm06 (talk) 15:23, 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.

(State) plantations[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 (leaving possibility open for a new nomination for DC based upon arguments brought up by Johnbod). Kbdank71 19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Alabama plantations to Category:Plantations in Alabama

Category:District of Columbia plantations to Category:Plantations in Washington, D.C. – to match Category:Washington, D.C.

Category:Florida plantations to Category:Plantations in Florida

Category:Jefferson County, Florida Plantations to Category:Plantations in Jefferson County, Florida

Category:Leon County, Florida Plantations to Category:Plantations in Leon County, Florida

Category:Georgia (U.S. state) plantations to Category:Plantations in Georgia (U.S. state)

Category:Kentucky plantations to Category:Plantations in Kentucky

Category:Louisiana plantations to Category:Plantations in Louisiana

Category:Maryland plantations to Category:Plantations in Maryland

Category:Mississippi plantations to Category:Plantations in Mississippi

Category:North Carolina plantations to Category:Plantations in North Carolina

Category:South Carolina plantations to Category:Plantations in South Carolina

Category:Tennessee plantations to Category:Plantations in Tennessee

Category:Texas plantations to Category:Plantations in Texas

Category:Virginia plantations to Category:Plantations in Virginia

Category:West Virginia plantations to Category:Plantations in West Virginia

Nominator's rationale: (State) plantations is more suggestive of categorization by type (i.e. it implies that "Alabama plantations", "Florida plantations" and so on are distinct types of plantations) whereas Plantations in (State) is clearly categorization by location, and I believe it is the latter that we want. This change would also bring the subcats in line with the parent, which is titled Southern plantations in the United States and not Southern United States plantations. For what it's worth, the categories on Commons follow the proposed format. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom sounds logical to me, but I am not qulaified to judge (being English). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Wassermann (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename most, but Delete Category:District of Columbia plantations - of the 3 articles, 2 are in Viginia, and Theodore Roosevelt Island, the only one in DC, has no evidence in the article of ever being used for agriculture - at 88 acres it was surely too small. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 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:British and Commonwealth Academy Award Winners for Best Actor[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. (Actually upmerged Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners just to be sure.) (Former contents available upon request for list creation.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - not every intersection of two defining characteristics itself produces a defining characteristic. Categorizing by the intersection of "British and Commonwealth" and "Best Actor Oscar winner" is not one such intersection. The list article, which is more in line with other similar Oscar winners by country lists (although IMHO too narrow in scope and should be expanded to cover all British winners regardless of category), suffices for those interested. No other nationality has a separate category that I have found. Otto4711 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners in case some are not in both. ("British and Commonwealth" is a most bizarre combination - a search reveals that no other category name includes this phrase.) Occuli (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then delete -- Though this is a major award, this is the usual solution with award categories. This is in fact a list, but it fails to give the dates of winning and appears not adequately to distinguish winners from nominees or runners up. I suspect that "British and Commonwealth" was once the correct term, but is obsolete, but am not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 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:Discrimination by person[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 19:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with doubtful growth potential. It seems exceedingly rare that an individual person's discriminatory beliefs or actions are going to rise to the level of necessitating a separate article per WP:SUMMARY. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - isn't this Category:Bigots via euphemism? Or rather Category:Bigotry (wording is "Pages dedicated to the discussion of the real or alleged discriminatory beliefs or actions of a specific person"). If it is difficult to define a category clearly in a few words then it should probably be abandoned. Occuli (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Occuli, and really, precedent of the various bigots & Anti-Semites cats I think we deleted a while back. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 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:Mighty Men of David[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) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mighty Men of David to Category:King David's Warriors

Nominator's rationale: Rename - I'm not thoroughly convinced that this category is necessary so a delete result would be fine with me too. If kept it should be renamed to match its lead article and to make it sound a little less like a Saturday cartoon show. Also not sure that "Warriors" should be capitalized (it is in the lead article name) so a rename to lower-case is fine by me too. Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The existing name is not inaccurate, but the proposed rename is better and matches the parent article. The passive-aggressive push for deletion ignores the fact that this is about the only thing these individuals have in common other to toss them into the potpourri Category:Hebrew Bible people. In almost all of the cases, this is the characteristic that defines them. Alansohn (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, even when you agree with something you just can't stop yourself from taking the dig, can you? Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename in a restrained fashion. Occuli (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the phrase "Mighty Men" is a Biblical quotation from Kings or Chronicles, probably in King James Version. As such this is a small closed category, as the relevant list is a short one. The suggested rename would open it to the inclusion of others not given this idnentification by the Biblical author or compiler. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Category:Mighty men of David", the best form of the most common term in English Bibles — look at what various English Bible translations use:

"the mightie men whom Dauid had" (Bishops' Bible)
"the mightie men whome Dauid had" (Geneva Bible and the original version of the King James Version)
"the mighty men whom David had" (King James [as we generally think of it today], English Standard Version, New King James Version, New American Standard Bible)
"David's mighty men" (New International Version)

The name problem is twofold: (1) no need for Impressive Capital Letters, and (2) the article needs to be renamed. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 21 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:Neoconservative think tanks[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) 17:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion

Nominator's rationale: per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 26#Category:Neoconservatives, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 7#Category:Neoconservatives I propose deletion. Ray^Talk 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Neoconservatism is a well documented American political phenomenon, with many scholarly books already written on the subject. The think-tanks listed in this category are all well known specifically as neoconservative rather than mainstream (Republican Party) conservative, paleoconservative, Christian conservative, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wassermann (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Seems to suffer from the same problems as the categories for people, though it's not as serious a problem (for BLP reasons) when applied to organizations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These aren't think tanks that just coincidentally have a political leaning. The primary defining characteristic of the organizations are to serve as neoconservative think tanks. This is their characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 23:42, 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:History of Leon County[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 19:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of Leon County to Category:History of Leon County, Florida

Nominator's rationale: Adding state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per precedent to add the state to US city and county categories and, in this case, also to avoid confusion with Leon County, Texas. I renamed the main article a few minutes ago, and it is now located at History of Leon County, Florida. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 14 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:Category Stelios Kazantzidis songs[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: Deleted, per creator's request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion:

Category:Category Stelios Kazantzidis songs

I accidentally misnamed the category. Then I created the correct one Category:Stelios Kazantzidis songs. Costas Athan (talk) 11:56, 14 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:BAFTA winners (television series)[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) 18:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: It's generally bad form to use parentheses in a title when we aren't disambiguating something or using a title. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as long as the acronym is expanded to British Academy of Film and Television Arts. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be more accurate to use "British Academy Film Awards" in the title for the films category and "British Academy Television Awards" in the title for the television series category? Also, should it be "Award-winning" instead of "Award winning"? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be honest, I have no idea. If that is not the name of the award, I may object. However that would clarify the purpose of the category with a short, unambiguous name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Start over - there is more than one award presented by BAFTA for films and television series. These should be deleted and the articles should be categorized on the basis of the individual award. This is like categorizing a film that won a single Oscar for, like, sound editing in Category:Academy Award winners rather than the appropriate specific subcategory. We don't categorize the Oscars, the Golden Globes or other awards of this nature as a lump (although the Oscar category needs some cleanup) and we shouldn't categorize BAFTA winners in lumps either. Otto4711 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The usual solution for award categorises is Listify and Delete. These are notable awards, but lists do a better job in that they can place the winners in date order. If we keep categories, there should be one category for each award, but I would prefer none at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete. I think Peterkingiron hit the nail on the head. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 23 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:Guyanese musical instruments[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 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I went on a binge of creating musical instrument categories for specific countries, and this week a bunch of folks followed suit and created country-specific categories. However, I actually populated mine from the get-go (see the brand-new Category:Ugandan musical instruments, but others created a dozen categories with one entry, or a simple "music of" entry that's not instrument specific. Advise this practice be discouraged and unpopulated categories within Category:Musical instruments by nationality be deleted to prevent clutter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Music of Guyana is not a musical instrument. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the category can be populated by at least one article about an actual musical instrument. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some one can establish that there are musical instruments native specifically to Guyana. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are various instruments from Guyana in Masquerade music. --Opus88888 (talk) 13:55, 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:New Zealander musical instruments[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 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Zealander musical instruments to Category:New Zealand musical instruments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A "New Zealander" is a person from New Zealand. It is not an adjective. The correct adjective is "New Zealand". (This category only has one article in it, and I have my doubts whether the Great Highland Bagpipe is correctly categorized as a "New Zealand musical instrument".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but I'm not entirely sure we even need a "musical instruments by nationality" category tree in the first place. I don't see what makes an instrument a "New Zealand" musical instrument- Is the criteria that it must be attributed to have been invented there? Widely used there? Something else? I'm not sure what benefit categorizing instruments in this category tree has, but I suppose that argument should be saved for another nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I would have thought it would have meant "invented there", but it seems to be being applied in a "used there" way, which is next to useless. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the categories make a lot of sense, in that they categorise instruments unique to a given nation/culture, or fundamental to its music. New Zealand music is (aside from Maori music, already covered in Category:Māori musical instruments) pretty much part of the general Anglo tradition, so it's instrumentation really isn't that much different from US/UK/Canada stuff. I think the overall "by nationality" category has some uses, and many of the subcats are great for showing what instruments are unique to a culture, but some of them are real stretches due to many European instruments having become so widespread as to no longer be defined by any given continent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I have added the Maori instuments to this, & remove the mention of NZ in Great Highland Bagpipe - it was recently added to the first sentence as having supposedly distinctive types, but there is no mention of it again. But while I don't mind keeping Maori in the "by nationality" scheme, NZ should be there too. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and Johnbod. -- Avenue (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I gather that there are native Maori musical instruments, which have their own category. Apart from these, I would suggest that there are no native New Zealand musical instruments, only European imported ones, though possibly NZ made. This leaves no potential content apart from a Maori subcategory, which points to the category being useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still useful for navigation/finding with the "by nationality scheme", even if an empty head-cat - people are likely to look for NZ. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In categories of U.S. you use "american" (erroneus term) instead of United States; then, in N. Z., I think you should use "new zealander". Regarding bagpipes, it is known that New Zealand have more pipebands than Scotland; the bagpipe manufacture dates from 19th century. Probably it is a national instrument.--Opus88888 (talk) 14:11, 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:Jewish murderers[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. We have had plenty of Jewish categories kept at CFD due to "Jewish" being considered a religion or ethnicity in each particular case. Since WP doesn't categorize murderers by ethnicity or by religion, just by nationality, the only question is Do we consider "Jewish" to be a nationality? I don't see consensus that Jewish is a nationality (Per Johnbod, we already do, but per Wassermann we do not ("we might as well" = "we don't")), but in reality, any such assertions would likely be considered OR anyway. And looking at the articles, David Berkowitz, Leopold and Loeb, and Jack Ruby, I see that their nationality is American, so they should be categorized in Category:American murderers. Kbdank71 19:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorisation: falls under WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. I don't think there's any significant link between being Jewish and being a murderer, so this category shouldn't exist; similar categories (e.g. LGBT murderers) have been deleted in the past. Robofish (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't need to categorize murderers by what religion they happen to be. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. PetersV TALK 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of precedent for treating Jews as an ethnicity in categories. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if I have a 'say', since I'm just an IP. But I don't really see the point of this category. I can't see it helping readers to find more articles of interest. I can see readers having an interest in, for example, by nationality (there are plenty of tv shows dedicated to, for example, american murders), but ethnicity? Anyways, like I said, I just don't see the benefit. (and I vote 'delete' if I do have a say) 209.90.135.158 (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization, whether it's by religion or ethnicity. We would not have either Category:Episcopalian murderers or Category:Quebecois murderers. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Otto. In response to Johnbod, while there is "plenty of precedent for treating Jews as an ethnicity in categories", there seems to be no precedent for categorizing murderers by ethnicity. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally, ethnicity=nationality. There is plenty of precedent for treating Jews as an "extra" nationality. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please tell that to the editor who keeps removing Category:Jewish assassins from Category:Assassins by nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anewpester essentially summed up my thoughts on the matter: while there is some overlap in the real world, ethnicity and nationality are distinct social concepts. And while there is precedent for treating "Jew" as an ethnic designator, in addition to a religious one, that does not qualify Jews as a nationality. Nationality for Jews can be anything from "Israeli" to "American" to "German" to "Russian" to "Iraqi", but the term "Jew" itself does not designate nationality. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethnicity rarely equals nationality. Take the US, a country that does not include any "ethnic Americans" and the Afrikaner ethnic group, who are found in both South Africa and Namibia. --Anewpester (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens here should similarly apply to Category:Jewish assassins.--Anewpester (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In theory there are people who would not fit nicely under any nationality that we could best categorize as being of "Jewish nationality", but those in this category are not those theoretical people. David Berkowitz, Leopold and Loeb, and Jack Ruby are all unambiguously American. Category:Jewish assassins should be assessed separately to see if there are any included in that that are best said to be of "Jewish nationality". (For example, what is the correct nationality for Eliyahu Hakim or Eliyahu Bet-Zuri? "Jewish" seems to work as well as any would.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also feel that the precedent for treating Jews as an ethnicity in categories has been set, and should be continued. There is a difference between nationality , ethnicity and religious adherance. Bandurist (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC) (Note: Bandurist is the category's creator)[reply]
Delete unnecessary religio-ethnic-race category. So, as Bandurist says, Jews are an ethnicity, do we have other ethnic (as opposed to nationality) murderers categories? Category:Basque murderers, Category:Latino murderers, Category:African-American murderers? no, so the precedent is murderers by nationality not by religion or ethnicity. Were that it for all cats, but murderers is pretty clear cut. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After giving this serious consideration, I have concluded that -- as several other editors have already noted -- categorization of murderers (and other criminals) by ethnicity or religion is, on the whole, not appropriate. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that "Jew" here is more an ethnicity as a religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod, and also by the fact that we might as well start treating "Jewish" as a nationality here on Wikipedia considering ethnic/cultural, religious, and/or Jews of various nationalities literally live in dozens of countries around the world where they remain Jews (they often choose to do so both collectively and individually) and Jews hold dozens of differing nationalities, though they very often choose to remain or claim to be a part of the overall worldwide "Jewish people." Thus Jews are in some ways a 'worldwide nationality,' being a group of people which is more global than almost any other group (whether ethnic, religious, cultural, etc) in terms of geographic dispersion. In my opinion, Jews should be classified by: (1) ethnicity/cultural (general: claims to be an "ethnic Jew" and/or "cultural Jew"; or specific: Ashkenazi Jew, Sephardi Jew, Mizrahi Jew, etc); (2) religion (Reform Jew, Haredi Jew, Reconstructionist Jew, etc); and (3) specific nationality (American Jew, Russian Jew, Argentine Jew, etc). --Wassermann (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well start treating "Jewish" as a nationality here on Wikipedia. On what basis? "Jewish" is not a nationality. There is no such place as "Jewland". Treating something that is categorically not a nationality as a nationality is a horrible way to proceed. Jews are appropriately categorized at the religious and ethnicity level. "Jew" does not equal "Dutch" or "Mexican" or "Canadian" or any other nationality. Treating non-nationalities as nationalities is making stuff up, something we're really not supposed to do in an encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, to consider the term "Jewish" as a social and/or cultural entity that is established in different countries or regions. --Opus88888 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as much as it doesn't give me any religio-ethnic pride to retain the category, it does provide for navigation across articles united by a common defining characteristic. If there were details on Episcopalian (more accurately, Protestant) or Quebecois murderers, I would be more than willing to consider retention. We have a pattern of grouping articles for minority groups as variously defined by race, religion and other characteristics, while we don;t do so for majority groups, no matter how well they correspond. Thus, we have Category:African American members of the United States Congress, but not Category:White members of the United States Congress; we have Category:Jewish athletes, but not Category:Protestant athletes; and why we have Category:LGBT-related television episodes, but not Category:Heterosexual-related television episodes. While many of these murderers here may also be included in various nationality-based categories, the ethnicity is relevant in many of these cases and should be available as a means of navigation. Alansohn (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your evidence that religious/ethnic background is a non-trivial intersection with "murderer" is...what exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 19:20, 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:People with the name Stamp[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 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of unrelated subjects with shared names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would open the door for creation of a "People with the name x" set of categories, with "x" being any name ever given to a person in the history of the human race. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Josiah Stamp and Dudley Stamp are related subjects; they were brothers. Terence Stamp and Chris Stamp are related subjects; they are brothers. Further, Terence and Chris are collaterally descended from antecedent of Josiah and Dudley. Feel free to delete if still deem it to be a superfluous category. Cheers. --Qvidproqvo (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Qvidproquo[reply]
- Uh, I'm pretty sure that he didn't mean biologically unrelated. VegaDark (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure I didn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear-cut case of overcategorization, as cited by the nom. Categories for families and dynasties are one thing (useful if there is enough material to populate them well), but "people with the name (X)" categories invite inclusion on the basis of name only, rather than on the basis of some real relation. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I'm pretty sure that was rather evident to other parties, as well... Are puns deleted in Wikipedia too? Unsure as to haste with which to remove a rather innocuous (and specific) category. One could understand immediate removal of "People named Reynolds who like to eat pizza whilst bouncing on pogo sticks". This Category appears to have been taken as one that might set precedent with potentially deleterious effects on field population - not going to contest the absurd or overblown. As stated earlier, feel free to delete - no objections.--Qvidproqvo (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add if nec to Stamp and Fronius (surname) where genealogical details could be added. (Categories involving puns in article names are generally stamped out. There have been 2 or 3 in 2009.) Occuli (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no dab cats of shared names, if you want to know who else has these names, go to the dab pages, like one would do for other names, like Kirk: Kirk (given name) & Kirk (surname) (2 I've recently tried to cleanup). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete There should be a Stamp (surname) disambiguation page (and there is). This should provide the requisite list. That is all we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 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:Polish American Wikipedian Users[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 18:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or double upmerge - First of all, this has an improper naming convention of "Wikipedian users" at the end, it should just be "Wikipedians", so this at minimum needs a rename. Second of all, it is a nationality-ethnicity combination category, which have all been either deleted or double upmerged previously (in this case, it would be double upmerged to Category:American Wikipedians and Category:Polish Wikipedians. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary intersection, the existing categories are perfectly sufficient. Robofish (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we can determine the preferences of the people in the group. They seem to have a decided preference, and why should we impose our own on them? DGG (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They seem to have a decided preference, and why should we impose our own on them? - That argument could be used to keep any unencyclopedic user category. Category:Wikipedians who eat 63% ripe bananas on every 3rd Tuesday of the month on odd numbered years in Portugal could be kept via that rationale. After all, such users did, in fact, display their decided preference. The problem is, this category doesn't benefit the encyclopedia at all. It's an unncessary category intersection that does not foster collaboration, which is the goal of user categories. VegaDark (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robofish as an unnecessary intersection of ethnicity and nationality, and allow the affected users to recategorize themselves as they wish (if they care about this at all). I agree with the general principle behind DGG's contention (that users should be free to identify themselves as they wish), but I think it is misapplied here. There is a difference between expressing a self-identification, which is fine, and creating a grouping of users based on that identification. Categories, including user categories, are not just bottom-of-the-page notices. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & not conducive to cooperation; if you can speak Polish, add the lang box and someone will ask you for translation, but ethnicity alone is not useful basis for categorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 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:Wikipedians equal rights for all[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 18:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - First of all, this category name doesn't make sense. I assume it is suppsed to mean Category:Wikipedians who support equal rights for all people, so this at minimum needs a rename to make sense. Secondly, however, this is a support/oppose category, which have historically been deleted from Wikipedia as not fostering collaboration and for being potentially divisive. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very bad idea for a category. Amongst other things, it implies those who are not in it do not support 'equal rights for all' (whatever that means here). Delete as poorly defined, divisive and inherently POV. Robofish (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In addition to the problem identified by the nominator (that the category "group[s] users by advocacy of a position"), I think that most people would agree with the sentiment expressed by the userbox (or perhaps it is that few would openly express their disagreement with it...), which makes this category a "grouping of users on the basis of something that may be a characteristic of most or all Wikipedia users ... or humans more generally". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – Althought i made this i think it should just be renamed if anything.Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very commendable feelings, but ultimately not helping to cooperate to write an encyclopedia; I'm sure we wouldn't dream of keeping Category:Wikipedians who support unequal rights or whatever the counter position is to this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 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:Wikipedian Students of Bergen Community College[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 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bergen Community College - Needs to be renamed to follow the standard naming conventions of "alma mater" categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 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:Wikipedians who love Kyiv![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 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unencyclopedic. Doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize those who love a particular city. If the user wishes to create Category:Wikipedians in Kiev, they are free to do so, but "who love" is an unencyclopedic naming convention, and categorizing this has no benefit. I'll also note our article is located at Kiev, so at extreme minimum this category would need to be renamed to match the article title. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not useful for cooperation. 'Wikipedians interested in Kyiv-related topics' would be appropriate, but this category has no obvious use. Robofish (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a social club, nor MySpace. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – or rename to Category:Wikipedians who love Kyiv somewhat, but not enough to set up a Wikiproject. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously an attack category, leveling the implied accusation that those who are not in it hate Kyiv. Otto4711 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not helping to foster cooperation to write an encyclopedia and a bad precedent too, can we think of 1000s of these "love Foo..." categories, and perhaps a few "hate Foo..." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 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.