Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 1 February 3 >

February 2[edit]

Category:Virgin Islands people[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 15:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Virgin Islands people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Further to this recent discussion: this category now only contains the subcategories Category:British Virgin Islands people and Category:People from the United States Virgin Islands. As pointed out in the last CfD, grouping these together is an unnecessary level of categorization. The two are already linked together in their headers using the {CatRel} function. As an example in the last CfD, one editor mentioned how we don't group Samoan people and People from American Samoa together into Samoan Islands people; we also don't group Mauritian people and People from Réunion into Mascarene Islands people. Similarly, here there is no reason to group people together when the people are from two separate but adjacent territories with no jurisdictional link. (I was the creator of the category; it was origianlly created to hold Virgin Islands people subcategories, which have all now been deleted. No other editor has added substantive content (adding or deleting categories, e.g.), so this could probably be speedied as a borderline CSD G7, but I bring it here anyway since there have been others who have edited the category as a means of nominating the category in the past.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion, speedily if possible. G.O. acted in good faith to make these categories, but they're not needed. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 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:Anime and manga articles using obsolete infobox parameters[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 to Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete and incorrect infobox parameters. Kbdank71 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete infobox parameters to Category:Anime and manga articles with malformed infoboxes
Nominator's rationale: The original category was created to catch instances of {{Infobox animanga}} that were still using parameters that have been phased out of use and latter removed. Since then the category has be used for other issues that needed fixing, such as redundant parameters. The category actually explains which checks the template makes. Farix (Talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general -- you're right that the usage has drifted, and we need to do some housekeeping to reflect this. I'm not sure "malformed" is the right word for it, though. Not that, at the moment, I can think of a better one. Discussion? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: prior discussion can be found here. Agreed that I'm not completely fond of the suggested name (not afraid of saying it since I'm the one who actually suggested it), but better alternatives escape me as well. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeping in mind that we may want to keep "obsolete infobox parameters" around for its original purpose (or perhaps use something along the lines of Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete and incorrect infobox parameters). Or is that last part outside the scope of this discussion? XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Give it its right name and avoid any possible confusion. KrebMarkt 06:42, 4 February 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:1978 Operas[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: speedy merge – the only article in the category has been moved. BencherliteTalk 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:1978 Operas to Category:1978 operas
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicative. The lower-case "opera" seems to match others in Category:1978 works. —Markles 21:11, 2 February 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:Detroit musicians[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) 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Detroit musicians to Category:Musicians from Detroit, Michigan
Nominator's rationale: To match parent categories, and other similar categories which are all X from Y. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that sounds better than Detroit musicians, I kept thinking of modifying it to that, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 19:31, 4 February 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:Parnaíba's city[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parnaíba's city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category contained only one article, Parnaíba. However, this article was already located at Category:Parnaíba, the proper category for all things related to the city. I don't believe a category redirect applies here, because there's little chance of someone to be looking for the category "Paraíba's city", as well as little chance of extra articles being added to the category. Victor Lopes (talk) 20:21, 2 February 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:Video games containing sharks[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 15:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Video games containing sharks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The mere presence of sharks is, in and of itself, not a defining characteristic of games. In fact, some of the games listed in the category, such as Tomb Raider II and Golgo 13: Top Secret Episode, don't even bother to mention sharks at all in the article proper. Basically, this is the same rationale as given in the CFD for Category:Video games containing bees. — TKD::Talk 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - unlike the bee category, this category captures some articles in which a shark is a "main character" or whatever the appropriate video game term is. I'm at the moment neutral but I'm wondering if the prominence of sharks in some of these games differentiates it sufficiently from the bee example. Otto4711 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only two in the category where this would seem to apply would be the Jaws games. There are a couple others currently not in the category that I can think of where the shark is a main character (Typer Shark!, for example), but, on the whole, that's is a pretty restricted set, still overly specific IMO. It might be better to categorize this games under Category:Naval video games. — TKD::Talk 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No opinion on the merits of the category, but if it's kept shouldn't it be rephrased in some way? "containing sharks" strikes me as a very odd (and unintentionally very funny) way to describe things. Perhaps "featuring sharks"? Cgingold (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem any different than the "containing bees" one below. Some of the bee ones had bees as the main character too. Most of these aren't focused on the shark, they just happen to have a shark in them somewhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per bees CfD below. ninety:one 22:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:17, 4 February 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:Non petrolumn based lubricants[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: administrative close; no existing category nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there already exists a category for Petroleum based lubricants then all others are implicitly the opposite, there is no need for this category. Its as if one started to create categories for things people/things aren't, i.e. Non-American people, Non-convicted politicians, Non-cartoon programs, etc. Hooperbloob (talk) 16:11, 2 February 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:United States House of Representatives elections in the District of Columbia[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. I remember there being a bunch of CFDs regarding W, DC vs D of C, but I can't remember what the outcome was at this time. Kbdank71 16:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States House of Representatives elections in the District of Columbia to Category:United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, D.C.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most (if not all) categories pertaining to Washington, D.C are listed as "… Washington, D.C." and not "…the District of Columbia" so this should follow that practice. —Markles 15:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could not find a formal statement that W, DC is preferred over DC at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) or any of its archived talk pages. Could such a statement be put on that page?—Markles 15:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The last time I was in that group of categories there seemed to be a reason why both DC and Washington are used. I don't remember exactly what it was, but I think it has something to do with the legal status in congress. That was why not everything was renamed. Any experts care to chime in? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Based on my concern above. With no one refuting my assumption, renaming is probably not a sound move at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:57, 7 February 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:North Dakota elections, 2012[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete as empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:North Dakota elections, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete because it's empty and unused. —Markles 14:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless populated by 01:00 UT on 6 February 2009, the category will be eligible for speedy deletion per C1. - Stepheng3 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 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:Popular symbols of the United Kingdom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Popular symbols of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete entirely subjective category with no means of defining articles for inclusion ninety:one 13:58, 2 February 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:Finnish people of Slovakian descent[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: speedy delete, author's request – you can use {{db-author)) next time. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Finnish people of Slovakian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete I thought i was "Slovakian" instead of "Slovak", so the creation of the cat was an error. kalaha 13:54, 2 February 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:English espionage historians[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:British espionage historians. Kbdank71 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English espionage historians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Video games containing bees[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 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Video games containing bees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Are you kidding me? Video games containing bees? What next, categories for every species? Seriously though, it's an utterly trivial characteristic of a game.--Drat (Talk) 09:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This borders on qualifying for Speedy Deletion as Patent Nonsense -- and was created by an editor with a long track record of such creations. (My original suspicion was that he was a very young person who didn't realize that it was a silly thing to do. Clearly not the case.) Cgingold (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case I've misjudged this and these are video games that literally contain real bees inside of them, I will be happy to reconsider. Cgingold (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're talking about video games that have bee characters as either enemies, allies, objects, NPCs, etc. GVnayR (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Haha, this is one of the best categories I've ever seen! Obvious nonsense. Per QI - fuck 'em, they're only bees. Lugnuts (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is already a category about video games with sharks in them. If you get rid of this category, then it should only be proper to get rid of that category as well. GVnayR (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's somehow appropriate that a bee-related discussion should attract a waxy argument. Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated that category for deletion, above, under pretty much the same rationale as given for this category. — TKD::Talk 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious overcategorization. GVnayR, no one is stopping you from submitting other categories to CFD. Pagrashtak 18:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I will punch every bee in the face. –xeno (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • *snerk* Delete per the impeccable reasoning offered by xeno. Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a trivial category. The presence of bees (or any type of creature) isn't a defining characteristic of most games. I doubt that many people are going to think of bees when they research Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars or The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. — TKD::Talk 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - maybe the category can be kept if the wording of the category is changed to "Video games featuring bees". GVnayR (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There appears to be no support based on the merits of the category. Only GVnayR (talk · contribs), the category's creator, has expressed the view that the category should be retained, and his basis is that there's a similar category Category:Video games containing sharks, i.e., WP:Other stuff exists. This is not an argument on the merits of this category. TJRC (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment If this category were to be deleted, please recategorize the remaining articles under the Category:Insects in fiction category. Bees in video games are just as important as other video game characters because they force the protagonist to use alternative attacks to defeat the bee enemy. And if a bee is an ally or an item, it can be considered notable for its stinging/poison/venom attacks. GVnayR (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - That someone would create this in the first place is ridiculous, but that they would try and defend it afterwards... But from his talk page, this guy is clearly out for a laugh. ninety:one 21:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining, per my comments on sharks above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 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.

Unpopulated future century categories[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 for now. Kbdank71 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:26th century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:27th century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:28th century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:30th century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:31st century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. All these categories for centuries in the future contain nothing but the main article of the same name. They may be deleted until they can be populated with articles or subcategories, as are other categories for centuries in the future. Cf. Category:23rd century. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What a sad and contemptible display of pessimism, Mr. Ol’factory. Apparently you have already written off the future of human civilization. You should be ashamed of yourself! And I sincerely hope that your great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-children never see this (in the unlikely event that you have any...) Cgingold (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination has a bad smell to it.... There were a number of films set in these respective centuries, believe it or not. Now, I was in favor of deleting category:films set in the 51st century, etc., but they probably should have been upmerged to these categories. I note that you didn't nominate Category:29th century, as it has the subcategory Category:Films set in the 29th century. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're suggesting that someone's removed some categories or articles from them—it's possible, but I couldn't find them. If you're suggesting it was me, you're wrong. You're correct that I did not nominate similar categories that contain more articles and/or subcategories. That's why I Cf'ed you to Category:23rd century, but I could have also done so to Category:29th century. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that was a joke. A bad one, apparently. Still, one could justify the categories as part of a collection of categories, some of them non-empty. Perhaps the Category:Films set in the 29th century should be upmerged to Category:Films set in the future and Category:29th century, and the pattern would be more-or-less preserved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, my fault, I just wasn't sure what you were meaning. Incidentally, do you know where the discussion of the old film categories for future centuries was, or were you just joking that there was one? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I recall that we deleted a number of categories like Category:Films set in the 52nd century within the last two months, although I can't find it the reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, my recollection is now that the categories were [[Films set in ''xxxx''']], where xxxx is a specific distant year. I still can't find the category, as it may have been "movies" or "fiction". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - small categories with no likely immediate hope of expansion. Should Wikipedia survive in such a state that categories have any existence or meaning as the project approaches the year 2500 then the categories can be recreated. As it stands, these are useless. Otto4711 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Terhe is no point in having these categories unless they can have a reasonable population. They can only deal with fictional subjects, and I would suggest that "25th and later centuries" would cover everyhting we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 5 February 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 residents of the City of London[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 based upon 'a former resident is not necessary "from"'. Kbdank71 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Former residents of the City of London to Category:People from the City of London
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We generally don't categorize people by "current" or "former" status. If someone is defined by having once been a resident of the City of London, then the person can be placed in Category:People from the City of London. (If the category were kept, theoretically all dead people in the target category should be moved to the "former residents" category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a former resident is not necessary "from". Let the "from" category grow organically and with due review and caution rather than assuming any body who happened to reside a short time (but no longer) is "from" there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course at this time, there's only one "resident" article in the cat.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:21, 4 February 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:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Cheshire constituencies[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: upmerge. Kbdank71 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging:
Nominator's rationale: MPs are already heavily categorised, and previous categories by English region have been deleted. Until the early 20th century it was common for MPs to represent several constituencies in the course of their career, so categories such as this increase category clutter on already heavily-categorised articles. (e.g. see the number of constituencies represented Winston Churchill). The one article currently in this category is also in the parent category Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies, so deletion would suffice, but I have nominated it for merger in case any more articles are added before deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Have just found Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Worcestershire constituencies and added it to this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom whose reasoning, as usual on politics-related categories, is spot-on. I don't think upmerger to the other parent categories (Politics of Cheshire or People from Cheshire) is required in the circumstances. BencherliteTalk 20:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on -- I think there are some other county categories of this kind, such as a Cornish one. Is not the English category too heavily populated to be easy to use. If so, dismabiguating by county is logical. This will bring together MPs for Worcester and Worcestershire. On the other hand some one is assidusously creating and populating categories for each successive Parliament. This will produce large (but manageable) categories. I have no dount that the parent started life as "English MPs". I just wonder how useful it is to note whether a person sat for an English, Welsh Scottish or Irish constituency in the UK Parliament. I think it would be better to discuss the whole structure of the category tree together. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just seen this getting back from holiday. I created this category while cleaning up the Cheshire category tree and then never got around to populating it -- there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of existing articles which could be categorised here, so please don't delete purely on the basis of its current lack of population. It was based on the example of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Worcestershire constituencies which I had (it seems wrongly) assumed was one of many categories of MPs per county. The general category of English MPs seems to me to be far too large for utility, but I'm happy to go along with the consensus among those who manage the categories for UK MPs. I will notify the Cheshire Wikiproject which might have an opinion here, so please hold this open for another day or so if possible. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can we have some figures from the nominator for how many entries would be in Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies, since it is supposed to be for all members of the "Parliament at Westminster since 1801" if it had no subcategories? I would have thought the resulting category would have been far too large to be manageable, and that organising them by means of sub-categories would be more useful.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:51, 9 February 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:Students of Art Students League of New York[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 15:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Students of Art Students League of New York to Category:Art Students League of New York alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per standard naming format for alumni categories of U.S. schools. The school is Art Students League of New York. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match other corresponding categories. The logic behind the title may well be reflective of the fact that the school is not a degree-granting institution. Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- assuming that none of the contents are current students, but I would be surprosed if any were notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 5 February 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:Students of Loughborough University[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 per precedent of Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom. If it is desired to add "and students", an umbrella nomination for the other subcats should suffice. Kbdank71 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Students of Loughborough University to Category:Alumni of Loughborough University
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category seems to be applied in the way a "current" category would be: current students are placed in the "Students" category; former students are placed in the "Alumni" category. Since we don't categorize students by former or current student status, they should all be merged into the alumni category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Alumnus" is a "former" term, just as much as "student" is a "current" one. Since students are rarely notable, this doesn't usually present much of a problem, but Loughborough specializes in athletics & has many notable current students. The category name should reflect this, maybe Category:Alumni and students of Loughborough University. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, it's more the way the categories are being applied than the actual meaning of the words that is the problem. "Students" could indeed mean past or present, but it is being used entirely as a "current" category. Strictly interpreted, an "alumni" category is a former category, but there's no practical reason why current students couldn't be included in such a category, for convenience in avoiding the present/past issue entirely, if nothing else. It may not be strictly 100% accurate, but with the huge number of alumni categories already in existence, it doesn't make much sense to me to start renaming them "alumni and students of..." just so current students can be included. Unless someone wants to nominate them all for renaming ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Johnbod This will save having to update articles when they graduate. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we're seriously going to change this one category to "Alumni and students" when the 100s (1000s?) of others on WP just use "Alumni"? I can't believe that this university is in such a unique position so as to require this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and per ample precedent against using former/current distinctions in category titles. It is a convention, established across thousands of categories and tens of CfD discussions, to use "Alumni" categories for people who are or were affiliated with an educational institution in the capacity of a student. I do not see a reason to make an exception for Loughborough, since it is by no means the only university with notable students who are still attending. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:45, 13 February 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:Actors who studied with Lee Strasberg[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. The one article in the category makes no mention of attending the "Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute". Kbdank71 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actors who studied with Lee Strasberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is categorization of actor by acting teacher, which is a variety of "people by person" categorization that we generally don't do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if a rename to Category:The Actors Studio alumni would be worth considering? Normally I'm opposed to alumni categories but if we're going to have them, one for the Actors Studio seems like a reasonable addition. Otto4711 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Given that a category already exists for alumni of The Actors Studio, changing to straight delete as overcategorization as laid out in the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Merge to Category:Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute alumni What we do is group people by strong defining characteristics as an aid to navigation. Lee Strasberg is described in the first sentence of his Wikipedia article as "one of the best-known and most important acting teachers in the history of American theater and film", a statement that probably does not go far enough in his roles as an instructor of acting. There are dozens of actors described in detail in Strasberg's article and dozens more who reference Strasberg in theirs. This category should be expanded and further populated. To the inevitable argument that there is a slippery slope which will require that any acting instructor have a category listing their students, an excellent cut off will be if the articles of the purported alternatives (usually none are provided anyway) describe the individual as "one of the best-known and most important acting teachers in the history of American theater and film" or some similar terminology. There already is an Category:Actors Studio alumni, which does not cover all of Strasberg's students. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More importantly, how many actors' articles describe Strasberg in the first sentences of theirs? The first paragraph? Postdlf (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have changed my vote to Merge to Category:Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute alumni, a pre-existing category that serves exactly the same purpose as the one proposed here for deletion. I find it curious that a school named for an individual that serves the exact same purpose as the category proposed for deletion will undoubtedly survive, while a corresponding category of students would be a knee-jerk deletion, all while not appearing in the first sentence of any articles that I could find. One day we will end the bizarre insistence that any example that can be shoehorned to fit the "people by person" rationalization should not be automatically targeted for deletion. If only some will realize that the purpose of categories is as an aid for navigation across articles, and not a target for the rigid application of irrelevant and inapplicable precedents. Besides, can anyone point out the "must appear in the first sentence" rule, or is that simply a new excuse for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it were left up to me, I would also delete most alumni categories as being non-defining and replace them with lists. Or perhaps even better, I would keep the categories and remove their actual application from the vast majority of articles in cases where they are non-defining for the individual and reserve the categories for those who truly are defined by where they went to school. Proposing deletion of this category is not "knee jerk"; it's simply a proposal to apply a consensus (delete non-defining categories that apply to people) that has been affirmed in hundreds of past discussions. The fact that the same consensus would not be affirmed in a discussion of all the alumni categories (for reasons you can probably guess) is hardly a reason not to apply it elsewhere. (PS: The merge target looks correct to me.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto & nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute alumni as Alansohn -- The deletion of all alumni categories would be a major step, and cannot be decided on the basis of one discussion like this. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did someone suggest otherwise? I mentioned what I would do with them "if it were up to me", but of course there's no proposal here to delete any alumni category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 6 February 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:Plural marriage[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 15:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Plural marriage to Category:Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Plural marriage" is a term that is often used within the Latter Day Saint movement. In a very rough nutshell, the term essentially means "polygamy as practiced for religious purposes within the movement". Back in July 2008, after a consensus decision, plural marriage was moved to polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement. I suggest that the category name should now follow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 2 February 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 Senate of Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Former members of the Senate of Trinidad and Tobago to Category:Members of the Senate of Trinidad and Tobago
Suggest merging Category:Former members of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago to Category:Members of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We generally avoid division of people into "former" and "current" categories, including "present" and "former" members of legislative bodies. Many precedents for this, but see, e.g., here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created all of these characters back in the dark ages. I was too much of a pedant to call former members "members", hence the additional cats. No objection to the merge. Guettarda (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_2&oldid=1138392159"