Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 18 January 20 >

January 19[edit]

MCC[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 15:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the MCC to Category:Presidents of the Marylebone Cricket Club
Propose renaming Category:Secretaries of the MCC to Category:Secretaries of the Marylebone Cricket Club
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation; MCC is ambiguous. Other MCCs have presidents and/or secretaries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 19 January 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:Presidents of the ICC[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, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the ICC to Category:Presidents of the International Cricket Council
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation; ICC is quite ambiguous, and some of the other ICCs have presidents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, rename per nom. Such blatant ambiguity just isn't cricket. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely support what a bad way to name things... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 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:Disturbances of pigmentation[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 17:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disturbances of pigmentation to Category:Disturbances of human pigmentation
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Disturbances of pigmentation" category should probably be renamed to "Disturbances of human pigmentation" as the scope of the category is limited to conditions affecting the pigmentation of human skin (see List_of_skin-related_conditions#Disturbances_of_human_pigmentation for a listing of all the conditions considered part of this category). Without the word "human," the scope of the category is broader than intended. kilbad (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deferring to the wisdom of the dermatological experts and the interest of greater clarity in the title. I still haven't heard back about that rash I spoke to you about, and its starting to spread and ooze a strange green substance, but that's another story. Alansohn (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assure us that it's not contagious... or at least put some fresh bandages on and try not to scratch too much. Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I'm a little puzzled. Wouldn't this issue also apply to the vast majority of the many hundreds of other sub-cats of Category:Diseases and disorders? Should we consider undertaking a large-scale renaming effort? Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I initially created this category for dermatology related articles. However, I have since suggested this rename after I found a few articles about different albino animals within the category (which would not be an improper categorization as it is now named). Therefore, I think a rename to Category:Disturbances of human pigmentation is appropriate given the desired scope of the category. With regard to other sub-cats of Category:Diseases and disorders, if any of them are named such that articles are being included which the category was not created for (due to poor naming, as this one is an example), I think considering a renaming would be appropriate. I think taking each category on a case by case basis is the best way to approach it. kilbad (talk) 01:39, 20 January 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:Prix Goncourt winners[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. Kbdank71 17:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Prix Goncourt winners to Category:Prix Goncourt laureates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. correct nomenclature. emerson7 21:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "correct" en Francais, mais pas en Anglais. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • please reference here and here for correct usage.
  • Comment The usual solution with award categories is listify and Delete. In this case the list exists already. However, I suspect that this is a prize important enough for a categoty to us worth having. I agree that "winners" is the correct English. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 22 January 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:Madoff fraud[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 article and list would seem to be preferable at this time. - jc37 09:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Madoff fraud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete A catgory named "Madoff fraud," prior to any ajudication of the case against Madoff, violates out WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:V policies. At a minimum the category needs to be renamed. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as overcategorization. Even more fundamental than the naming issues is the fact that all but two most of the articles listed are merely about people and organizations who/that were victims of the scheme, which isn't an appropriate use of a category. (Presumably they're included in the list article.) Unless and until there are more articles that deal substantively with the fraud scheme, there's simply no need for a category, however named. Cgingold (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category serves a useful purpose in grouping articles about this specific fraud. What is taking place now is the identification of the victims and more disclosures and articles will come later. This is the largest fraud in history. Certainly the losses of millions, bankruptcies, and suicides related to the Madoff fraud suggest the the utility threshold for a category has already been reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsw (talk • contribs) 22:15, January 19, 2009
It may well warrant a category in the future, but at present I honestly think it would be better served with a navbox template. Cgingold (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that a category would come first and then establish if the articles included in the category merit the added structure of a navbox. patsw (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fraud has already been stipulated in the agreement to terminate the operations of the investment company Madoff ran and official notice given to investors. Since Madoff alone controlled "Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC" and since it has been turned over to a receiver who has already determined that the fund was not invested but fraudulently operated, the category name is accurate. The extent of his criminal liability has yet to be determined but he made an admission on December 10, 2008 implicating himself which has been covered extensively in the media and in the Bernard Madoff article. Does the nominator have an alternate name? patsw (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (Note: Patsw is the category's creator)[reply]
Cetrainly Category:Alleged Madoff fraud would be superior at this point in the legal process. However the other issues identified by the other comments are not addressed by a renaming. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding alleged is fine by me if that's a consensus. Of course, the fund has already been declared fraudulent and shut down, Madoff's personal criminal liability in it has yet to be determined. That is a consequence of the fact that the fund bears his name. I offer Category:Madoff fund fraud as another name. patsw (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I was surprised to see the category, but think it might be useful in the future. Patsw tends to overstate the agreement of Madoff to the charges (as far as the public knows anyway). I tend to agree with UnitedStatsian and Cgingold in their comments, but am not that familiar with the requirements for categories. Smallbones (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & as not particularly useful. All the articles should be linked from the main one and a cat, especially inflammatorily named, is of no use. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Bernard Madoff scandal; "Madoff scandal" is how the wire services refer to it, and sidesteps the use of "fraud." The scandal is non-defining for the likes of Eric Roth or Mortimer Zuckerman; however, it is for the likes of Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation and Sonja Kohn, and until such time as the latter might be AfD'd, the category is reasonable to have.-choster (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scandal is a better name than fraud, but ultimately it will be a dumping ground for all famous people who invested with Madoff as each is tittlatingly reported in the press to feed the public's shadenfreude. Victims, victors, bystanders, alike will be categoried here: it's either defining or not, and if we as a community decide that it's a keeper then it must be defining for all, just like some of the sports team categories that get tagged on guys who play only a few games with the team - probably not defining for the career but included for completeness and cross-reference, so expect to see the celeb's in here as each is reported to be involved somehow. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I thought he had already admitted that the whole business was a Ponzi fraud. However, if this is considered libellous, pending conviction, something using "Scandal" or Financial scandal might be safe. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main article and the list article are essentially serving the purpose that the category would otherwise do. Not every person who was scammed needs to be included in a category for the fraud, and the category has already begun to include people that have no connection to the fraud except for having lost money in it. The list does the job. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 25 January 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:Cancer deaths in Hawaii[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete. Though it does look like a consensus to do a group nom for listification/deletion, if that is wanted. - jc37 07:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cancer deaths in Hawaii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete In modern American society, since many other causes of death have been controlled, about 10% or so of all people die of cancer. There is nothing remarkable about living in the state of Hawaii and dying of cancer. Nor is it related to the person's notability, since that would happen before the person died and qualified for this category. Borock (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that being a worthwhile category if the articles were about the deaths, not the people who died. Borock (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As creator I would be OK with deletion—I actually subdivided the massive category of Category:Deaths from cancer into places so that listifying (and thus deletion) could be made easier and more palatable. I think deletion is definitely warranted for all the cancer death categories, but I'd prefer to see the whacker taken to the entire scheme of people dying from cancer (both by type and by place) rather than just cherry-picking Hawaii off. I know, I know, WP:ALLORNOTHING, but if we're gonna do it, let's do it. If there's consensus to delete here, I'm certainly willing to nominate the rest. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It obviously doesn't make sense to pick off at random one sub-category for one particular state. But by the same token, is there anything more or less important about dying from cancer than from any other cause? In other words, why single out the cancer death cats for possible deletion? I've always kind of wondered what real value there is in having all of these "deaths by cause" categories. At the same time, they don't bother me enough to propose a crusade to eliminate them -- mainly because I'm pretty sure they're never gonna cause a problem with category clutter (if you see my point... ) Cgingold (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that point on category clutter is a good one. I think it's true that cause of death is usually not defining, but the same dangers generally don't exist in having a category for them. As I see it, they are silly categories, really, but at the same time it's hard to get very worried about them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think they are clutter, and that they are defining. Most (cancer) deaths that get reported these days usually say something like "Joe Bloggs passed away today, after a lengthy battle with lung cancer...", etc. Defining and encyclopedic IMO. Lugnuts (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to be clear, the one thing that we can be sure of is that these categories cannot possibly create category clutter, since the vast majority of people will only ever have one cause of death -- even allowing for reincarnation. Cgingold (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, they can create clutter. Check out Barbette (performer). Out of eleven categories, including birth and death year, five of them are related to his death. Otto4711 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a productive category, part of a structure that organizes and allows navigation by cause and place of death, that also has the side benefit of keeping people busy adding the necessary categories as new articles are created. Alansohn (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one subcategory in a larger organized system, why just pick off one in the group? --MPerel 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - to Category:Cancer deaths in the United States. I can't imagine there's much difference from an encyclopedic standpoint whether someone dies of of cancer in Hawaii or Alabama or Iowa. On a nationality basis, sure, big differences in available treatments and social networks but in-country I'm not seeing it. Could be listified if the information is desired. The fact that this is one category out of the set is OK for CFD purposes. We often engage in test nominations to try to come to some consensus about a category structure. The idea that it's a benefit to keep people doing busywork adding categories to articles is...odd. Otto4711 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by state seems an NPOV way of breaking up a large category as its parent is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 20 January 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:Spanish-speaking Filipinos[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) 07:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spanish-speaking Filipinos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete overcategorization Number1spygirl (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure that thousands or millions of people in the Philippines speak Spanish. There is nothing remarkable about this so it would be a significant way to categorize people. Borock (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization. Maralia (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OCAT. I also seem to recall that we did a by-languages-spoken was a bad idea: how well does someone need to speak the language to qualify, who tells us that, who tells us that the person fits that bill. Blah-blah-blah. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 20 January 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:Local governance in India[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, empty. Kbdank71 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Local governance in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Newly-created unnecessary duplication of established category Category:Local government in India. Currently only contains one stub article, category was created by editor of that article, and I've put it into the established category. PamD (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :- As creator of the category, I agree for outright deletion. The category was created due to my unfamiliarity with the nuances of categorization.
But it seems that re-naming the category Local government in India as Local governance in India would be more meaningful. See that the title of one major article is Municipal governance in India. Other facet of the subject is Rural local governance in India(it is reffered to as Panchayat raj) and both constitute Local governance in India.The subject Local governance is broader than Local governments. Similarly, another category which I had originated as a possible sub-sect of this category is Local Governance in Kerala.(Kindly replace the capital letter G with small letter in the category, if possible). Rajankila (talk) 05:28, 20 January 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:Nymphomaniacs[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 (I wonder if there are those out there who bemoan that this currently isn't an "all-inclusive" category, regardless of where the lines are drawn in definition : ) - jc37 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nymphomaniacs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is this really a category? This easily rivals "Pedophiles" as the least appropriate category I have ever seen. To label anyone a "nymphomaniac" is subjective and POV, even if done in the clinical sense. As the main article Hypersexuality says: "Hypersexuality is the desire to engage in human sexual behavior at a level high enough to be considered clinically significant. There is no universal definition of what is considered hypersexual, yet several investigators agree that this condition with sexual overdrive is a cause for concern" (emphasis added). Since there is no set definition that we can adopt to determine that the desire is "clinically significant", we can't categorize people using any standard, since the choice of standard would be POV. And even if there was a standard we chose to use, how do we measure "desire to engage in human sexual behavior" anyway? Right now the only person included in this category is the Ancient Roman Valeria Messalina, who had a reputation for having sex at Roman orgies (gee, sex at orgies—what a surprise). Legends of Catherine II of Russia is also included, no doubt for the whole "died with a horse story", which is untrue, so there it's essentially categorizing an urban legend by the type of rumor. Bad, bad, bad. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I seldom get involved in category discussions because categories are completely useless to me, but this is a good example of a cat that needs to get deleted sharpish. It adds nothing, is based on a definition that doesn't mean anything, or means wildly different things to different people, and just generally leaves lots of articles open to vandalism. --Ged UK (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I sure wish you would tell us how you really feel about this category, Good Ol’factory! Okay, so I was sitting here carefully weighing all of the many pros and cons of the category, when suddenly it occured to me that you completely overlooked it's fatal flaw: gender bias. Where's Casanova? Where's John F. Kennedy? And above all, where is David Duchovny?? Why, they're nowhere to be found -- because nymphomaniacs, by definition, can only be women. Clearly there is only one course of action that we can rightly follow here: as I'm sure you will agree, we must rename to Category:Sex addicts! :p Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand that the word is no longer used by professionals in the mental health field. Nor is "sex addict" much better. BTW I don't think a person who has sex every night with his or her spouse would be labeled with one of these words. So where is the logic needed in a serious reference work like Wikipedia? Borock (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pejorative, subjective, and category member candidates unlikely to be referenceable by reliable sources. --MPerel 05:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not definable, subjective, or verifiable (seems to point to the propensity or desire rather than actually following through). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 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 Virgin Islands American football players[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 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Virgin Islands American football players to Category:United States Virgin Islands players of American football
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like the Puerto Rican nomination below, I've separated this one from the "by-state" nominations below. I propose that this one be named to conform with the "by-nationality" categories of Category:Players of American football by nationality, which use "Fooian players of American football". The alternative would be Category:Players of American football from the United States Virgin Islands, but in other categories USVI is treated as a nationality distinct from "American" (or at least as a type of "sub-nationality" within American). Ultimately, I'm fine with either approach). Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I have a slight preference to the "from ..." construct; but, GO'f makes a good point regarding the tendency to classify USVI-ians as their own nationality. Neier (talk) 12:41, 24 January 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:Puerto Rican American football players[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 15:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Puerto Rican American football players to Category:Puerto Rican players of American football
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I've separated this one from the "by-state" nominations immediately below. I propose that this one be named to conform with the "by-nationality" categories of Category:Players of American football by nationality, which use "Fooian players of American football". The alternative would be Category:Players of American football from Puerto Rico, but in other categories Puerto Rican is treated as a nationality distinct from "American" (or at least as a type of "sub-nationality" within American). Ultimately, I'm fine with either approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I have a slight preference to the "from ..." construct; but, GO'f makes a good point regarding the tendency to classify Puerto Ricans as their own nationality. Neier (talk) 12:42, 24 January 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.

American players of American football by state[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 15:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming (see drop down box):
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent category is Category:American players of American football. In this name, the first "American" refers to nationality; the second "American" is part of the name of the sport called "American football". It follows that the "by-state" container category name should be patterned after this (proposed above). The individual state categories, as they stand now, use "American football" ambiguously—it's a bit unclear whether it's referring to "football players from STATE who are American" or "players of American football from STATE". The latter is correct, of course, so we may as well name the categories in this way to eliminate the ambiguity that can result from mixed-up usages of "American", "football" and "American football". Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:49, 19 January 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:Kittitian and Nevisian players of American football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kittitian and Nevisian players of American football to Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis players of American football
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use country as adjective per everything else in Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis people. "Kittitian and Nevisian" is awkward and was abandoned in category names some time ago. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:44, 19 January 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:Lists of Papal conclave, 2005[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 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Papal conclave, 2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete & upmerge - An excessively narrow category. The articles are already linked through a navbox, and should be upmerged to Category:2005 Papal conclave. (Category creator not notified: banned sockpuppet of Pastorwayne) Cgingold (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me (just an oversight). Cgingold (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as nom and Johnbod. We appear to have one article on the conclave and three list articles. One category should be enough for them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 22 January 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:Husch Blackwell Sanders famous lawyers and alumni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Husch Blackwell Sanders famous lawyers and alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - Categorizing lawyers -- or anybody else for that matter -- by the firm they work for goes far beyond what's appropriate. (And I might add, it sounds a bit promotional, too.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per astute nom. Occuli (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance variation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Obviously upmerge as needed if this would leave any of the contents without an appropriate attorney category. Postdlf (talk) 23:17, 20 January 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:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Missouri[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 Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Missouri to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Missouri Territory - No prejudice against a subsequent/immediate group nom to suggest adding "the" to them all. - jc37 07:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Missouri to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Missouri Territory
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add "…Territory" to the end. Consistency with other territorial delegatations. See Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives . —Markles 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from the Missouri Territory seems to be a better read. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rest of the pre-state territorial delegations omit the "the." Only the non-state territorials have "the": "…from the Northwest Territories", "…from the District of Columbia", "…from the Northern Mariana Islands", "…from the Philippines", "from the United States Virgin Islands." I'm not sure that's the distinction, but that's how it is here. The purpose of this CFD nomination, however, is to add "…Territory" when it was mistakenly omitted at the time of its creation in August 2008.
      • Yes, it's my perception that U.S. territories with the name "Territory" in it are usually referred to as "Foo Territory", without the "the". That's just my anecdotal perception from a bit of reading about the U.S. territories of the West, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match other corresponding categories in parent. Alansohn (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African American repatriates[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) 07:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Repatriates? Who is to choose where the Black man should live? I suggest renaming this category to Category:Liberated slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.4.45 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm guessing that what is trying to be categorized here is "African American immigrants to African nations". "Liberated slaves" would be a fine category too. Not the same thing but lots of people would have been both. Borock (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, we have Category:People of Liberated African descent, Category:Repatriated ex-slaves, Category:Repatriated slaves of African American descent, and more .... Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 20 January 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_January_19&oldid=1085526878"