The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Jafeluv (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category has one article in it, is not categorized itself and is a generally bad idea; no national framework for this exists or is likely to exist (a huge task involving hundreds of thousands of articles about districts, parishes, wards and suburbs, as well as unpopulated moorland etc); the boundaries of the counties of England were fluid, not static making definitive categorization problematic. --Jza84 | Talk 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless category. You may as well have 'Category:Pigeons not eaten by cats'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not particularly pointless, and "fluid boundaries" only inasmuch as they have been changed several times since 1974 - the first changes in several hundred years. However, there are better ways of doing this, via lists of places moved from traditional counties. As to the pigeons analogy, a better analogy would be Category:Panama Canal Zone Townships, Category:Former counties of Minnesota or Category:Cities and towns built in the Soviet Union - three entities whose boundaries were/have been static for a far shorter period than Lancashire's. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But would we put suburban Northenden in this category (one of thousands of articles that need considering)? According to the traditional counties lark, Northenden is (present tense) in Cheshire. What definition of Lancashire are we using too? -- Springhead was in the the Lancashire postal county, and Stockport's area is mostly from Cheshire, but partially from the traditional extent of Lancashire (but legally incorporated into an indepenant borough in neither county). And do we put unpopulated areas in this, like Windy Hill? Putting aside how many articles need to be in this category (which makes navigation through it extremely difficult), and then consider what has to be done nationally to keep it consistent, this is going to get messy. --Jza84 | Talk 10:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We would include Northenden on a list detailing boundary changes and when they were made, which is what I'm suggesting this category should be replaced by. Such a page would give indications as to the limist of the boundary changes, and would therefore imply the position of any former borders. That would remove the need to list every single place which changed. Grutness...wha? 01:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – it's not entirely pointless, and Manchester would be in it (which is not to say that it is a good idea). We do have Category:People from Warwickshire (before 1974), a variation on the same theme (which doesn't work very well either IMO). Occuli (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, part of Manchester, if you're of this persuasion. Manchester's boundaries were reformed throughout the 19th and 20th centuries meaning places that were formerly in Cheshire were transferred to a Lancashire borough. --Jza84 | Talk 10:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the list. I was inspired by this; Category:Places_formerly_in_Buckinghamshire. I was going to add more to the category, but I decided to gauge the inevitable reaction before I focused efforts in adding more. As far as, your comments serve on this particular list be extended to similar ones? An index of metals (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should consider replacing this with a list or lists organised by areas transferred, incorporating changes in 1844, 1889, 1899, 1931, 1965, 1969, 1974, 1996, 1997, 1998 etc. MRSC (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It currently contains one town in Merseyside. The subject would be much better dealt with by an article, describing the boundary changes to Lancashire. Merseyside and Greater Manchester (north of the Mersey), Furness and Cartmel all come within the definition, so that the category could potentially become a large one. However, it is unlikely to be a useful one. The Warwickshire case cited is not a useful precedent, as it only contains other categories: there was one article in it, but I have reclassified it as it concerns a place still in Warwickshire. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. --Xdamrtalk 14:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are similar in intend. Just that different templates sort into each of them, each creator of a template using the text he saw fit. But their intend is one, as stated, even if one might argue a nuancal difference. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we need to differentiate between articles which have no sources at all and those that have at least one, but require more. I've always seen the three categories mentioned here as having the following criteria for an article to be included in the category:
'Articles lacking sources' - the article is completely unsourced
'Articles needing additional references' - the article has at least one source, but needs more (a longer article could have this even if it had three or four references - the longer the article, the more sources are required)
'Articles with unsourced statements' - the article has at least one {{fact}} tag (with or without citations elsewhere in the article)
If I have misunderstood this, I stand corrected - but if my understanding of these categories is correct, then perhaps it's a case of making it more explicit in the Help and Documentation. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this were so, is this distinction enough reason to have three (!) separate categories? Not to mention that articles will constantly be moving from one category to the other, if these rules were to be applied seriously. Having one category will be easier and prevent incorrect categorisation. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no strong opinion on these but if Phantomsteve is correct about the intent of the categories and if consensus is to maintain the three separately then "Articles lacking sources" should be renamed to Category:Articles with no sources as "lacking sources" is obviously ambiguous. Otto4711 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have always thought so (that it is ambiguous). RichFarmbrough, 09:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Nu. At least a rename... Debresser (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. IMHO the explanation at Category:Articles lacking sources is clear; feel free to repeat this if it is needed elsewhere. I also consider the existing separation to be about right. Renaming per Otto would add clarity in the category name itself. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per otto, but it is best to keep a distinction between absolutely no sources and has a few sources.--UltraMagnus (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge In fact "Categories with unsourced statements" should only contain inline templates and the {{citations missing}} should go elsewhere (although not "Categories lacking sources"). I have been (slowly) going through the oldest of "Categories with unsourced statements" and moving the statements to the talk pages. It is inefficient work because the category has articles with {{citations missing}} in it as well. Merging it with another non-inline template category would make it harder to work through. And if that seems insufficient; "Categories lacking sources" is only for articles without a single source and would be the wrong merge target.--BirgitteSB 15:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. I am not moving templates but contested statements that have been unresolved for a years. articlecorresponding talk (note the nowiki) As the category has both {{fact}} and {{citations missing}} the articles with only the latter make the task less efficient than if the category only contained articles with the former template.--BirgitteSB 23:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No merge: reasonably different categores. Support rename to Category:Articles with no sources: an unambiguous title. - Altenmann >t 18:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Jafeluv (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are similar in intent. Just that different templates sort into each of them, each creator of a template using the text he saw fit. But their intent is one, as stated, even if one might argue a nuancal difference. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge See above.--BirgitteSB 15:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 14:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - the category seems self-contradictory on its face. If a character is known to have existed then by definition the character isn't "lost" even if the work from which the character is drawn is. Even if this isn't the case, this is a small category with little or no likelihood of expansion (how likely is it that a character that can't be studied from its source material is going to be the subject of multiple independent reliable sources?). Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If kept, needs to be renamed, though I doubt it could be easily done because of its inherently oxymoronic nature. I thought the category was for characters who became lost. Under the current name, it could also be confused with Category:Lost (TV series) characters. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, especially because those characters cannot have analysis from their "lost" source material, which is one of the key points of notability. The category is way too ambigous anyway. --LoЯd۞pεth 05:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the contents are not lost books, so a merger would result in their being miscategorized. Otto4711 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually reading the 3-line articles would have shown both were written and categorized as being about both book and eponymous character. As about the books they are acceptable, so I have removed your prods & recategorized as "lost works". Now empty, DeleteJohnbod (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I read all six (unreferenced for years) lines. Both articles are about fictional characters. A character is not a book and categorizing a character as a "work" is foolish. Emptying categories in the middle of a CFD is an abuse of process, as you know. Accordingly I will be restoring the improperly removed category and removing the improperly applied works category. Otto4711 (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles were already categorized as works as well as characters (as are the French versions). I edited them slightly to emphazize this. Since we naturally prefer articles on fictional works to those on fictional characters, works is clearly the way to go - see Fayenatic above. You have submitted both articles to Afd, which is a valid POV, though I don't sharte it. But sabotaging them at the same time by restoring what is clearly the wrong category is unhelpful, if typical. I have reverted. Both articles are referenced, though ambiguously. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for fictional characters are wrong for articles on fictional characters? Do you have any idea how messed up that is? And I will thank you to refrain from falsely characterizing my actions as "sabotage". Such false accusations are a rank failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you happier (ok not the word for you) with "dis-improving" them? You were certainly doing that, having nominated them for deletion meanwhile. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we shouldn't toss around subjective assessments of what others' actions do to categories. I think it's a safe assumption that everybody's trying to help and improve, not sabotage or harm or even dis-improve. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep — I created this category when sub-categorizing Category:Lost works. However, both the existing entries are also in Category:Lost books anyway since these refer to eponymous characters in lost books, so they have a suitable place in the lost works hierarchy. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (weakly) to 'Fictional characters in lost works' or similar. Both the articles seem to be about a lost work named after a character; one might suggest a redirect from 'Foo (character)' (categorised as a character, as an attempt to assuage Otto, whose objection to categorising a book as a character, or vice versa, is entirely reasonable) to 'Foo' (as is done with Oliver Twist (character)). Occuli (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 14:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains redirects, so it doesn't need to exist. Template:CharR to list entry should be used to categorize them instead. TTN (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Support delete as the editor who merged the individual articles this category contained to one list. Alastairward (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This is another procedural nomination, replacing a {{category redirect}} added out-of-process. Although it seems obvious that these two cats should be merged, I'm dubious about the proposed title; perhaps the merge should go in the other direction instead. I note that Category:Clothing optional events is now a sub-cat of Category:Clothing-free events, while the hyphenated title is not a sub-cat of this parent. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hyphenated version. These is about events that are "clothing-optional", not about clothing "optional events". When used in an abstract, self-standing way, as in a WP category name, this becomes a simple matter of grammar. Resort to how it is used in sources, as was (in my opinion) mistakenly done here, is of minimal help since sources rarely use terminology in an abstract, self-standing way. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to hyphenated version per Otto - spot on. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to hyphenated version per Fayenatic, Otto, Kbdank etc (not to forget Good Olfactory). Occuli (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I found this proposal on the category's talkpage. At the same time I would like to endorse this proposal for two reasons: 1. to be close to the name of the parent category Category:Super Nintendo Entertainment System games 2. per guidelines that recommend not to use abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I found this proposal on the category's talkpage. At the same time I would like to endorse this proposal for two reasons: 1. to be close to the name of the parent category Category:Super Nintendo Entertainment System games 2. per guidelines that recommend not to use abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
It should remain in the category: all four French submarines of the Saphir class were of the 1931 British S class and a part of the Royal Navy before their transfer to France beginning in 1951. (And the 1951 is to distinguish from the 1928 French-built Saphir class of five submarines.) — Bellhalla (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Non-standard for a unitary authority category. MRSC (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Jza84 | Talk 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The target is currently a catgory-rediect to the subject. The proposal is thus effectively to reverse this. Following the merger, the subject should be deleted, since category redirects merely give some one the troubel of watching that they are not used. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Jafeluv (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand abbreviation for World War II. Bellhalla (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I assume you mean without the quotation marks? Otto4711 (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. Thanks for fixing that. (How on earth did those get there?) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Duplication. The difference between the borough and town is not great enough to sustain two categories. MRSC (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, per nom. --Jza84 | Talk 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since Darlington is ambiguous. It used for multiple things in the UK. The target should be reamed to indicate that it is for the town. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a distinction if we are only having one category, as is the case for the other district categories (many of which share the name of a town). MRSC (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need to keep it distinct from the Darlingtons that are not in Durham. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. Jafeluv (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This is a procedural nomination; an editor added a {{category redirect}} to this category without prior discussion, which would have emptied the category out-of-process. The target category already exists and is populated, and the merger seems like a good idea to me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge - There are 326 English district categories. This vast majority use simply the name of the district. MRSC (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per nom. --Jza84 | Talk 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categories for dance-related redirects. Redirects can be categorized, but not by target article. See similar cases here, here and here. Jafeluv (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guidelines and precedent. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need or want a category for "all people who've written books about this one person"? I think it's a delete, but I'm willing to listen to a compelling reason otherwise... Bearcat (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Do we really need..." is not an argument. Pius XII is the subject of many notable books; some prefer to peruse these by title, some by author. Some of the books do not yet have articles (or, individually, would not merit them). Many of these authors are primarily notable for having written about Pius XII (e.g. Cornwell, Graham, Rychlak, etc.). Could be renamed "writers" or "historians" (although the latter may cause unecessary disputes). Savidan 05:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know we've had a few of these biographer by subject nominated before. Given that there are no other examples in either Category:Writers, Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area or Category:Biographers, this does not appear to be a developed category structure and I agree with the nominator that it should not be developed. Biographers frequently write biographies on multiple subjects which would result in a series of (probably small) categories on these biographers' articles. Kitty Kelley would get at least seven such categories, more if someone decided to break down her bios of the British Royal Family and the Bushes to the individual level. Imparts little in the way of encyclopedic information. A list of biographies should be included in the subject's articles, or if there are sufficient then a separate list along the lines of List of Judy Garland biographies (note that such a list places the emphasis on the biographies and not the biographers) may be implemented. Some similar but not identical discussions: writers by comic book; comics artists by comic; and there are some others mixed in through this list. Wish I could remember the old CFD subjects... Otto4711 (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these do actually appear to have written mainly or only on P12, a rather untypical situation, & the writings are mentioned prominently in their articles. But Owen Chadwick seems here for "A History of Christianity", & no doubt pieces for papers etc. He should not be included, but John Cornwell (writer), author of Hitler's Pope is surely the best-known single author on the subject, right or wrong, and should be - he is not. I think some such categories have been kept. There were debates on "composer writers" - Wagner?, and I think we have categories for Shakespeare etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a correction; Chadwick's article is rather lacking, but he is included for Britain and the Vatican during the Second World War (1988) which reviews the papers of D'Arcy Osborne, 12th Duke of Leeds, the British ambassador to Pius XII during the war. Due to the fact that the papers are preserved, available to scholars, and in English, this is still one of the defining works on Pius XII's diplomacy. Savidan 16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - and Cornwell? I notice you added him to another category, but not this one. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do kind of remember discussing something relating to Wagner, but searches on various permutations of "Wagner" and synonyms for "biographers" ("scholars", "writers", "authors" and the like) don't lead me to any old discussions. We have Category:Wagner studies but no sub-cats. Mozart and Haydn ping tiny bells too, Haydn less so, but similar fishing expeditions for old discussions turned up empty as well. I seem to recall that the issue was that the categories were including people as "biographers" or "scholars" based on their writing like a section of a single larger work, people who weren't known primarily as writers about or scholars of the particular composers. Maybe they were under "historians" or "musicologists"? Grr. Maddening. Otto4711 (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, those are the ones I was thinking of. Otto4711 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the issue was the exact reverse of Otto's recollection. His nomination succeeded in taking people who had spent most of their careers editing etc the work of a composer, & lumping them into Cat:biographers, when some had never written biographical works. Another triumph for CfD! Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing prevented you from stopping bitching and setting up scholarship categories last time and nothing's stopping you from quitting bitching and setting them up now. Otto4711 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Life's far too short to correct all the damage done by these debates, though unlike you Otto, I do at least my fair share. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Life's far too short to correct what you see as damage to the project, yet not too short to piss and moan about it in multiple CFDs while still finding time to call me a slacker. Whatevs. Otto4711 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make a comment here but then I realised life was too short for the blowback I would receive. Go figure. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. And yes, I have read all the above. I find the question "do we really need" a very strong reason for deletion, per its obvious allusion that the answer is a negative and wp:not. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Savidan, however I would suggest the cat gets expanded to included biographers who have written on any Pope. That way we have just one to cover them all, instead of one for every Pope.
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:Indigenous inhabitant people in Hong Kong[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's Rationale: As per User:Xdamr the suggested name is preferable. It is more accurate, defined and encyclopaedic. [email protected] (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full reasons on closure read: Would advise at the very least a rename nomination to something of the form Category:Indigenous inhabitants of the "New Territories" in Hong Kong, or similar. The Basic Law deals with "indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories" not "indigenous inhabitants of Hong Kong", as such this category is at present misnamed.
Rename as nom. Since the Basic law recognises the indigenous inhabitants as a group, so should WP. However some one will need to go through the category and make sure that all members indeed truly belong. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
category is not tagged Hmains (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Xdamrtalk 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Upon further examination, I think that Otto's suggestion makes the most sense. However, shouldn't the eponymous category be upmerged to Category:The X-Files franchise? –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 20:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete main category and redirects category, rename the others - the lead cat is small and eponymous with little or no likelihood of expansion. Although the chance the ridiculous redirects category will be deleted is nil, I'm still speaking out against it as functionally useless. This bizarre insistence on making redirects for every single episode title of every single TV series should be discouraged. Otto4711 (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom except upmerge the redirects into Category:Millennium (TV series) episodes (and cast out repetitions and redirects which direct us to no relevant information). Occuli (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god no, don't swamp the few useful articles in this morass of worthless redirects. Otto4711 (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, you are correct about this particular category of redirects; it is bringing the categorisation of redirects into disrepute. Delete it. And then delete the eponymous category which holds smoke and mirrors and little else. Occuli (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename first three, delete Redirects category. The top category is worth keeping as a navigational aid, as there is no navbox template to use as an alternative. - Fayenatic(talk) 21:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. --Xdamrtalk 14:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - small, eponymous category without the material to warrant it. The group is definitely notable but very few of the individual members are or are likely to become so. Otto4711 (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I would view this as a category for articles related to Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (eg on some of the many sub-branches - surely there should be one on the Church of the Recalcitrant Possum) as well as for individuals and there seems ample potential for growth. Occuli (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate -- The article lists a number more people who ought to be in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not notable enough to have articles per WP:N then articles can't be created and the category can't be populated. Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I doubt many more articles can ever be added to this category, I suspect at least 1 if not more of the current 5 will be deleted. - Schrandit (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the articles formerly in the category has been deleted at AFD. Otto4711 (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
