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 allFooian singers by gender to Fooian singers.
This was never so much for navigation purposes as to minimize clutter in the "Nationality singers" parents. I remain unconvinced that we really need to categorize singers by gender at all, but this discussion should at least take into account the actual reason this was done — which was that it's less cluttersome to have this sitting under a * sortkey than it is to have female and male subcategories each sitting directly under a letter. No !vote, just two cents for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we were categorising by five different genders, as some cultures did or do, then a by-gender sub-category would meaningfully reduce clutter. But since we only categorise by two genders, the reduction in clutter is minimal, because the current structure gives us only one less category in the "Nationality singers" parents. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but the matter needs to be described as by sex and not by gender, you know. Mayumashu (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge as nom. This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. Male and female are different, but there is no reason why Fooian singers should not have direct subcategories Male Fooian singers and Female Fooian singers. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. This comes across as having a well-occupied 20 floor building where the 13th floor is empty and coming over with a crane and a steal ball to knock out the empty floor out, while explaining that you have already resolved the problem of the water supply. Singer by gender categories are important, and cross-sectioning it with nationality is nontrivial. Everyone in this somewhat scattered discussion seems to agree on that much. (If anyone here is unaware of the real differences between female and (mature) male voices, I'd be happy to explain.) Singer by gender categories, however, are not only subcategories of singers, but also of Category:People by gender. People by gender enables one to find all Wikipedia categories that are split by gender and is an important navigation tool for readers and Wikipedians alike. The suggested deletions would disconnect important categories from each other and significantly decrease the navigability of Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether BrownHairedGirl has misunderstood the implications of the proposal. The process of removing the Singer by Gender categories will remove this category from People by Gender and create a disconnect in the categorization system. gidonb (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, when both genders are included in Wikipedia, an X by gender category should by accessible from People by gender, without detours. gidonb (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. I'm not convinced that eliminating these mid-level containers will cause any sort of problem to the overall navigational purpose of the categories. I'm not sure we even need to divide singers by gender, but that's another story. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:49, 5 April 2010 (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 catgories for rural municipalities (Arzene, Aviano, Pasiano di Pordenone and San Vito al Tagliamento) and do not merge categories for cities and towns (Casarsa della Delizia, Cordenons and Sacile). -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge all per WP:OC#SMALL. These are a series of small categories recently-created to sub-categorise Category:People from the Province of Pordenone. None of them contains more than 3 articles, and most contain only one or two; there are only 3 articles left in the parent category, so there seems to be no immediate prospect of expanding these categories. If this merger goes ahead, Category:People from the Province of Pordenone will still contain only 20 articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Category:People from the Province of Pordenone and its subcategories have expanded considerably since the Nominator's rationale above was written. As I write, Sacile contains 7 articles, Casarsa della Delizia contains 5, Aviano 4, Cordenons 3, Arzene 2, San Vito al Tagliamento 2 and Pasiano di Pordenone 1. The parent category has expanded from 3 to 12 articles. If the merger goes ahead, the parent category will have 36 articles. As the facts listed in the rationale are no longer true, I do not support this merger. Monegasque (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As I write, the parent category has expanded to 15 articles. If the merger goes ahead, it will have 39 articles. Monegasque (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A category with 39 articles is very easily navigated, as is a category with 80 articles ... and both are much more esaily navigated than a 7 small. subcategories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that you wrote in your Nominator's rationale: "None of them contains more than 3 articles". Since you wrote that, Aviano has expanded to 4 articles, Casarsa della Delizia to 5 articles and Sacile to 7 articles (the same as the number of artcles for Pordenone, which you did not include in your merger proposal). Additionally, you wrote: "there are only 3 articles left in the parent category, so there seems to be no immediate prospect of expanding those categories." As we have seen, things turned out rather differently from what you expected, as the parent category has in a very short time expanded from 3 to 15 articles. Moreover, WP:OC#SMALL doesn't even mention any immediate prospect of expanding. It deals with categories "that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". For the sake of clarity, I'll give a full quote: "Small with no potential for growth. Example: The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor, Catalan-speaking countries. Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country". Note that the examples given are all about cases where the exact number of possible subcategories is already known and will not expand. Note as well that WP:OC#SMALL concerns cases "that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Note the words "by their very definition" and "never". As we have seen, they cannot be applied to this case. Moreover, sub-categorization by city, town or municipality most definitely is "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", to quote WP:OC#SMALL. Clearly these are two good reasons why WP:OC#SMALL could not have been applied to this case even if the parent category and its subcategories were still so small as they were when you wrote your Nominator's rationale which, as we have seen, is by now seriously outdated. One should not underestimate the growth potential in subcategories of this kind. Monegasque (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Per WP:TPG, please don't use bolded text to stress your point. It comes across as shouting)
If there is significant expansion, then the categories can be re-created. But this is all about navigational benefit to the reader, not about taking a fine interpretation of rules ... and the central point about the unhelpfulness of splitting a small category into 7 sub-categories still stands when the category being split has only 40 articles. You still have not offered any reason for how you think that this sub-categorisation helps the reader. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Comes across as shouting", you write. Not quite, if we are to believe WP:TPG. The relevant passage reads: "Avoid excessive emphasis. Capital letters are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice." Thus, according to WP:TPG, bolding is allowed if the writer uses it to stress a point. However, it "may appear" the equivalent of "raising his voice". That, I would say, is a far cry from "comes across as shouting", as you put it according to your own personal interpretation of WP:TPG. My point was precisely to hightlight the reasons why WP:OC#SMALL cannot be applied to this case, as its wording clearly exludes it. I may have overused bolding to some extent, but as the point I was making was an important one, I was still acting within the limits of WP:TPG. Using capital letters, btw, simply isn't my style. If I had done that, your remark would have been fully justified. As to subcategories according to city, town or municipality: they are, to quote WP:OC#SMALL, "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which means that it is rather up to you to argue why, in your personal opinion, they are not helpful. However, I certainly can give you some reasons why I think that they (apart from being "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme") actually are helpful. For starters, they are of interest to readers and editors who are from the relevant region, city, town of municipality or who have some knowledge of the area. Articles about cities, town and municipalities frequently have sections about people who were born there or who have some other connection with the locality. A subcategory consisting of, say, 7 persons from Sacile comes in handy to an editor who wants to expand the article about Sacile with a section about people from Sacile. In addition, there are categories about people from historical or ethnographical regions (such as, for example, Friuli). These correspond, at best, only partially with the modern administrative regions/provinces/etc. If we have enough subcategories about cities, towns and municipalities, these can be added as subcategories to the category "People from Friuli" (in addition to being subcategories of "People from the Province of Pordenone"/etc), as the historical region of Friuli consists of a number of municipalities belonging to different administrative provinces. If we were to merge the local subcategories with the provincial category, it would slow down this kind of work. I'm sure that somebody else could think of other reasons than these why such subcategories are helpful (such as: "They are interesting, that's why") but these are the main ones I can think of right now. Moreover, if we were to merge all wikipedia subcategories consisting of less than, say, seven or eight articles with their parent category, it would be the equivalent of a small revolution all across wikipedia, resulting in overcrowded categories and general discontent. The general rule has been, after all, to sort out articles in subcategories whenever it feels natural to do so. For the reasons given above, I (just in the unlikely case that it might have escaped somebody's notice) oppose the merger.Monegasque (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bolding is still un-needed and intrusive, and that's far too many words, but it seems that you offer basically 3 reasons for keeping the sub-categories:
That they will be of interest to people from that area. This is not a good reason: wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for the 286,000 people who live in the Province of Pordenone.
That it will help editors build up the articles on the towns. Again, a bad reason: wikipedia is written for readers, not for editors, and in any case it will hardly strain an editor to look through 40 articles to find the relevant one.
That it is part of a large scheme. Not quite: the examples given are for cases likes sub-dividing flags in Category:Flags by country, where a parent category contains lots of sub-categories at the same level. That ties the flags in with the existing country categories, but there are no equivalent category for these small subdivisions of Pordenone. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should keep in mind that the issue, in the last resort, is not the Province of Pordenone as such. A rule should either be applied generally or not at all. If this action is taken concerning this category and its subcategories, you should logically try to expand it to all comparable categories and subcategories all across Wikipedia. Even if you were not to include other subcategories as local ones, you would still have an awful lot of work to do and an awful lot of people to persuade. You haven't stated any minimum number for people in a given local subcategory in order to be allowed to exist, but as you in the outset proposed to merge with the parent category only those subcategories consisting of a maximum of three persons (the Pordenone category had 7 persons at that point and you left it out of your merger proposal), it may perhaps be indirectly inferred that your views have undergone a certain radicalisation, as you have in no way modified your proposal in spite of the fact that several of the subcategories that you nominated for a merger have grown above the number of 3 persons that you named in your rationale as the upper limit for merger candidates. Sacile, for instance, has grown to 7 persons and it is still included in your merger proposal. Pordenone has in the meantime grown from 7 to 8 persons and is still safely outside your merger proposal. We may thus infer that, as things stand, you seem to be drawing the line between 7 and 8 persons, whereas in the beginning you drew it between 3 and 4. In the very beginning, of course, Attilios was unhappy about some brand new one-person categories and contacted you, but the issue seems indeed to have escalated somewhat, as the lower limit for how many people you would require a subcategory to have to keep it safe from a merger seems to be constantly sliding upwards. All right, suppose we set the limit between 7 and 8 persons, as you seem to do right now. Suppose that the merger goes ahead. As there can be no special rules concerning only the Province of Pordenone, your next step will logically have to be this: try to apply the same rule everywhere else as well. To take an example: the category "People from South Yorkshire" has 3 district subcategories (which have local subcategories of their own) and 39 local subcategories that haven't yet been sorted out in district subcategories. Of these 39 local subcategories, 29 have less than 8 persons and would, according to the logic you seem to be applying, need to be merged with the category "People from South Yorkshire". Only 10 subcategories would remain. Once you have managed to persuade everybody that most local subcategories in South Yorkshire have no right to exist (and good luck with that!) you'll have to repeat the same process for every British county. And once you have succeeded in abolishing most local subcategories in Britain (and the rest of Europe, I presume), you'll have to do the same in the USA as well (and in the rest of the world). Good luck with that, too. Monegasque (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too much wikilawyering: this is a simple practical issue, and your latest 500-word post still doesn't address the practicality.
I never said that a figure of three was a magic threshold: that was just the figure at the time. The issue here is simply that there are only 39 articles, which you want to divide across 7 sub-categories, which does not help navigation, and you have offered no plausible explanation of how this helps the general reader. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Italy, there is no legal difference in status between small municipalities such as Arzene and large cities such as Bologna. They have all the official status of municipality ("comune"). Many other countries distinguish officially between cities/towns and rural municipalities. Some countries (such as, for instance, Austria) have a three-tiered system (in Austria, cities/towns, market towns and "mere" municipalities). Italy only has a uniform class of independent municipalities and these, as we have seen, can vary considerably is size. Municipalities are subdivided into smaller units called "frazione" (corresponding, roughly, to boroughs and villages). While there is no difference in legal status between larger and smaller municipalities in Italy, there is a (nowadays purely ceremonial) difference between those municipalities having the title of "città" (city/town) and those (purely rural) municipalities that never have had this title conferred upon them. Most municipalities in Italy are rural and do not have the title of città. I think the best way to go forward is to use this distinction as the criterion for deciding which Italian municipalities can be admitted into the category "People from cities and towns in Italy" and which ones should be merged into the provincial (or, in Trentino-Alto Adige, district; districts do not exist elsewhere) category. Monegasque (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those which remain. As the rural municipality categories were recent creations of mine and the persons in them had been placed there by myself, I moved the persons in them into the "Province of Pordenone" category and, after the categories were empty, removed the links to the categories "People from the Province of Pordenone" and "People by city or town in Italy". Occuli presented a very valid point in mentioning the status of the localities. The title of "città" has (nowadays) a purely ceremonial significance, but it is the best criterion for drawing the line, as it strongly correlates with the importance of the locality. The vast majority of Italian municipalities are rural and do not have the title of città. If we want to draw a line, the title of città is, quite simply, the only objective criterion we can use.Monegasque (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You depopulated the categories while the discussion was underway? Please revert that: it says clearly on the CFD notice on each category "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress".
The point of a discussion like this is to allow a consensus to be formed on what to do with the categories, and emptying prevents them from being kept. I happen to support with deleting them, but this discussion has another 5 days to run and other editors may take a different views. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the following: 1) Those categories were recent creations of mine and all the persons in them had been placed there by me. Nobody else had (at least yet) contributed to them. I would not have done that with categories created by somebody else. 2)This discussion had in the beginning only two participants, you (who wanted to merge them with their parent category) and me (the creator of those categories) who wanted to keep them. 3) Occuli raised a very valid point about the status of the different localities, and that made me change my point of view. Admittedly, the law (and degree of autonomy) is nowadays the same for urban (città) and rural (the vast majority) municipalities, but the official distinction between them still remains and correlates very strongly with their importance. Drawing the line at those municipalities which are officially cities (città) will limit very significantly the number of possible subcategories, which was precisely what you wanted. The main point for me is precisely the one raised by Occuli: the difference in status between the municipalities. If a line needs to be drawn, we must use objective criteria, and the only officially determined (as defined by the Italian state) difference between Italian municipalities is the one between those few which can officially call themselves cities ("città") and the rest which cannot. 4) This discussion has gone on for a couple of days already and, up to now, only three people have participated, one of which (Occuli) with only only one comment (admittedly a very good one). There has been very scarce interest towards this question and I, for one, am not surprised. Let's face it: this isn't exactly the most interesting discussion on Wikipedia right now... As you said, this discussion has another 5 days to run. Maybe a couple of editors will take an interest to this question and present their point of view. And then again, maybe not. Occuli's comment was more on a general level and he didn't state anything explicite about either keeping or deleting any particular category (although his comment pointed to the idea of drawing the line between urban and rural municipalities). This means that up to now, only two people have presented explicite views about either keeping or deleting particular categories. In the beginning, you nominated Arzene, Aviano, Casarsa, Cordenons, Pasiano, Sacile and San Vito for deletion/merger. I, as the creator of those categories, opposed taking such action. Then Occuli's comment about the relevance of the difference in status between different localities made me change my point of view, as I know very well that the most usual procedure (applied to most countries) in categorising people by locality is to make a difference between urban (having their own subcategory) and rural municipalities (usually no subcategory of their own, but classified according to district/county/etc). As Arzene, Aviano, Pasiano and San Vito are "mere" rural municipalities, I now began to think that it would make sense to merge them with the provincial category. Casarsa della Delizia, Cordenons and Sacile, however, are small cities ("città") and deserve their own subcategories. Their other parent category, after all, is "People by city or town in Italy", which makes it logical to draw the line precisely between officially urban and officially rural municipalities. As a matter of fact, the idea seemed so obvious to me that I decided to undo the rural municipality categories myself. As I was the one who had very recently created them, it didn't seem to me that anyone would object. This is why I find it a little surprising that it should be you of all people, the one who wanted them deleted in the first place, who would like to see them repopulated. I can see your point: theoretically it is quite possible that somebody would want to keep those four rural municipality categories as well. I, for one, now favour keeping only the urban ones: Casarsa della Delizia, Cordenons and Sacile. As for you, I don't even know for sure what your opinion is right now. After all, these subcategories have grown somewhat since you nominated them and now you know that they are officially cities. If you now favour keeping those three, we might even have a consensus (unless somebody else presents a different view). I find it unlikely that this discussion will attract much more attention and it is quite possible that no one else, apart from the three persons who have presented their views, will have anything to say. This is why I find the idea of repopulating the four rural municipality categories (about whose merger into the provincial category there seems to be a consensus) utterly pointless. If somebody had explicitely stated that they want to keep them, it would be another matter. I will give the question of repopulating them some serious thought and may even bring myself to actually doing it, although right now the very idea seems to be a perfect example of what "futile" precisely means... Monegasque (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is unclear why these categories need to be deleted. The figures are no longer accurate, there is potential for growth, and the cited guideline is not (exclusively) relevant for this case. gidonb (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2010 (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: for consistency with the other Lesotho categories, per the discussion here and because Lesothan is not a correct demonym. (Apologies if this should be speedy). BelovedFreak 20:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming per consensus.--TM 20:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and previous discussions to keep these all consistent. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:15, 31 March 2010 (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 the 91 categories nominated for deletion and no consensus on the 7 categories nominated for merging. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's notes
The rationale for deleting or containerizing broad-based categories of people-by-century (primarily in the context of the 20th and 21st centuries) is by now quite well-established, and a look through the CfD archives for the past few months will yield many discussions where this rationale has been upheld by consensus and few or none where it has not. The issue becomes, then, whether a particular intersection (or set of intersections) merits an exception, and in this case consensus was that an exception is not warranted for 20th- and 21st-century rulers.
For the seven categories nominated for merging, I think that a "no consensus" close is appropriate in light of Johnbod's argument that they are "part of wider schemes" in which "by-century cats are the main division of the main category", but "different from categories for journalists, sportspeople, etc.", and that "it makes no sense to leave the 20th century people like loose change in the head category". The "no consensus" close is by no means an indication of a rejection of BrownHairedGirl's argument or an endorsement of Johnbod's, but rather an acknowledgement of the possibility that the circumstances surrounding these categories may be qualitatively different from those surrounding the other nominated categories and of the desirability of a more focused discussion to address these issues.
Nominator's rationale: This is a set of categories created as one of the extensions of the flawed idea of categorising all people by century. Lumping everyone in a single Category:Xth-century people gets cluttersome, so so the categories are broken down by nationality, and by occupation, and then by intersection of the two, and then by further layers of subdivisions until large chunks of the category system are divided in this way. In a discussion a few months ago on Category:19th-century national presidents in Africa , the keep advocates repeatedly offered that justification; that each new layer is justified not on its own merits, but as way of resolving the problems created by the parent categories.
By-century categorisation of people is a fundamentally-flawed idea, because it creates triple and quadruple intersections which complicate and disrupt the category and add to clutter on articles. In some narrow circumstances it may create navigable groups without cluttering articles, but those situations are rare. In most cases it complicates category trees, clutters article, and arbitrarily divides categories by time-bands which bear no relation to the widely-accepted historical epochs.
Those are general concerns, but in numerous previous discussions there has been particularly strong resistance to applying these categories to 20th and 21st-century people, where the category clutter is already severe. This applies particularly strongly to heads of state and government, where 20th-century rulers are usually notable for many things other than their time in the top offices: compare for example the relatively sparse number of categories on major monarchs such as George III of the United Kingdom or Louis XIV of France, and the much more numerous categories on Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, or Vladimir Putin.
In some cases, an attempt has been made to address the clutter problem by sub-categorising an existing category for holders of a particular office, such as Category:Presidents of the United States. That example illustrates rather well how flawed this idea is: to avoid the clutter caused by existence of the people-by-century categories, the 44 presidents of the United States have been split into 4 sub-categories, which impedes navigation and places turn-of-the-century presidents such as Bill Clinton in two categories for that one office (Category:20th-century presidents of the United States and Category:21st-century presidents of the United States).
Further efforts to fix this mess by sub-categorising will only compound the problem, and whatever we do we are left with categories which don't much help navigation. The best solution is to just delete these categories, before more well-intentioned editors put further effort into fixing the unfixable. (Note that where a non-container category has been split, I have nominated it for upmerger instead of deletion). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree in principle with the rationale given but insist that it needs to include rulers from the 19th century and before, as I am against having incomplete trees based upon shere volume of pages listed (as I am in favour of keeping Category:Living people as long as there is Category:Dead people, etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus for this deletion, then I will follow up with a further group nomination for earlier centuries (on which I may be neutral). However, there are a lot of those categories, so I don't want to have to go the trouble of tagging them all unless there is a consensus to get rid of these ones, which are the worst. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no precedent for for removing a categories like this. There have been rulers for milena, as long as there has been a records at all (and even longer I am sure). An enormnous number of all Wikipedia articles are about rulers, and there is no reason to keep 20th and 21st-century rulers and keep the other. It would be needly extra effort to wait 50 or 100 years before creating the category later, instead or as we go. Carlaude:Talk 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting my comments without justification, etc. etc. Distroting the process for consensus is not called for. Carlaude:Talk 03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly support deletion. These categories are clutter, plain and simple. Doing something in the same century of someone else is not a notable connection. By century is not more notable than by weight, height or any other arbitrary intersection.--TM 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom -- We have recently deleted or merged large numbers of other 20th and 21st century people categories. This should also be done with rulers. I would however oppose nominations for earlier centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom – I agree with Peterkingiron's views. No prejudice against recreating 20th century ones in about 40 years time. Occuli (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merges, Weak Support deletions Keep those part of wider schemes covering several centuries, eg: Category:20th-century Chinese monarchs, Category:20th-century Ottoman grand viziers and so on. In these the by-century cats are the main division of the main category, & it makes no sense to leave the 20th century people like loose change in the head category. The case here is different from categories for journalists, sportspeople etc etc. Not sure about the "Chinese heads of government". The many categories that are in schemes that don't go back before the 20th century should probably be deleted. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that X-by-century in general doesn't make a lot of sense (say baseball players or doctors) but for rulers I'd say they'd have a lot in common and the clutter is well worth the organizational aid they provide. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose deletion very helpful to editors to find articles on certain topics. Okip 18:23, 3 April 2010 (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 or Up-merge. 'Abroad' is a problematic criteria for categorization in Wikipedia, as their is no 'domestic' or 'foreign' spheres of Wikipedia. Identifying the Lithuanian language with the modern state of Lithuania would also set a problematic precedent. Moreover, the borders of Lithuania has changed dramatically over the years, is 'abroad' outside present-day Lithuania or outside the Lithuanian state at the time? Soman (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lithuanian-language newspapers. There are not so many right now in WP that we need to separate domestic from foreign ones. We should put the horse before the cart in this case, then can re-assess in the future. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:administrative close. I'm not exactly clear on what went on here—it appears to have been originally an incomplete nomination that was—yes, forked—in a strange sort of way to make a protest point of sorts. In any case, both participants are in agreement that it should be closed.Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no precedent for for removing a categories like this. There have been rulers for milena, as long as there has been a records at all (and even longer I am sure). An enormnous number of all Wikipedia articles are about rulers, and there is no reason to keep 21st-century rulers and keep the other. It would be needly extra effort to wait 50 or 100 years before creating the category later, instead or as we go. Carlaude:Talk 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears be a pre-emptive move for the large group nomination which I started by tagging Category:21st-century_heads_of_government_in_Europe, only an hour before Carl made this post; I got side-tracked onto other things and didn't notice this one until I went to post my group nomination above. May I suggest that the discussion will be far more useful if kept together, and that Carlaude may wish to post his comment at the group nomination above, once it is completed later today? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can nominate anything I want. You really left the impression of starting the nomination and either forgot about it or changed your mind. I agree in keeping them togther-- in addition to finishing the nominations you start. Maybe you should plan better if you want responses according to your own timing. Carlaude:Talk 22:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carl, I have moved your comment back to here.
There was a 1-hour delay between tagging one category and starting the nomination, because I took time out to reply issues raised by another editor, and sort out a few related things. There is nothing at all unusual about a delay between tagging a category and completing a nomination; it happens frequently when an editor needs to take a break for one reason or another, and large group nominations always take some time to complete. I will finish the nominations I start ... just not within some arbitrary timeframe which you have dceided.
Your nomination of this category is patently disruptive, because there is no need for a discussion to keep a category: it stays by default.
Also, please do not repeat that disruptive effort to hijack my nomination by inserting your own rationale in my nomination before it is complete. Just wait until my nomination is finished. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop naming calling. I will do it your way if this is the way you want to be. Carlaude:Talk 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. BrownHairedGirl has removed her nomination from this category page-- that would be NOT finishing the nomination she started-- so she sems to have changed her mind on it-- at least for now. Carlaude:Talk 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call you names: I just described your actions as disruption, which they were.
You mean like editing me illicitly and implying you know my first name?
If this isn't calling names, then I whould hate to see what you are like when you do start doing so. Carlaude:Talk 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being silly. I have not "removed my nomination"; it's there, two sections above this one, at #20th_and_21st-century_rulers, where it was when I created it.
And I abbreviated your username from Carlaude to Carl. If you don't like that, I won't do it again, but I have no idea what your first name is and no interest in knowing it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per rationale given by nominator. Again, I don t mind not having Category:People by century and its subcats but insist against an incomplete tree for this. Mayumashu (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please close this discussion. As noted above, this section was created as a spoiler operation to disrupt a large group nomination which was being created, and it has a narrower scope than the actual nomination above, without listing any sub-categories. No categories were tagged for this discussion, and its existence just forks the discussion. If this is closed, editors can of course re-post their comments under the actual discussion above. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may close it anytime, Mr. Administrator, but don't claim that I forked this. You have gone out of your way to fork this discussion with the discussion above. Carlaude:Talk 03:47, 29 March 2010 (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:containerize (which, at this time, translates to "delete" for Category:21st-century musicians, since it does not contain any subcategories). gidonb's comment late in the discussion identifies a valid purpose for Category:20th-century musicians which was not countered (another nomination, to consider a different set of factors, is needed to address this issue), though naturally the category will be deleted as empty if the single subcategory, Category:20th-century composers, is deleted. Upmerging is not needed as all of the articles appear to be categorized in appropriate Musicians by nationality, Musicians by location, and/or Musicians by genre categories. -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete both. These are two pointless categories, which if fully populated would contain between them the overwhelming majority of wikipedia's biographical articles on musicians, because the 20th-century saw the explosion in the number of notable professional musicians, due to the recorded music industry. Musicians are better categorised by the existing systems of genre and nationality, and by the intersection of those two attributes. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just to get some idea of the potential size of the category, I used catscan to look for Irish musicians born in the 20th-century: it found 461 articles. Ireland's population is about 100th that of the United States, and if the number of musician biographical articles is proportional to the population we could expect to find about 46,000 American musician born in the 20th century. Even before considering the rest of the world, that's way too big for one category. The apparently obvious answer is to sub-categorise, but however we do that, it just creates category clutter.
Luckily, these categories are not yet heavily-populated, so this is a good time to delete them before editors start putting their energies into creating sub-categorisation schemes which will ultimately fail. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – weakly ambivalent This category really makes as much sense as virtually anything else in Category:20th-century people by occupation or Category:20th-century people for that matter. Whatever would be decided about this would be about as applicable to any of those categories, so it seems wiser to me to have a more comprehensive discussion about Category:20th-century actors, Category:20th-century Mesoamericanists, and Category:20th-century scientists. As far as my take on it, I can see how these categories could be useful, but I can also see how they can be cumbersome. The simple fact that a category is too large to reasonable navigate is hardly a rationale for deletion, though (as has been brought up innumerable times at Category:Living people.) A bit wishy-washy, but maybe that was useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With over 440,000 articles, Category:Living people is utterly useless for navigation. It is kept as a critically important maintenance category "to help Wikipedia editors improve the quality of biographies of living persons by ensuring that the articles maintain a neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced." --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But you are right. I ve wondered aloud like three times at this form why the nominator will not cut to the chase and nominate the cats you bring up for nomination,and I have yet to receive a direct reply. I don t care to have 21st and 20th century cats by people, even if it leaves an incomplete tree, if contriubutors lean this way, but lets get down to addressing the issue already, straight up, so to say. Simply calling it "clutter" is not a useful argument. How can we say that certain occupations are okay and others are not - lets suggest a formula for this differiention here and now. (For example, is it that the occupation in question has only become a notable one since the 19th century?) Mayumashu (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mayumashu, you have asked before, and you have received a direct reply before, which I am happy to repeat: that different occupations may raise different issues, and considering each category separately allows an easier assessment of whether it helps navigation or hinders it. We don't have to make a binary choice between applying a by-century split to all people-by-occupation categories, or none of them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see how these would be useful if populated properly. I don't understand why editors don't properly populate categories they create. On the other hand, when there are nearly half a million articles that could go in the category, the answer to that should be obvious. They shouldn't be created in the first place. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Musicians per precedent for sportspeople. However that category is likely to be so large as to be almost useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and depopulate Musicians by century are important navigation categories to composers by century (its subcategories), where the century is actually meaningful. gidonb (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To any potential AfD closer: please relist for further consideration, as this crucial detail has not been taken into account AT ALL in the previous parts of the discussion. These are actually very important categories for navagibilty, organization and consistentency and deserve a closer look and adaquate reference from the community. gidonb (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2010 (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.
Support as per nomination Mayumashu (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "Heritage" is concise. Maurreen (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Heritage is more than a blood test. It presumes at least some active self-identification as a carrier of the heritage (whatever it is), which is not necessarily true for all listed people. Does Ann Curry belong to Guam heritage? She was born there, that's all. NVO (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2010 (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:no consensus. There seems to be a rough consensus that the current names are probably not ideal, but there is as yet no consensus on what would be better.Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per my comments at the CfD March 24 discussion on Jewish agnostics, the notion of someone "converting" to agnosticism is silly, because a state of uncertainty is not something for which "conversion" is a useful description. Also, an agnostic has not necessarily given up the practice of the faith they formerly held; they may still attend church/mosque/synagogue or whatever, but openly admit that they are uncertain about some or many aspects of that faith. (see Agnostic#Types_of_agnosticism) To remove the word "converts" from the sub-categories, I think that the simplest approach is just to use the adjectival form of the religion. This will not always be fully accurate, because some agnostics will regard themselves as no longer part of their faith, but in most cases it will be broadly accurate, and it will convey the category's purpose more clearly than using the word "converts". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agnostics have 'converted', in lieu of a more 'satisfying' term, from their previours religion. Uncertainty is (utter) lack of certainty. It is utterly oxymoronic to say "Muslim agnostics" (etc.) as to be Muslim is to (fully) believe in the teaching of Islam and to be 'agnostic' is (utterly) to have doubt about some aspect of (or the entirety of) these teachings. Mayumashu (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename -- Describing agnostics as adherents of a religion is contradictory. Maurreen (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about "Agnostics by former religion" and "Formerly Protestant Agnostics", etc. Eh, it's a thought. - Ruodyssey (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's better than "converts", but not all agnostics would say that they are "fomer" adherents of their religion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nom, but Rename Jewish agnostics is quasi-ethnic. These are not. However, I would not oppose soemthing like Category:Agnostics, formerly Muslims, which I consider better than Ruodyssey's suggestion. "Convert" is an unsatisfactory term, and should be avoided if possible, since becoming an agnostic is the result of turning from faith to doubt, not turning to faith. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since agnosticism is not a religion to which one can convert, the original titles make little sense. On the other hand, one cannot simultaneously adhere to a faith and be an agnostic, so the proposed titles make little sense either. All of these should be renamed to Category:Agnostic former Protestants etc. I'll nominate them myself, once this CFD closes. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The old and new categories are both meaningless. While deleting, make sure that the members are already categorized as Countryan agnostics. gidonb (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (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:American editors of Northeast newspapers[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:American newspaper editors. Splitting may be considered if each category can be populated by more than one article; I will look into this later today and split by state if multiple articles exist for each category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- Just because something hasn't been done before is insufficient reason to prevent it from being done. Maurreen (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an intersection category: it intersects the attributes of occupation (newspaper editor) with location (Northeastern United State). Intersection categories work well when both those attributes are already used for categorising related things, so that a reader can navigate from one such intersection to another. If we had a broader Category:People from the Northeastern United States by occupation, then the reader could usefully follow that path for navigation ... but we don't, so one half of this intersection is a dead-end. That's why intersection categories are standardised, by splitting at a consistent set of geographical levels.
Delete The Northeast is not an officially defined region, so it doesn't add anything to state-based categorization. I don't think an argument can be made that being published in the Northeast is defining, either. Editing a biweekly advertiser in a small town in central Pennsylvania surely is more like editing a biweekly advertiser in a small town in Arizona than it is editing a major metropolitan daily in Philadelphia or Phoenix. The reason Category:People from the Northeastern United States by occupation doesn't exist is because it doesn't make sense for most any other occupation, industry, or U.S. region either.- choster (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those regions are not universally applicable. Oklahoma and Maryland may be in the South, but Oklahoma is no more Southern than southern Indiana or Missouri, and the populated parts of Maryland are rather Northeastern these days.- choster (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It makes sense to me to divide these by state, but not by amorphous/ambiguously named region. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split by state - per Ol'Factory and Peterkingiron. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and then split by state, if desired. Occuli (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Split by state would be my ideal solution. This is labor intensive. Merge would still be an improvement over the current situation, so I do not object to such a closing. gidonb (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2010 (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 to Cat:Editors of Foo newspapers. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename all. Unlike the nomination above this one for the north-east region, I think that these categories are a great idea in principle. However the adjective "American" is at best superfluous, because it is unusual for people who are not American to edit American newspapers. If it is there because of an intention to separate American editors of such papers from non-American editors, then I think that it would be much more helpful to navigation to avoid such a split. If, for example, a Norwegian person edited a newspaper in California, they should be categorised alongside other editors of California newspapers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Different rename -- Agree that the "American" is generally redundant. But "Texas newspaper editors", for example, is more concise. Maurreen (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Texas newspaper editors" is ambiguous: it could mean Texan people who edit a newspaper anywhere in the universe, or it could mean people from anywhere who edit a newspaper in Texas. "Editors of Texas newspapers" has only the second of those two meanings. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to solve redundancy. Alternate name suggested is not better because the name would then be ambiguous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The targets will work well. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2010 (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:American newspaper editors of the 20th century[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. In numerous recent discussions, there has been a strong consensus in favour of deleting or upmerging 20th- and 21st-century categories of people-by-occupation-and-century, partly because most biographical articles relate to those two centuries and 100-year blocks are a bad way of grouping articles from that period. Category:American newspaper editors already contains several by-state by-city sub-categories, and since the American newspaper has traditionally been regionalised, this seems like a better form of sub-categorisation -- it groups editors with the cities where they will have been notable. The consensus so far has been that 19th-century and early categories are more appropriate, so I have not included the existing Category:19th-century American newspaper editors in this nomination. However, since the by-state and by-city categories are a superior way of grouping editors, I will nominate it separately below. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Served little purpose at this time. Maurreen (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2010 (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:19th-century American newspaper editors[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:keep. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I have separated this out from the nomination above of the 20th-century category, because in recent discussions there has generally been a stringer consensus for retaining 19th-century categories. However, in the case of American newspaper editors, I think that a by-state or by-city scheme of sub-categories provides a grouping which is more useful for navigation, so I propose that this too should be upmerged. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I am in favour of 19th century and earlier categories for people. This should be retained in addition to any regional schemes. Occuli (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- to distinguish from mass of more-recent editors. Maurreen (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. No need to choose between this and a geographic scheme. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2010 (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 all as nominated.-- Black Falcon(talk) 17:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge all. Numerous previous discussions of people-by-occupation-by-century categories have shown a strong consensus against 20th- and 21st-century categories, partly because most biographical articles relate to those two centuries and 100-year blocks are a bad way of grouping articles from that period. In the case of newspaper publishers, we currently have categs for the 20th and 21st centuries, and also the 17th, 18th and 19th, all of them sparsely-populated. The pre-19th-c groups are significant, covering a period when newsappers were a small pre-industrial enterpise, while the more heavily-populated 19th-century group covers the era of initial growth, when newspapers began to gain wide circulation, thanks to growing literacy rates and a variety of technical advances such as rail transport for distribution, and the electrical telegraph for news-gathering. The larger 20th-c group is not useful for navigation, because if fully populated it would include the overwhelming majority of biographies of newspaper publisher, while the 21st-century category will mostly overlap with the 21st and serve as a "current" category, contrary to long-standing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- These essentially repeat the default. Maurreen (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom, per much recent precedent for sportspeople etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2010 (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.
Then people should be more careful when using Hotcat to check that their edits are correct. Lugnuts (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why make life more difficult for editors? There is no benefit to be gained from creating an obstacle where none exists. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. This is nothing like the Birmingham situation. If Palermo is so ambigious, why isn't it a disambig page, with the main article @ Palermo (city)? What evidence do you have for "most categorisation is now done using HotCat" too? Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, the city of Palermo is the primary topic, so it should not be a dab page. However, there is still sufficient ambiguity to risk problems in categorisation. My evidence for use of HotCat comes simply from my huge watchlist (30K pages): most non-bot edits on that watchlist which involve categorisation use HotCat. I am sure that you do not intend to create an obstacle course for editors, but that is the effect of the change you propose ... and your only answer to that is to suggest that editors should check. Have you looked at the number of steps involved in that? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – noting that Birmingham is not a disamb page either. 'Palermo' is less clear than 'Palermo (city)' and reducing clarity is in general a bad idea. Occuli (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral "Birmingham" is a bad precedent, since Birmingham, AL is dabbed there by a capnote. The categories are "Birmingham, West Midlands". I assume that Palermo (city) is part of the Province of Palermo. One answer might be to rename as nom, but then re-create the present category as a category redirect to the province. Miscategorisation cases would thus end off in the provincial category, which would be imprecise but not wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a standard form disambiguation where one is needed. Main articles have features that allow for commonname use that cat pages do not. Mayumashu (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ambiguous category names result in high maintenance categories, since the contents will be properly categories by anyone who thinks about it. And Birmingham shows excessive UK bias. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested by the nominator. To match the main article and reduce cluttering in the category name. I carefully considered the cons but the pros outweigh them. gidonb (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2010 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge all. I am aware of no other scheme of categorising people by the triple intersection of nationality, occupation, and year of birth ... or even by the double intersection of occupation and year of birth. The creator of these categories is presumably also unaware of such a scheme, which is why these categories are not parented in any chronological category. Categories exist as a navigational tool, but I can see no navigational use for these categories: journalists working in any particular period may have been born up to 50 years apart, and splitting them by the decade of birth separates journalist who should be categorised together. Note that the similar system of categorising journalists by century was deleted without opposition at CfD March 8. This is not a direct re-creation of those categories, but it does use a similar logic, albeit one which I think is even less useful for navigation. The creator of these categories is engaged in a much wider recategorisation of American journalists, which is causing a number of problems I have tried to discuss with her, but without success. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stub categories are a form of maintenance category, intended for editors rather than for readers. I am not keen on the practice of splitting stub categories by decade of birth, because it seems arbitrary and I don't see how it helps editors ... but there is no precedent for splitting the reader-focused categories in this way, and the creator offers no explanation of how they might help navigation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Combining decade of birth with nationality and occupation is a triple intersection and probably not a precedent we want to produce. Some of the creator's actions appear to me to be somewhat suspect. This reminds me of User:Levineps for some reason. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 20th century categories, per recent precedent on 20th and 21st century sportspeople. 18th, 19th, and possibly 1900-1950 categories might be created and the articles with remaining birth categories manually recategorised inot these, according to when the journalist was active or most active, but with only one cat allowed per article for those stradling two centuries. When empty the other categories should be deleted. Category:American journalist, 19th century birth stubs is proesumably being populated by a stub template. These stub tenplates need to be merged into one "American journalist" stub-type, but that will need a nom elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all I generally favour keeping pre-20th century cats, but this is not the way to do it. Mosts of the (misnamed) "1800s births" were still at school in 1900, & many died as late as 1971 (eg Edward Anthony (writer)). Of the rest, I've added four earlier guys to the 19th century editors/publishers. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2010 (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 to match the main article name. Darwinek (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Birmingham District, West Midlands[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:Rename. Birmingham is a district of England, but it is rarely, if ever, known by the proper noun "Birmingham District". Naming to maintain disambiguation with Category:People from Birmingham, West Midlands using the established modifier. MRSC (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per convention of Category:People by district in England, and per nominator. The current title was created as part of a wider renaming at CfD 2010 February 26, and I noticed the problem with this particular category when tidying up the work which the bot could not complete. The sub-categories all used {{England people message}}, which is widely deployed and relies on the district category using "(district)" as a disambiguator. That template works because most other similar people-by-town-within-an-English-local-govt-district do use that form. This nomination will restore the std disambigautor, and also allow the sub-categories to revert to using the {{England people message}}, which I had to subst and mangle to make the previous rename possible. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:People from Birmingham, West Midlands. Moseley, Sparkhill, and Kings Norton have all been part of the City of Birmingham since the 1930s, while Sutton Coldfield was incorporated in 1974. I suspect that the residents of Sutton do not like being told that they are Brummies, but merger is the only realistic solution: people categoriesed as "from Sutton Coldfield" will probably not notice that the category is a sub-cat of "from Birmingham". Since there are no parishes in Birmingham, the boundaries between suburbs are probably ill-defined by now. Nevertheless, more subcategories for areas of Birmingham would be possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2010 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 4. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)