Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7[edit]

Category:Popular[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Popular to Category:Popular (TV series)
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Popular (TV series). Popular is ambiguous. — ξxplicit 23:21, 7 May 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:Chiapas Fútbol Club[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 08:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Chiapas Fútbol Club to Category:Jaguares de Chiapas
Nominator's rationale: Rename.The club known official as Jaguares de Chiapas, as clearly been seen in club website. Matthew_hk tc 20:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per main club article and other web references Eldumpo (talk) 22:48, 8 May 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.

Port settlements[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: do not rename as nominated; no consensus on what to do instead. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements.
This is a test nomination for all the hundred subcategories of Category:Port settlements. They are a mess. I am not sure what is best to rename them to, but mainly they need standardization. (Note also there is a separte tree for Category:Ports and harbours.)
Category:Port settlements by continent has on only two subcategories, Category:Port cities by continent and Category:Port settlements in North America, because all the other are of the form Category:Port cities in South America. Categories such Category:Port cities in Asia have lots of non-city subcategories, such as Category:Port cities and towns in China and Category:Port cities and towns in Indonesia. Categories such Category:Port settlements in Argentina are subcategories of both Category:Port cities and towns by country and Category:Port cities in South America. They are used interchangeably in the tree, but not understood interchangeably because they are not interchangeable names. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 19:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for now. Somehow the proposed name does not read right. I know why this is proposed, but is there a better name? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the The $64,000 Question. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 18:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It just does not sound right. This populated-mania has gone too far. The rationale that caused pooling all cities, towns etc. under the ugly "populated places" is unimportant here: practically all notable ports are cities or towns. Not hamlets, not chaks, not the dreaded settlements in the desert. There is no need to extrapolated a flawed but PC name into the categories that can do without it. Populated ports, populated bus stops, populated bedrooms ... get real. East of Borschov (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These category are already here; we are not making new ones. Just making them consistent with each other. What do you propose? I am fine with a tree of Port settlements or even Port cities and towns as long as they are consistent.
If we really left them all named as they are then we ought to have one tree for each of Category:Port cities by country, Category:Port cities and towns by country, Category:Port settlements by country, and Category:Ports and harbours by country. That would be utterly silly.şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 18:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silly indeed, please don't make such proposals anymore. Meanwhile, I just had a spark of genius. Should existing categories become "populated ports", most of these categories must be emptied. People normally don't live on port grounds (short of some drifters and ship crews). Port towns are populated. Ports themselves are "unpopulated". On a more serious note, the problem as I see is not inconsistency in naming, it's inconsistency in inclusion (i.e. The Aegean is Turkish, at last). You mentioned it in the rationale. But the rename will not affect inclusion at all. East of Borschov (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, but the ports themselves are not populated: it is the settlements, cities, what have you, that have grown up around them.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then what? Remove all categories? Create multiple trees for each form of category? What would we do instead? şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. But I don't like the suggested rename. And please don't leave any further messages about this on my User talk page: it isn't necessary. I'll keep an eye on this CfD and if I have anything helpful to contribute, I will. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to stop leaving comments about this on my Talk page, to no avail, I see. I repeat: if I have any further comments to make about this CfD I will do so here. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doing nothing is not really an option.
Please explane why you think you would like a category system where some are left as Category:Port cities in Foo and some are left as Category:Port cities and towns in Foo and some are left as Category:Port settlements in Foo, with no rhyme or reason?
But you oppose a system where all are :Category:Port cities in Foo, and oppose a system where all are :Category:Port cities and towns in Foo, and oppose a system where all are :Category:Port settlements in Foo? şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 08:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose (or support) any system. I simply objected to the rename to "populated ports," for the specific reason I stated. Other than that, I have no preference whatsoever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is good to know. So if we reproposed the these with "Category:Port cities in Foo" you would not plan on opposing it? It seems that I will try that but if this vote fails people might object to reopening the disscussion. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 20:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've already made it clear that any name other than populated ports is fine with me: Including the one you list above. I will not be taking part in any further discussions about this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Category:Port settlements ... pending a better solution. At least this way they will have a unifying name. I don't believe that any of these are in an area where the use of settlements would be an issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. "Port settlements" doesn't sound right at all. "Populated..." is even worse. The way the categories are now is both correct, and sounds correct as well. (You hear people speaking of a place as a "Port city", for instance.) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, do not oppose. Please change your vote to "Change all to Category:Port cities." They are not any one way. With "Port cities" they can then all fit in each other... unlike now. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose port are not populated places, ports are facilities for loading/unloading of vessels, Port cities are cities that have evolve because of the existance of the port operations. Gnangarra 01:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that ports are not literally "populated"— but we are trying to do more than win arguments about words here. We are trying to fix the category system. Please note:
If we name them all Category:Port cities in Foo, they can all be put under each other with subcategories.
If we name them all Category:Port cities and towns in Foo, they can all be put under each other with subcategories.
If we name them all Category:Port settlements in Foo, they can all be put under each other with subcategories.
But if we leave them a mix of Category:Port cities in Foo, Category:Port cities and towns in Foo, and Category:Port settlements in Foo, then they CANNOT be put under each other with subcategories. Each would in a different place for no reason. Is this what we want? şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 09:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting I thought the use of words was the primary concern, categories are meaningless if they arent coherant, or reflective of what and how the terms are used. Combining categories because of limited subject matter is normal and logical action, cross categories are also a common practice. Using grammatically misleading terms like "populated port" is not a positive step, it looks more like WP:OR in action. Aslo for the benefit of this discussion and to keep it in one place please stop cross posting your response to talk pages it dilutes the discussion. Gnangarra 12:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (If I can tell where this CFD is going) As creator of the Australian Maritime History project and also Coastline of Western Australia category, I object to CFD process being used as a fishing expedition for an issue of category naming. I object to port settlements and populated anything. I find it hard to know what the nominator is up to - Port cities is what they should be and I am not sure what this CFD is doing - I certainly am not interested in foo this or foo that - Port cities are port cities and it is a common usage. Also there is no harm in complex and tortured category trees - nicieties and good fitting have long been failed arguments here in CFD territory SatuSuro 12:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you want [Port cities in Australia], [...Azerbaijan], & [...Burma] to be in [Port cities by country]?
And you want [Port cities and towns in Algeria], [...Angola]], [...Belgium], & [...Brazil] to be in [Port cities and towns by country]?
And you want [Port settlements in Argentina] & [...ancient Crete] to be in [Port settlements by country]?
And then have another three sets of categories for [Port cities by continent], [Port cities and towns by continent], and [Port settlements by continent]?
Rather than a fishing expedition, this is an effort to build consensus; to propose a posible new name but repeat that "populated" is not the point at all. Would that be worthwile? şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 20:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nominator's suggested "Populated ports in Foo" is wrong as ports are not populated even if they are close to a city, town or settlement. "Port settlements" also has issues with naming as cities and towns are not settlements (though they would have started as a settlement) and again ports are not populated so "Port settlements" is misleading. At the moment "Port cities in Foo", "Port town in Foo" and "Port settlements in Foo" works better then the suggested categories. Bidgee (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to "Ports in (X). There is consensus to change "Settlements" and "Cities and towns" and the like to "Populated places," but there is no consensus to change terms as specific as "port" to that scheme. Ports say nothing about their populated status; they are often parts of cities or unrelated to habitation at all. All of these, if they are populated, should be in a specific category like "Populated places in Brazil." The fact that these are ports should also be recognized with a population-neutral category like "Ports in (X)."--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Ports in Foo" - I doubt there are many unpopulated ports and even if there are the distinction would be unimportant. Unfortunately, I failed to contribute to the misbegotten proposal to substitute populated places for settlements. We certainbly do not need to take this any further. "Port" is a perfectly good noun for describing them. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Ports in Foo" as perfectly good, clear English. It's time to end the madness of contrived Wikipedia terms where words already exist and are well-understood. Mangoe (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the totally separate tree of subcats for Category:Ports and harbours? I would think you would want to merge them together one name or the other, or maybe create Category:Harbours out of it? Do you and Peterkingiron want the same on this question or different? şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 18:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that there are ports and there are populated places, and they don't need an intersection category. So I might just move everything to "Ports in (X)" (and seriously, ports and harbors are too the same thing, for all practical purposes), and make sure the inhabited ones have a "Populated places in (X)" category as well. And I'd put all that under a renamed "Category:Ports" to replace Category:Ports and habours. But I don't know how complicated that would be.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "ports and harbours" categories do not refer to cities and towns, but to port facilities. Therefore there is an article on the Port of Baltimore which is distinct from the article on Baltimore. The latter is included in Category:Port settlements in the United States, but the former is in Category:Ports and harbors of Maryland. Mangoe (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They're not populated ports (unless there's stowaways or something), and there's no such thing as port settlements. "Port cities" is a legitimate construction as Gnangarra highlights here and others have in the past and would stand regardless of what the parent category ends up being called (and I do support "populated places" being the generic term). Basically this whole thing was stuffed up by a CfD that was partially overturned at DRV 19 months ago, but the fixing up thereafter never took place on a complete scale. So if anything I would support the Port settlements category being dismantled and moved back to cities/towns as it previously was (or if in doubt, just rename "settlements" to "cities and towns"). Orderinchaos 07:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as pointed out by Gnangarra, "port city" is a perfectly legitimate term, but "populated port" just sounds clunky, and nobody actually lives in the port, although they may leave nearby. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
What I actually want[edit]

This is the second time of late when I've been caught up in a categorizing discussion that is being driven by the co-opting of perfectly decent English words by some political authority or another. The only long term solution for this is to ignore them and stick to plain English, and where the political terms have to be applied, make it clear that it is the term that is being used instead of normal English. The outcome of what we have now is manifestly parochial: we end up with an unsatisfactory term because there is always someone who is unwilling to admit that his government doesn't control the English language.

Since we can't have that, I think the only solution that has much of a chance of chance here is Category:Populated places with ports (and therefore, presumably, subcategories of the form Category:populated places in (foo) with ports) as being the least bizarrely contrived. But there's no solution we're going to come up with, given the flight from the clear-to-the-ordinary-reader "settlement", that isn't going to be bad. The better solution is to take the language back from the bureaucrats and use common English words for common English things. Mangoe (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using "bureaucrat" here in the WP sense of the word or a more generic sense of the word? Because the nominator here is not a WP bureaucrat and is not an administrator either. It seems to be a "grassroots" nomination based on previous consensus, as one might say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the context makes it fairly clear he's using it in the "faceless pen-pushers" sense of the word. Orderinchaos 04:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I assumed, but on WP one often errs when one assumes (diffs available on request, some closer to you than others), so I wanted to be sure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the thought that I could be referring to the Wikipedia position is an illustration of the very point I'm trying to make. It's time to start thinking like ordinary readers. Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you don't have much experience on WP with users making assumptions about what you mean when what they assume you mean is not what you meant at all. Once it happens to you, perhaps you too will be slow to jump to conclusions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 18 May 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:Improvised explosive device victims[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Judging from the discussion at hand, consensus appears to agree that this category is not an effective form of categorization. — ξxplicit 06:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Improvised explosive device victims to Category:Deaths by improvised explosive device
Nominator's rationale: The latter category is a subcat of the former, but the two categories cover...well, exactly the same thing: people killed by IEDs. The latter name fits the tree better (parent, Deaths by explosive device), is the more populated category, and was created over a year earlier (...by the same user...), so I believe it's the one that should be kept. The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no they don't the victims category is for people who were not killed but were injured Kernel Saunters (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps they should be merged the other way, then? The people who were killed were also victims, and I'm not sure the distinction doesn't push WP:OC. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not convinced that we would want a category for those who were injured but not killed by IEDs. What is the rationale for so categorizing? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Category:Survivors of improvises ... will fit the survivors better. Right now a living person who suffered a ruptured eardrum is listed as victim. With all due respect, this is just too far. East of Borschov (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IED death is useless, there were alot of IEDs used by official militaries in WWII, juryrigged devices, would you categorize all those also into these categories? What about the Vietnam War? "Death by roadside bomb" would be better. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't IED's limited to US-Afghan and US-Iragi wars? this pre-empts the question of earlier wars, when indeed landmines were just landmines. East of Borschov (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Judging from the contents (which has people who died decades before 2000AD), and the way the term itself is defined, no. And even if it were, it would be wrong to jumble two wars together to the exclusion of all other wars, or to conflate the two wars into one. And, no they are not landmines. They are explosive weapons that have been improvised from other goods for use as a remotely triggered bomb. The Vietnamese used many such devices in the Vietnam War. Partisan forces used alot of these devices in WWI and WWII. In the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Afghans used alot of these things as well. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least Category:Improvised explosive device victims. I'm not sure if the other one should be kept or not. At a minimum, I'm willing to say that while dying from an IED may be defining, being non-fatally injured by one in most cases will not be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to Category:Victims of improvised explosive devices. IED is a new term from the Iraq and Afghan conflicts, whose victims are not necessarily US personnel and are not necessarily killed by them. Some unfortunates survive as triple or quadruple amputees. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see why two wars should be conflated together and exclude others. While the terminology has changed, the device defined by the term has been used for a long time, and this division by word in current usage seems just plain wrong. Would shellshock be separated from battle fatigue from PTSD? Different terms for the same phenomenon being temporally separated by usage? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:07, 11 May 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:Dalton McGuinty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: administrative close: speedily deleted as creation of sockpuppet of banned user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dalton McGuinty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Ridiculous category based off of one person. Creator attempted to add this to every page that redirected to Dalton McGuinty and to the articles on ever member of his family. ALI nom nom 17:07, 7 May 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:Actor-criminals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: administrative close: speedily deleted already. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actor-criminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no reason to combine two existing categories into one. ALI nom nom 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Artifical construct with no value. NtheP (talk) 16:58, 7 May 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 Jewish Film Producers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete as overcategorization of a non-notable intersection between nationality and ethnicity/religion. — ξxplicit 06:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American Jewish Film Producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OC: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation / Intersection by location. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, as this doesn't seem to be about producers of American Jewish films, or American producers of Jewish films, but indeed about this trivial category intersection. Hans Adler 15:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- doorautomatica (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. Jews are members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation). The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category.

That the intersection is notable is clear to anyone familiar with the area, or who does a google search. Entire books have been written on the intersection. As American Jewish filmmakers, by David Desser and Lester D. Friedman

3. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as this is clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:
  1. Terminology must be neutral....
  2. Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
  3. Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it."
Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines.

The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3]

  1. ^ [1] "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on June 15, 2009
  2. ^ [2] Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on June 15, 2009
  3. ^ [3] "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on June 15, 2009

--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I mentioned here, whether or not you see Judaism as a nationality, "American Jewish" is not. This is an additional unnecessary intersection. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should write the author of the book indicated above, and tell him it is "unnecessary". That it may be your pov, doesn't suggest it is the case, especially when entire books are written on the intersection.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Epeefleche, but rename to Category:Jewish American film producers. Davshul (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom... an individuals religion isnt significant intersection in relation to the producing of movies, unlike the movies subject matter. Its also a borderline WP:BLP over what constitues the racial/religious profile of a Jewish Producer. Gnangarra 07:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The arguments set forth for keeping would make sense to me if this were Category:Jewish film producers, but these guys are firstly, American film producers, and then they are either or Jewish "ethnicity" or of the Jewish faith. We don't subcategorize other American film producers by ethnicity or religion, so I don't see why we would want to here with this intersection. (If these were American people who produce some sort of thing known as "Jewish films", then considerations might change, but I don't think that is the case here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Except, that has never been the criteria, for example, with Sri Lankan bobsledders, or Pakistani terrorists. That's the sort of baseless argument that makes little sense. It's simply not how our categories work.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What has never been the criteria? I mentioned a few things in my comment, and that is not specific enough to know what you are referring to. "Sri Lankan" and "Pakistani" are nationalities, not ethnicities or religions, so your examples aren't really comparable to this one. And I do think I'm reasonably familiar with how our categories work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you don't know much about Judaism, and haven't read the above post. What has never been the criteria is that when you have Fooian Xers, there has to be a Fooian way of doing Xing. You also have assumptions which are baseless -- or at least unsupported, and not self-evident -- as to what they are first. And we as I think you may know do in fact categorize all manner of Xers as Jewish-American. I believe you know this because I think you have voted at numbers of them. To state POV as though it is truth, when you are aware that the opposite is true, may not be the most aboveboard way to address an AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim that there "has to be a Fooian way of doing Xing". I said "considerations might change" if "these were American people who produce some sort of thing known as 'Jewish films'". That is to say, my opinion might change if that were the case. If you actually consider the difference between what I said and how you characterised it, they are quite different. But in fact, what you say is true as far as nationality categories go—but it has indeed been fairly common to use the "there has to be a [ethnic] way of doing Xing" when assessing ethnicity categories. But whatever. As for the rest of your comments, your assumption of bad faith on my part is uncalled for. If you haven't noticed, people express their opinions at CFD, which is what I did. Nothing I said was objectively "untrue", as you have alleged. You may also keep your assumptions about how much any user knows about any particular subject firmly within your own craw. Finally, this is CFD, not AFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my opinion is that when an editor says "We don't subcategorize other American film producers by ethnicity or religion, so I don't see why we would want to here with this intersection", and he knows full well that in the event of the Jews -- who as indicated above are a nation as well as a religion -- we have dozens of such categories ... then yes, I would say that his statement of what we do is misleading, and it is hard to understand how it could be anything other than intentional when it is an editor who has voted at many such CfDs as which the category is remained. It's just the sort of less-than-forthright statement that can be expected to mislead the un-knowing AgFers, which does not IMHO benefit the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? I have no idea how you are putting this together. "We don't subcategorize other American film producers by ethnicity or religion, so I don't see why we would want to here with this intersection." This is true. Show me one other ethnic or religion subcategory for Category:American film producers. We don't even have Category:Jewish film producers, so this division would seem to be putting the cart well before the horse. This CFD (and it still is CFD, despite the repeated referrals to AFD) has nothing to do with other category trees, as far as I can tell. You're acting like we are assessing Category:Jewish film producers, but that is not what the category name says it is. You can keep assuming that I'm being "less than forthright" if you want, but you may also want to consider assuming good faith and acknowledging that you could be mistaken or confused about my intentions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all of the above discussion, I would like to point out that WP:OC#CATGRS specifically cites Jewish mathematicians as an example of overcategorisation. With the addition of "American" into the mix, this is even more heavily categorised. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Without a clear and consistent rule about the use of ethnic categories, this one should be allowed. While Judaism is a religion, Jews themselves are also part of an ethnic and/or racial group. While Jews may have begun as a distinct religious group before they left ancient Israel/Palestine, their status in many of their host countries throughout Europe, and in Russia, was often treated as an ethnic minority (i.e. ghettos.) The host countries created the ethnic definition, not Judaism the religion. If the term is used as both a religion and ethnic description by other peoples or countries, then it seems consistent with other categories to allow it here. What's ironic about this with the movie industry, is that many of the earlier Jewish writers, directors, and producers, kept their Jewishness more hidden with an emphasis on their Americanism and patriotism (i.e. Irving Berlin's "God Bless America"). Many changed their names; others refrained from criticizing the Nazis until WWII actually began. But that's another issue. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization per Rob Sinden. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would also support deleting Category:Italian American Film Producers if it were to exist. The nationality argument is completely bunk as well. The other "nationalities" referenced are to the citizens of specific nation-states not ethnic groups who consider themselves to part of a "nation". An "Israeli" is a national of this type, but a "Jew" is not. An American Jew's nationality is ... American.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the simple reason that the intersection is notable. Many filmmakers are Jewish, and are know as being Jewish. I agree with those who say that the point here is not whether Jewish is a nationality or an ethinicity. The point is simply that this is an notable intersection, which is all the nominator claimed to be reason for deletion. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the standard for making such an intersection notable should be as low as that. By that argument Jewish mathematicians would also be a notable intersection, but that category was deleted and serves as an example in WP:OC#CATGRS. There are also plenty of people known to be left-handed or to have blue eyes or to be homosexual or to be married or single. We don't create category intersections with the profession categories for them, either. Hans Adler 09:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hans -- that's silly. Putting it graciously. You're either ignoring the above, or have failed to read it. Since when are left-handed people considered a nation? Since when are there books written on blue-eyed film producers? This is clearly wildly different. I hope the closing nom will properly weigh the !votes, so that those based on fallacious thinking are given their due weight.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        1. You seem to have cherry-picked from my argument the part that you felt you could ridicule and ignored the strongest part. Please explain how deleting Category:American Jewish Film Producers is more "silly" than the deletion of Category:Jewish_mathematicians was. And don't evade the question with WP:OTHERSTUFF. This exact category has been in WP:Overcategorization as an example of overcategorisation ("non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference") for almost two years. [4]
        2. "Jewish" is a borderline case. But Debresser used an extremely low standard to argue that this borderline case is acceptable: many X are Y, and are known as being Y. It's hardly silly to point out that applying such a low standard would have undesired, and in fact ridiculous, consequences. Hans Adler 10:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you trot out rationales for your !vote that are baseless and have the effect -- unchallenged -- of misleading others, you would do well to expect them to be challenged and shown for what they are. As to your other points -- they ignore (yet again) the fact that the Jewish people are a nation (distinct from the other groups you point to), that books/articles have been written on this precise intersection, and -- as you apparently recognize -- the fact that other stuff was deleted/exists is by itself a reason, let alone the fact that the others that you point to may well have been tainted by your misleading argument (if you made it there as well).--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Jewish people are not a nation in the sense of being citizens of a nation-state or otherwise members of a recognized world polity. There is a convention here of having lists of people based on that form of nationality but not "nationalities" based on ethnic self-determination. This would be like having a List of Basque businessmen. Hans' argument is entirely sound because we equate this type of national identity with ethnicity here. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this category serves no purpose that would not be equally served by the use of the two existing categories Category:American film producers and Category:American people of Jewish descent together. WP:MOSBIO states that we should not include either ethnicity or religion in the lead section unless it is pertinent to the subject's notability. For most films, the producer's status as a Jew has absolutely no bearing on either the producer's or the film's notability. Therefore this is an unnecessary overcategorization. Yworo (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. IZAK (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:OCAT. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:OCAT. Plus, it's redundant with List of film producers - jk. :D Bulldog123 20:11, 28 May 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.

Portal Total categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. — ξxplicit 05:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Business and economics/Total (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Companies/Total (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gymnastics/Total (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Psychology/Total (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Romanian football/Total (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Tennis/Total (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't need third category hierarchy (apart from normal and WikiProject). And article isn't added to one of those categories, if it doesn't use e.g. {{Business and economics portal}} but {{portal}} directly. Svick (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete', serve no purpose not better done in another way as far as I can see. (Whatlinkshere Portal:Foo (from mainspace) would be as or more useful.) Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 10 May 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:Wikipedia style guidelines[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: withdrawn by nominator. — ξxplicit 08:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia style guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Better served by Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn, going to make Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style a child of Category:Wikipedia style guidelines[reply]

  • I think it would actually make more sense to merge the other way around, since there are many "style guidelines" which are not in the "Manual of Style" proper. -- Beland (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which style guides are not part of the MoS ? Gnevin (talk) 11:34, 8 May 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:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 08:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Category:Elizabeth II
Nominator's rationale: no need to disambiguate as per the recent move of the article Elizabeth II on 17 April[5]. Gnangarra 11:53, 7 May 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:Members of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 05:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany to Category:Recipients of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
Nominator's rationale: Title is based on a misunderstanding. This Order of Merit is not one in which you can be a member. It is a mere medal presented as a gift. The language used in the underlying law and the language used by the German government and the German media are all very clear: People receive this "order", but they don't become a member of anything, not even something virtual. The confusion has spread to many other language versions of this category, but the name of the German category is clear: "Träger des Bundesverdienstkreuzes", i.e. bearers of the Order of Merit. Hans Adler 06:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case someone has any doubt, in particular whether the order is treated the same way in English, just Google for it and you will see that also in English people are "awarded" this order but not said to become members of some fictional entity. See also this information from the German president, who is responsible for the medal. Hans Adler 06:35, 7 May 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:Non-infectious diseases[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-infectious diseases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Category has no utility. All diseases that are not infectious are non-infectious. All infectious diseases are categorized within Category:Infectious diseases. All non-infectious diseases are categorized in other subcategories of Category:Diseases and disorders. There is no need to duplicate all of the disease and disorder subcategories into this category. Scott Alter (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 06:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though nom does not make sense, as the "other subcategories" often contain both infectious and non-infectious diseases (I was going to use Athlete's foot as an example, but this is not in the infectious category, though it should be). But this is just too much trouble for little gain - let's get the infectious one right & leave it at that. Johnbod (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Umm, Athlete's foot is in the infectious disease category - or at least it's in Category:Fungal diseases which is a sub-category of the infectious diseases. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the "other subcategories" probably should not contain infectious diseases (but some may). To elaborate, infectious diseases are classified by the medical community by being an infectious disease. It is a defining characteristic, so they are categorized within Category:Infectious diseases. Non-infectious diseases are classified by other characteristics (usually based on organ system) in the "other subcategories." There is no need for a separate "non-infectious diseases" category from the "other subcategories" that are not specified regarding their infectious disease contents. Categories containing solely infectious diseases are named as such, and exclude non-infectious diseases. If an infectious disease happens to meet criteria to be included in an "other subcategory," it may be included there, too. Looking at the Athlete's foot, it is in Category:Fungal diseases (a subcategory of Category:Infectious diseases), Category:Mycosis-related cutaneous conditions (a category for infectious fungal diseases effecting the skin), and Category:Foot diseases. Category:Foot diseases should probably be under a separate hierarchy based on effected body part (it is not a standard classification by ICD-10, which uses organ systems), so I'm leaving it alone for now. But Athlete's foot is a foot disease, so it belongs in Category:Foot diseases, too, alongside non-infectious diseases, such as Bunion. I never said that infectious diseases couldn't also be in the "other subcategories," because as Beeswaxcandle eludes to below, there are some infectious causes of diseases classified elsewhere by ICD-10 and some diseases with unknown etiologies may be caused by infections. --Scott Alter (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - keeping a category like this "clean" would be very difficult. For example, Meningitis has various infectious and non-infectious causes. The arguments robust discussions around what's in and what's not will be bad enough for the infectious diseases - and at least Chapter One of the ICD-10 provides a consistent guidance for that category, but as many conditions classified to other Chapters may have an infective cause as one of the possible aetiologies including them in this category would be open to challenge. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This category doesn't make sense. -- doorautomatica (talk) 14:00, 10 May 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:English Ontarian[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: administrative close: speedily deleted as creation of sockpuppet of banned user, but it sounds like there are good reasons to justify deletion on the merits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English Ontarian to Category:English speaking people from Ontario
Nominator's rationale: Demonyms should be avoided per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Residence. Dismas|(talk) 04:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is a category aptly-called Category:Francophone Quebec people, this this one, if anything should be re-named to English Ontario people. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While the category is defined as "notable English-speaking Ontarians" the title makes it confusing and could indicate that it is for people born in England or descended from English born people. I also notice that the category says it's for people "with complete or near complete English ethnic or national origins." That's very odd given that the category contains Scottish born Alexander Mackenzie and Czech born Alex Baumann. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Sandra Oh. Which is even funnier. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Anglophone Ontario people per naming pattern of Category:Francophone Quebec people Mayumashu (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Both Category:English Ontarian and Category:English speaking people from Ontario were created by sockpuppets. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Éric Gagnier. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not only should the demonym be avoided, but "English" is very ambiguous in this usage. I would also support "Anglophones from Ontario" as a new category title. —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge both to their parents – there is nothing defining about being from Ontario and speaking English or having English ancestry. Category:Canadian people of English descent is not subcatted by province and neither is Category:Anglophone Canadians (except Quebec which is a special case). Occuli (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note As both were created by blocked sockpuppets on some ethnic/language mission I have emptied and deleted both. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this has actually already been speedied, since it hasn't been formally closed yet I just wanted to add a comment: Occuli correctly identified why this isn't useful; if kept as constructed, it would basically be an unmaintainable "90+% of all Ontarian people", and if kept as named it just wouldn't be notable at all. Having a subcategory for Quebec is a different matter, as Occuli pointed out, but what's important in that case isn't the intersection of language with province itself — it's the fact that because they're a linguistic minority group, that particular intersection of language and province defines a verifiable and notable community of people who identify themselves as Anglo-Quebecers, who have a reliably sourced history as a distinct cultural group, and on and so forth. Among all 10 provinces and three territories of Canada, Quebec is the only one where "Anglo-Demonym" actually constitutes a genuinely verifiable cultural community with a genuinely encyclopedic context; everywhere else it's pure "people who happen to be both X and Y" WP:OCAT. Support deletion (and speedy redeletion if it comes back again, which given this editor's track record it probably will.) Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 8 May 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.

Motorsport competitions by year of establishment[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete and merge all as nominated. — ξxplicit 05:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Motorsport competitions by year of establishment
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1948 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1948
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1950 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1950
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1953 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1953
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1957 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1957
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1960 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1960
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1962 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1962
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1963 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1963
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1967 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1967
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1971 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1971
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1972 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1972
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1973 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1973
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1975 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1975
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1976 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1976
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1978 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1978
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1983 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1983
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1984 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1984
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1997 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1997
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 1998 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1998
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 2000 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 2000
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 2002 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 2002
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 2004 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 2004
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 2005 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 2005
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 2006 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 2006
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 2008 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 2008
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 2009 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 2009
Propose merging Category:Motorsport competitions established in 2010 into Category:Recurring sporting events established in 2010
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAT. Each of the year subcats will only ever contain a maximum of 3 or 4 articles and no other sports have their own subcats of Category:Recurring sporting events by year of establishment. DH85868993 (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, merge. Why should some sports fall out of the general scheme? NVO (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. IMHO, the categories should be merged into Category:Motorsport competitons established in (decade). - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 06:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be upmerged into both structures if both structures are cromulent. It's not an "either or". Rich Farmbrough, 07:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    It should be noted that the "decade" categories do not currently exist. DH85868993 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. --Falcadore (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, merge, because there have been too few motorsport competitions established in any year to justify these subcategories. There even appear to be too few motorsport competitions established in any decade to justify Category:Motorsport competitons established in (decade). However, the recurring sporting events established in any year still needs to be expanded, and so it would probably make sense to create a subcategory for Category:Equestrian sports competitions established in (decade) (as a subcategory of Category:Equestrian sports competitions) when all the relevant articles have been categorised. Coyets (talk) 15:10, 11 May 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:Tongariro Volcanic Center[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tongariro Volcanic Center to Category:Tongariro Volcanic Centre
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing in response to a comment at (and per the outcome of) CfD 29-Apr-2010 – Cat:Okataina Volcanic Center. No opinion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:50, 7 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_7&oldid=1138394388"