Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 8

< August 7	August 9 >

August 8

Category:Arthur Loves Plastic

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Arthur Loves Plastic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization--only contains one article, one template, one book, and one category. These can all be easily navigated from the footer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep useful. Contains more than one article. Could probably be expanded too.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete – there has never been any support for keeping an eponymous musician category with only 1 subcat. Occuli (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There's more to consider than the number of subcatgories in an eponymous category.There are plenty of pages that fall in the scope of Category:Arthur Loves Plastic in addition to its subcategories (namely Arthur Loves Plastic, Arthur Loves Plastic discography, Book:Arthur Loves Plastic , Template:Arthur Loves Plastic). Category:Arthur Loves Plastic albums is a bad category for Arthur Loves Plastic and Book:Arthur Loves Plastic would be uncategorized otherwise (don't really care about the template). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• We have had countless cfds for eponymous musician categories and consensus has been against any with only 1 subcat. 2 subcats have gone either way. Book:Arthur Loves Plastic doesn't belong in any mainspace category in my opinion. There is no need whatever to categorise Arthur Loves Plastic in any of the categories mentioned as it is splendidly categorised elsewhere. Occuli (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Arthur Loves Plastic remix compilation albums

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. Category is already empty. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Arthur Loves Plastic remix compilation albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization (see below.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved per User:Koavf's suggestion. memphisto 10:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete – as its creator has emptied it per Koavf's nom. Occuli (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Arthur Loves Plastic remix EPs

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. Category is already empty. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Arthur Loves Plastic remix EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by artist and the intersection of two album types. Placing these all in Category:Arthur Loves Plastic EPs and Category:Remix EPs should be sufficient. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved per User:Koavf's suggestion. memphisto 10:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete – as its creator has emptied it per Koavf's nom. Occuli (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

Alumni of schools in England

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 all as "People educated at.... "Alumni" is not widely used for school attendees in the UK. "Educated at" is clearly understood to mean pupils/students who attended a school, regardless of the outcome of the schooling process. (Non-admin closure, taking note of comments on the current RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools and the more extensive arguments rehearsed at CFD Feb 10.) Fayenatic (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Bingley Grammar School to Category:People educated at Bingley Grammar School (Bingley Grammar School)

Propose renaming Category:Keswick School alumni to Category:People educated at Keswick School (Keswick School)

• In these last ones there is also a slight extra proposed change, eg to match the school article or to add a 'the'

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Archbishop Holgate Grammar School, York to Category:People educated at Archbishop Holgate's School (Archbishop Holgate's School)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Balshaw's Grammar School, Leyland to Category:People educated at Balshaw's Grammar School (Balshaw's Grammar School)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Royal Liberty Grammar School to Category:People educated at the Royal Liberty Grammar School (Royal Liberty Grammar School)

Propose renaming Category:Sir Walter St John’s alumni to Category:People educated at Sir Walter St John's Grammar School For Boys (Sir Walter St John's Grammar School For Boys)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Strode's School to Category:People educated at Strode's Grammar School (Strode's Grammar School)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of The City School (Sheffield) to Category:People educated at The City School, Sheffield (The City School, Sheffield)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Wimborne to Category:People educated at Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Wimborne Minster (Queen Elizabeth's School, Wimborne Minster)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Herschel Grammar School and its predecessors to Category:People educated at Herschel Grammar School (Herschel Grammar School)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Gillingham Grammar School to Category:People educated at Gillingham Grammar School, Kent (Gillingham Grammar School, Kent)

Nominator's rationale: In Category:Former pupils by school in England (and generally in UK secondary school categories), there has been little support for 'alumni' in cfds. In contrast there has been substantial support since Jan 2011 for the 'People educated at' formulation; eg Old Edwardians cfd in Jan 2011 (when the formulation was first proposed); all schools in Australia in Feb 2011; Scotland & Wales and Wales in July 2011; and Scotland in Aug 2011. This change would reduce names in Category:Former pupils by school in England from the present 5 formats to 3: 'People educated at', 'Former pupils of' and the 'Old BoodleFoodleians' option. Occuli (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Renaming to "Former pupils of" would be better and have the same effect of reducing the formats. It would also be consistent with the parent article. The support for "People educated by ... " has been from the same editors for the recent discussions and does not seem to be growing. This RFC seems to better reflect the general views on the matter. There is also the alternative of renaming to "People who attended ...". Cjc13 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• The traditional term in England is 'Old Boys/Girls', not 'Former Pupils'. The opposition to 'People educated at' (as opposed to 'alumni') in the recent cfd discussions has been from the same editor. Occuli (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The parent category needs a rethink but we need to get the individual categories sorted out first. "People educated at" has been about the only workable format for the UK as shown in previous CFDs that have struck out "former pupils" and rejected reintroducing it. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why not change the parent category first, then you will have a better idea of what is appropriate? The parent category was only renamed in June 2010, a change which you supported. "Former pupils" is a perfectly workable format. Cjc13 (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support I agree completely with the change as it removes any discussion about pupils vs students and therefore works at all levels of education from primary-school to university. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Rename. "Alumni" has been thoroughly debunked by editors in the UK, and recent UK CfDs have all gone the way of "People educated at (X)". I am intrigued by Cjc13's suggestion of "People who attended," though. Once these are all in the same format, I might see how people feel about that direction. But for now, let's get these to the dominant format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Old Etonians, etc is the current usage for former pupils of these schools. People will expect to find articles categorised in names with which they are familiar. A simple solution might be to name the categories in the format "Old Etonians (people educated at/who attended Eton College)". That would preserve the Old Boy/Girl naming system and provide an explanation for people who are unfamiliar with the names. Dahliarose (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are opposing something that is not actually being proposed. Nobody is saying (in this CfD at least) that the "Old Tossers" categories be deleted. This CfD is aimed at the "Alumni of...." categories. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought the intention was to change all the England categories to this format. I see now that it is only those beginning with the word alumni. I change my vote to Support. Dahliarose (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. In the UK, "Alumni" for schools is often defined as "Former pupils". In these cases, "Former pupils" could be substituted in place of "Alumni" without any loss of meaning. If you wanted to copy the American format, you could use "Foo School former pupils" for the categories.Cjc13 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Rename all to "people educated at". "Former pupils" fails because wikipedia discourages the use of "former" in category names, and because there is an ongoing debate over whether to call these people pupils or students, with the general trend (I did not say universal, just general) being a move towards favoring the term "students", so that over time use of pupils begins to look more and more antequated. The "people educated at" works fine. We do not want former.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree that Alumni is inappropriate and should be changed. But renaming to "Former pupils of" would be better, per Cjc13. "Attended" might be a workable alternative. ("Educated at" is a judgemental statement, "student" is not a timeless statement) But, again, lets work it out at RFC for naming of by school student related categories before pulling the rug out from under our feet. Should the RFC support it, we would not wish to use any of the above but revert back to use some Old Foo terms back into that list. Ephebi (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This is so tedious. A dozen times in the last few months people have tried to chip away at this subject by sneaking in changes to the "Former Fooian" categories without opening up to broad discussion. In the past I have complained about having to patrol these b****y CfD pages to see what editors are trying to push under the radar when we could be something much more productive on WP. In spite of several of us expressing interest in this topic, and previous complaints, nobody has flagged this to past participants, at the RFC page or on the relevant article's pages. Again. What a shambles. Admins, please take note. This is again in contravention of Wikipedia:Cfd#Procedure which recommends seeking expert input from the editors of the affected pages. Ephebi (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• None of the nominated categories is (or has ever been) in the 'Old Fooian' or "former fooian" format. Broad support in the rfc and all Uk-cfds in 2011 has been for "people educated at" as opposed to former anythings or alumni (in UK categories). "Former pupils" is a dead duck in the UK. (I agree that it is more than tedious.) Occuli (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "broad support" seeming to mean 3 active UK CfD regulars instead of the 100s of editors of those pages? If you were to do the nomination properly in accordance with the CfD procedure and post notices on all the affected pages then could say that. Ephebi (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• The only requirement is for all nominated pages to be tagged, which is exceptionally tedious even with AWB but has been done (the main creator of the 'Alumni' cats is user:Bashereyre who has been notified in the recent past and has never objected). There is broad UK-support here, so far, in this very cfd: user:Simple Bob is from Somerset and user:Dahliarose is 'in England'. Occuli (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Most of the ateempts to change these things over the last few months have succeeded. There are Zero people who have argued here we should leave it with alumni, most of the opposition comes from people who do not even really care about this but accidently think it involves their own pet project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• As you obviously haven't absorbed the WP policy I highlighted above, I will spell it out for you: Consider adding to the main article's talk page or to categories that are merge targets to notify users that the category has been nominated for deletion or renaming` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephebi (talk • contribs)

All the categories have been appropriately tagged, which is what current WP policy requires. Consider adding categories to your watchlist instead of relying on others to notify you in other ways about discussions you may care about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Most projects opt in for notifications about proposed moves and changes for categories and articles and templates and so on. So in most cases, the projects are already being notified. Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and several UK projects were automatically notified about these discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - all one needs is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_alerts on one's watchlist and Alertbot does the rest. Occuli (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Rename as nominated. I have no issues with this format and it seems like a reasonable compromise that is well supported by recent changes made by cosnensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Rename. Clearly the consensus here is that the current name is quite simply wrong so it needs renaming. The issue is what to rename it to. Since this is a bulk cleanup, it should be processed. If there are any that should be changed to the 'Former pupils of' form, those can be nominated and considered in a different nomination. Fix one problem and then discuss the second. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It appears I was accused of not following procedures. I am the person who has painstakingly nominated 20 or more categories instead of just nominating the parent category just to make sure there is wide exposure for nominations on multiple occasions. Anyway, for the vast majority of alumni categories there is no main page. Personally I think Ephebi's cumbersome attempt to increase the required notifications is actually part of his attempt to prevent any changes at all. If people care about a categories name they can have the category on their watch page. There is no need for additional reporting requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • See my comments above. Most if not all of these had notices posted at various projects through the automatic process. The position that addition notifications are needed is a red herring. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand as I presume you are referring to placing notifications on the category page. Only a handful of editors have created, edited or renamed the categories (hence they were renamed to "Alumni of ..."), and most of those category page editors are already involved in this discussion (although it appears that few have made significant content edits to the underlying school pages.) But none of the talk pages for the schools affected has been notified. Editors of those pages will be better qualified to accurately contribute what those former pupils are normally called. That is what I referred to earlier when I requested that notifications are placed on the main article's talk page, per the recommended CfD process cited above. Some schools use the Old Fooian concept, e.g RSLOld Boys... Ephebi (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: A fair point, Template:Cfdnotice could have been placed on Talk:Bingley Grammar School, etc. However, as this nomination is not touching any "Old Fooians", and is solely to rename the minority of school categories that include the word "Alumni" to "People educated", IMHO it is not such a material change as to make it appropriate to notify the school pages. Use of that notice is a courtesy rather than a requirement. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Dramatic works about abortion

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: move the appropriate ones into Category:Films about abortion and Category:Novels about abortion, and the rest into Category:Abortion in fiction. Unless they're not fictional, of course, in which case move them into Category:Abortion in non-fiction.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose merging:

Category:Dramatic works about abortion to Category:Abortion in fiction

Category:Fictional printed works about abortion to Category:Abortion in fiction

Nominator's rationale: We don't have categories trees for "dramatic works" which groups "films, television programs, and stage plays" as the long-retired category creator intends, and his or her creation of the source cats Category:Dramatic works about abortion and non-"dramatic" counterpart Category:Fictional printed works about abortion serve no useful purpose that I can see, especially as they do not correspond to any searchable tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Split into categories for books, films, plays, etc. (not for TV episodes; those might just have to end up in the "Abortion in fiction" cat without their own subcat). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Disagree that "fiction" correctly applies to all of the membership. Perhaps Abortion#Art.2C_literature_and_film should be spun out of the overly large Abortion article, and be used as the parent article for this category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. If some things in this case are not "fiction" they can be moved elsewhere, however all dramatic works are by definition ficitonal. Something "based on a true story" is still fictional. It is not an actual representation of truth. We can create appropriate sub-cats after merging. We should merge now and figure out if we need subcats then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• “Based on a true story” *is* a “representation of truth”. You may question “Which truth?” There may be more “truth” in real story of the “social pressures associated with abortion” as created in a portray populated with fully fictional characters than in a documentary of stitched primary sources. Dividing at a high level, dramatic or creative works about abortion into fiction and non-fiction would be a POV nightmare. Suggest a merge in the other direction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Petitions for a writ of certiorari

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Petitions for a writ of certiorari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, meaningless category. A certiorari petition is how nearly all cases reach the Supreme Court of the United States; the four case articles included in this category have nothing more to do with that process than any other case. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I find this truly bizarre, unless it was just created by someone who misunderstood what the phrase means and how it is commonly used in U.S. law. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• delete for a few reasons, first with three VERY SMALL EXCEPTIONS all cases heard by the SCotUS come from certiorari. The original jurisdiction of the court is almost nonexistantly small. Secondly, the court accepts about 1.5% of all valid writs presented to it, the vast majority of writs are not accepted for whatever reason (no desire to address the issues, the court doesn't feel the federal appellate court needs to be supported or contradicted for whatever reason, lack of an important federal question), meaning of the vast majority of cases here aren't notable and those that are, are covered under the cases of the US Supreme Court. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. As explained, the category is pointless and its members irrelevant. (Original jurisdiction cases, on the other hand, might be worth categorizing.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete not a worthwhile way to group things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Dirty War media

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Dirty War media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary and poorly named container category for "Dirty War media." Its one article, La República perdida, is a film series that I have added to subcat Category:Dirty War films. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Contemporary Philosophers

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Category:Contemporary philosophers
• Nominator's rationale "Contemporary" means "during the lifetime of". So whose lifetime are we measuring. That of wikipedia itself? That of the categorizer, that of the average person worldwide, that of some other group? The fact that there is a Category:20th-century philosophers that is a subcat of this cat, as well as a Category:21st-century philosophers seems to indicate we have a much better system that avoids the ambiguity of the use of the term "contemporary". Anyway many of the 20th-century philosphers will hardly be contemporary, so it would seem the best option would just be to delete this ill-defined category and just use the century specific cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• That's not what "contemporary" means here: See contemporary philosophy and Category:Contemporary philosophy. This use of "contemporary" to denote a particular historical period is common in the humanities (as in contemporary art) so as to contrast it from cultural modernism, which is the period of history prior to "contemporary." postdlf (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - It refers to the contemporary era, and does not necessarily refer to philosophers who are alive. You will notice that this category is consistent with the naming of a several other categories. Greg Bard (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Contemporary Indian philosphers

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Rename Category:Contemporary Indian philosophers to Category:Modern Indian philosphers
• Nominator's rationale The category heading says it is for "philosphers of modern India". It would seem logical to use the same adjective in all cases. The first person in the category died in 1939, which means he is not contemporary to most living people, so it seems a bit much to use the adjective contemporary in his case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – in fact it is "Philosophers in Modern India". Modern is no better than contemporary: upmerge to Category:Indian philosophers. Occuli (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments at the above CFD; "modern" and "contemporary" refer to successive periods of cultural history. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment However the cat heading only focuses us on modern things, so by your very argument the cat is misnamed in some way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Peninsular War media

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Peninsular War.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Peninsular War media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm going to start chipping away at User:Stefanomione's vaster media by war/war by medium schema. This one is not his but appears to be inspired by his mis-use of "media" to describe such creative works as paintings. In this case, I suggest upmerging per WP:SMALLCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Upmerge to Category:Peninsular War. Occuli (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Letters by alphabet

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Letters by alphabet to Category:Letters by script

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The letters are not organized by alphabet (Spanish alphabet, Dutch alphabet, French alphabet etc., but by script.). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Scripts that have letters are alphabets. Most script articles & categories within Category:Alphabetic writing systems, i.e. the ones that have letters, have "alphabet" in the name, e.g. Latin alphabet. The language-specific alphabets mentioned in the nomination e.g. Spanish alphabet just have additional letters made with these letters plus diacritics. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Thai australian rules footballer

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Thai australian rules footballer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Grammatical errors aside, just one player in over 100 years of AFL football has had a Thai background. Category completely unnecessary Jevansen (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It's not even clear that he is a Thai national. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I created the category because the article already contained the Category:Thai sportspeople ([1] and the lead contains, that he is an Australian rules footballer. No objection for deletion of the category. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete overcategorizationCurb Chain (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete – as the occupant is unlikely to be of Thai citizenship. If kept it should be renamed to Category:Thai players of Australian rules football per Category:Players of Australian rules football. Occuli (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I think it's textbook overcategorization when a singular instead of a plural in the category name is accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominidMachinae (talk • contribs)
• Delete - There is no precedent that indicates that having some nationality cats for players of a sport that essentially only exists in one country, means we need all the possible nationality cats. Anyway someone adopted by Australian parents when less than 6 months old hardly counts as Thai for purposes of nationality. Thus at a minimum we need to rename this cat to Category:Australian people of Thai descent who played Australian rules football. Or maybe Category:Australian person of Thai descent who played Australian rules football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:GameCube

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:GameCube to Category:Nintendo GameCube

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. If this passes, all subcats. will be speedy-able. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Rename clearerCurb Chain (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:General Slocum fire

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:General Slocum fire to Category:PS General Slocum

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Rename ambiguousCurb Chain (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Female pool players

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Female pool players to Category:Female cue sports players

Nominator's rationale: The name is too narrow and exclusive for a number of reasons (to the extent that the rationales given in previous CFDs for this category's existence may still be valid at all under current WP:EGRS wording, and under other guidelines/policies like WP:Neutral point of view and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX).

1. There's too much overlap for this level of specificity to be warranted. For example, more than half of the top-5 Women's Professional Billiards Association pool players, for around the last decade, have also been professional snooker players (such crossover is less common among male players for organizational politics reasons, not chromosomes; the WPBA has actively recruited women snooker players to pool, while the predominantly male leagues like the USPPA haven't done likewise with male snooker pros).
2. The number of individuals is too small for this level of specificity, and so is the number of specializations. Contrast Category:Female racecar drivers, which supposedly has a large enough population of drivers distributed in a large enough set of different types of drivers to warrant sub-categorization by type, though even this is debatable under EGRS's current wording.
3. Over-categorizing so specifically amounts to starting a parallel category structure split by gender, which is precisely what WP:EGRS says not to do (though some exceptions, like the subcategories of Category:Female racecar drivers, noted above, seem to be tolerated perhaps because they've never been CfD'd).
4. WP:EGRS advises against over-specificity as "ghettoizing", using examples like the triple intersection "Category:Gay German politicians". Female pool players is actually a triple intersection despite its brevity, of female, cue sports (billiards) players and pocket billiards (pool) players in particular, like German politicians in particular. The guideline suggests keeping any EGRS category at a high level, like Category:Gay politicians and Category:Female heads of government, and adding more specific non-EGRS categories as needed, like Category:German politicians and Category:Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka. Ergo, Category:Female cue sports players, and the extant non-EGRS qualifiers like Category:[Nationality] pool players and/or Category:[Nationality] carom billiards players, and/or Category:[Nationality] snooker players, added as separate categories.
5. Over-specificity is a maintenance headache and can lead to inaccuracy (e.g. if a player's article does not yet happen to cite one of the sources saying that she was a pool player as well as a snooker player at some point, she would be excluded from the unnecessarily narrow pool category unless and until someone happened to use a source that happened to mention the pool side of her career and the editor happened to notice that the pool category wasn't used on her article yet). That's a lot of failure points.
6. Female carom billiards players are actually much less common than pool players, thus more "notable" to people who think that being female in a mostly male-populated field or vice versa is automagically "notable", but there probably aren't enough actually notable ones to support a category; meanwhile there are easily enough female snooker players for a category, but there isn't one, nor any interest at WP:SNOOKER in creating and maintaining one. Category:Female pool players is a premature subcategory without a parent. Effectively upmerging female players of all three cue sports types into a Category:Female cue sports players just makes sense and makes things easier (assuming any such category is kept at all).

The extant category's parent would necessarily become Category:Cue sports players instead of Category:Pool players, and Category:Female cue sports players would be additionally populated with some non-pool players like carom player Gülşen Degener, obviously. (PS: For those new to cue sports naming issues, it's not proposed as "Category:Female billiards players" because "billiards" is ambiguous, and can mean "all cue sports" or "the game English billiards only" or "carom billiards as a class of game", depending on variety of English.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Rename – per some of the nom. (I am pretty sure I have previously asked SMcCandlish to provide snappier rationales, in early noms re the same category.) This is not a triple intersection though: it is merely Category:Pool players intersected with Category:Women. (And 'Gay German politicians' would be a perfectly acceptable nationality subcat of Category:Gay politicians; it is no more of a 'triple intersection' in the sense of WP:OCAT than Category:LGBT politicians from Germany.) Occuli (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Then you or someone else who cares to keep these things current and in synch needs to go re-establish a consensus on the wording at WP:EGRS, since it specifically uses Category:Gay German politicians (a.k.a. Category:LGBT politicians from Germany in different wording) as one of its main verboten examples! I go by what the guidelines actually say, not by what exceptions to them I can find somewhere. PS: Sorry, but I find that any time I provide a "snappier rationale" when any sort of EGRS issue is at stake, too many people fly off the handle and leap to "defend" an "important" category/article/whatever from being "attacked" by a "sexist"/"racist"/whatever, etc., etc. Previous debates about even this category in particular demonstrate an amazing number of knee-jerk, emotive reactions that have nothing at all to do with the facts of the topic (e.g., an encyclopedic article cannot be written about it, because it would be a blatant exercise in POV pushing and soapboxing). But I'm proposing a rename to make it come a little bit closer to making sense as a category, not proposing a deletion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Category:Cue sports players is only used to contain categories for players of specific Cue sports. There is no precedent for making a category that groups players of cue sports across sports. What next will we rename Category:Women vollyeball players and Category:Women's baksetball players into Category:Women netball players because they both play sports that involve a net and a ball.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:In-flight airliner fires

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:In-flight airliner fires to Category:In-flight aircraft fires

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge to parent category. I don't see a reason to need both categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• DeleteMerge not uniqueCurb Chain (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge This does not seem to be a useful differentiation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Fires of unknown cause

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fires of unknown cause (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is this really a defining characteristic of fires? While this is a nice to know, I'm not sure that it belongs as a category. The current structure (Category:Fires by type seems to favor categorizing by what burned rather then the cause or lack of one. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep or make subcategory; if a fire's cause is unknown, then isn't that just as relevant as where or when it occurred?

And it isn't the lack of a cause that groups these together; it is the fact that despite intensive search the causes of these fires have remained elusive. This is notable in and of itself; see Cold case. If anything, it should be made a subcategory and brought under the umbrella of Category:Fires by type. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, classifying the cause of a fire as unknown depends on the skill and abilities of those doing the investigation. As forensics science has developed, we have become more able to determine the causes of fires. I suppose that if you plotted the occurrence of these, you start at 100% from unknown causes and then you get to something approaching 0% unknown. Also if you read Our Lady of the Angels School fire, while officially listed as unknown, arson seems to be the confirmed cause the way the article is worded. So in a case like that, was it arson or was it something else and did it get classified do the the skills of those doing the investigation or was the cause officially not announced for some reason? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't prove it though, no conclusive evidence. I stand by my prior decision. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We should only state that the cause is unknown if reliable sources say "the cause is unknown", not based on our own judgment as to whether proof is conclusive. postdlf (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Officially, the cause of the fire remains unknown". Happy? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep per WWPU's arguments and Postdlf's proviso. And in any case, what would we do with this article? ;) Grutness...wha? 01:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYUSAGE? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Since we don't categorize fires by cause, I don't see why we would categorize this way. Even if we did categorize fires by cause, this would seem like a kind of "remainders" or "unknown" category that we tend to avoid when developing a scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But these are the ones that can't be categorized. We don't know what caused them. We can't put them in any other category, so in this case an "unknown" category would be pretty much unavoidable. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 17:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So they don't get categorized by cause in any way. That's how it's avoidable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a major difference between not knowing the cause and knowing the cause but not having the proof that rises to the level that one can make an official statement. Police commonly know who the criminal that committed a crime is. However they can not act until they have the evidence that a court would require to convict. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, maybe the Our Lady of the Angels school fire wouldn't fit, but we know NOTHING AT ALL about the cause of the fire on PIA Flight 740 or Saudia Flight 163. It'll probably be better if it's pared down like that, but inclusion of articles that don't quite fit is in no way grounds for category deletion. And may I point out that the Our Lady of the Angels fire is in no way typical of the fires in said category. The majority of those articles are about fires about the cause of which NOTHING IS KNOWN. If the articles about fires the cause of which is known but unproven are removed, it won't shrink the category much. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 19:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, we're not agreeing to a category that is a holding pen for all fires where there is no listed cause, but rather listing those where the officially listed cause is "unknown". As such, this category is analogous to Category:Unidentified flying objects, Category:Unexplained disappearances, and Category:Works of unknown authorship, which I don't think anyone is in any hurry to delete. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Saudia Flight 163 has a likely cause identified so that should not be in the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I just removed it. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 11:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete – as Good Olfactory says, we don't categorize fires by cause at all, so it is particularly perverse to start with 'unknown cause'. Compare say with Category:Deaths by cause. Occuli (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But as Grutness says, it's analogous to Category:Unidentified flying objects, Category:Unexplained disappearances, and Category:Works of unknown authorship, which aren't in any danger of deletion. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. With the last update, the category is down to two articles. So OC Small comes into play. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Three. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OC#SMALL. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete This strikes me as a bad idea for a cat, sort of like Category:Professors of unknown place of education.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

See my above comment. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment to me the relative category is Category:Alumni of Cambridge Univeristy (Unknow College) or however it was phrased, which was deleted and the contents were just put in Category:Alumni of Cambridge University. Here we can just put the contents in Category:Fires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Arab music

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy reame C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Arab music to Category:Arabic music

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per key article Arabic music. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support; even though the article starts "Arabic music or Arab music", it consistently uses the longer word thereafter. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Categories by revolution

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to category:Revolutions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Categories by revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Part of User:Stefanomione's vast and largely unnecessary Foo by revolution/Revolutions by foo schema, this category has as its contents only Category:People by revolution, which is itself well-categorized. So I can see no practical use for this container cat. Perhaps the creator intended it for additional foo by revolution categories, but as we are now deleting them at a rapid pace, the nominated category is unlikely to be useful for future searches. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete All categories are subcategories of something else.Curb Chain (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete – per nom. Occuli (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Upmerge to category:Revolutions. It is not sufficient for Category:People by revolution to be in Category:Revolutionaries because it also holds sub-cats for counter-revolutionaries. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Television series with stars' names in the title

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Television series with stars' names in the title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of unrelated subjects with shared naming characteristic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Preferably before this gets added to every talk show in television history. Bearcat (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete before this develops so we specify if the named star is fictional or real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Is I Love Lucy named after the star or the character? Or Seinfeld? Think about it for a moment...  ; ) postdlf (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Honorary members of the Malaysian Nature Society

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Honorary members of the Malaysian Nature Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We generally avoid categorizing people by honorary memberships or honorary degrees because they are like awards—people often receive a lot of them in their lifetime and they are not particularly defining for the individuals so honored. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, Category:Award winners is not short of sub-categories, and Category:Honorary titles has some more. However, most of them probably are more defining than this one. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Whether or not all of those conform with the guideline is not really the point. Users are free to create any categories they like; they won't be deleted unless nominated and discussed. So there may well be hundreds or even thousands of problematic categories that are as-yet undiscussed. Don't compare apples to oranges (the nominated vs. the unnominated), compare apples to apples (the nominated vs. the nominated). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Wow. What a work. Actually, the point is how this compares to the guideline rather than precedents, but thanks for the link anyway – I'll make a note in my toolbox. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • True, the guideline should be the primary point of comparison. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable or defining. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete – I looked at the first 4, none of which mentions the society (except the La Mare person, who was one of its founders and presumably more than an honorary member); and the article doesn't mention any of them so this seems entirely unsourced. I would fear for Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal College of Nursing (say) at cfd. Occuli (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I know I just recategorised that and a few others while I was exploring the hierarchy, but that was just a bit of quick tidying-up without prejudice to nominating them later. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete It is too easy to be a honorary member of something. Real members have to do something so in theory there is a limit to how many socieities you can have a real membership in. Honorary members do nothing so someone could be an honorary member of 20 or more societies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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.