Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 24

< April 23	April 25 >

April 24[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Yaoi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more user 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 deleted by R'n'B per G7. VegaDark (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Too hard to make KingRaven (>$.$)> (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - given that KingRaven is the creator and only editor of this category, and it's unused, I think we can take the above as grounds for WP:CSD#G7. Robofish (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian anarchists by nationality[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge all.--Aervanath (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Christian anarchists by nationality to Category:Christian anarchists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Overcatgorization. The subcats are:

Category:American Christian anarchists (eight entries)
Category:Australian Christian anarchists (two entries)
Category:Canadian Christian anarchists (one entry)
Category:French Christian anarchists (two entries)

Upmerge them all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep 'overcategorization' is not a valid argument for deletion. One must say argue why it is 'overcategorized' according to WP guidelines on categorization. Hmains (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it's not just a single merge. Category:American Christian anarchists has to go up to the 3 parents: Category:American Christians, Category:American anarchists, Category:Christian anarchists. (It is arguably a triple intersection. But then 'XXX by nationality' is widespread. Pass.) Occuli (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian anarchists aren't merely anarchists who also happen to be Christian -- Christian anarchism is a particular philosophy, with adherents who are thus referred to as "Christian anarchists". So I don't see this as a triple intersection. Cgingold (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:American Christian anarchists, neutral on the others. Nothing special about the Americans, but they're often far more numerous than all of the others, so it's always helpful to separate them out so the NON-Americans can be identified more easily. Cgingold (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. If the category becomes too large it can always be split again by natioanlity, but I guess that will be a long way away. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all OCAT by religion - the philosophy of Christian anarchism is not sufficient to categorize its adherents on, leaving the only real meaning that anyone reading these to be anarchists by religion by country. Moreover, dividing a bunch of adherents that may give no credence to various national government by such governments seems particularly inapt. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnic football clubs[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep both. These categories should probably be pruned, however, to limit their members to only those clubs where being Jewish or Syriac was/is a defining characteristic of that particular club.--Aervanath (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has no inclusion criteria. How is a football club defined as Jewish? Does the stadium uproot itself and squeeze into the nearest synagogue every Saturday? The religion that a club is (allegedly) "aligned to" has no effect on the club. Same goes for clubs of the Syriac diaspora. – Pee Jay 21:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 21:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The religion is an essential element of the teams listed in both categories, often being established as Jews (and Syriacs) were not admitted to club teams that were exclusively Gentile (and White, for that matter) or were created to help build Jewish athletic programs. These varying derivations can be seen at both TuS Makkabi Berlin and Hakoah Vienna. Some trimming would help, especially for teams in Israel, where the Jewishness of the players is more representative of the population, rather than a religious issue. Regardless, the category captures a strong defining characteristic of the teams included in this category. Alansohn (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. If the subject of Jewish/Syriac football clubs is considered an important topic, reliably sourced articles could be established or the categories could be listified dependent on the establishment of some inclusion criteria. King of the North East 23:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the members & articles there doersn't seem to be a problem. Similar to the recent LGBT rugby clubs, which were kept. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary categorization by race/ethnicity/religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this does, in fact, seem to be an identifying factor of most of the teams in these categories. While we should be careful with ethnic/nationalist categories, in this case I think it's justified. Robofish (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robofish. matt91486 (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnic footballers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep Category:Jewish footballers and Category:African American soccer players; merge Category:Crimean Tatar footballers to Category:Crimean Tatars.--Aervanath (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a trivial triple intersection. There is no "Jewish national football team" (and don't give me any guff about the Israeli nation as that is an entirely different thing altogether), and a player's ethnicity or religion has no effect on his sporting career. I am nominating the "African American soccer players" and "Crimean Tatar footballers" categories for the same reason. – Pee Jay 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 21:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first 2 as subcats of Category:Jewish sportspeople, Category:African American sportspeople (the first is not a triple intersection, and the 2nd no more of a triple than is Category:African American anything). As there is no Category:Crimean Tatar sportspeople, upmerge the footballers to the largely unsubcatted Category:Crimean Tatars. Occuli (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right that it's not a triple intersection; I was going on the supposition that it was a triple intersection of Judaism, People and Football. Similar for African American culture, People and Football. Nevertheless, is it not sufficient for the articles to go in the appropriate "sportspeople" categories? Do they really need to be separated by sport? – Pee Jay 21:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Unsure The Category:African American sportspeople structure was restored after a rather resounding decision at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_2, demonstrating that this was a strong defining characteristic. I would maintain the same for the overall Category:Jewish sportspeople structure. I have yet to see Crimean Tatars tracked this same way, but I will research further. Alansohn (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Category:Jewish footballers and Category:African American soccer players, per Occuli & Alansohn. As for Category:Crimean Tatar footballers, I'm wondering if it should perhaps be broadened to Category:Tatar footballers, as Category:Tatar people is the parent for Category:Crimean Tatars. Cgingold (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- They are not triple intersections: "Crimean Tartar" is a single ehnicity, so is "african American". Peterkingiron (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? African American is a single ethnicity? So Obama, born of a white mother and Kenyam father who was a voluntary immigrant to the US is of the same ethnicity as Alex Haley whose ancestors were brought here in chains and some were raped by the owners? Hmmm.... Then there is little argument that anything unifies African American history, culture, and experience. Your statement is akin to saying all Europeans are of the same ethnicity as people moved around and various invading armies raped their ways through so they're all the same so Irish, English, and Scottish, and Scots Irish, and all the various variations we have are useless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary categorization by race/ethnicity/religion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ethnicity in the modern age is far too fluid to make this workable, insomuch as verification and self-identification are going to be too difficult in a majority of cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles with citations to Popular Science archive[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 Erik9 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: While the intent behind the category is a decent one - tracking citations to a given source - this is really not the way to be doing it, I feel. I'm sure a toolserver report would suffice just as well, and probably be more accurate. It was originally proposed alongside the Google books citation tracking category (see below). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See nom below. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles by sourcing is a bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles with verifiable citations via Google Books[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 Erik9 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This sort of statistic is not best achieved through use of a category, I feel. We have the external-links-ometer for a start, and anyone with access to the toolserver can query it. The scope of the category is therefore a concern for me.

The second, more minor concern is that the category was added to the middle of the page - probably out of ease - but it makes maintenance a pain. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not a wikipedia geek. I am not a programmer by trade. I have no desire or intention to learn a programming language beyond wiki-markup to use Wikipedia. I have no idea what a tool server is. Please explain and / or demonstrate in a simple and easy manner how whatever this tool server is can duplicate the functionality of these categorization pages.

2. What "maintenance" would possibly be required? It's not a dated tag. It just sits there.

3. How is having the categorization tag next to the item being categorized "a pain"? To me that makes it much simpler to figure out why an article is categorized as something because the object of the categorization is immediately next to it. Why should categories be stuck at the bottom of a 50 kb page far away from whatever it categorizes, so an editor has to dig for the association?

As such, I have no disagreement with whatever you're trying to accomplish with your deletion request, just so long as whatever this alternate thing you're suggesting, is really is as functional and useful as a direct categorization like this. DMahalko (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The toolserver is a set of auxiliary tools to help Wikipedians with tasks, generally the creation of lists of articles that fulfil a given set of criteria (e.g. links to Google books). The point about the middle of the page is that, by convention, we have categories at the bottom of the page (although my understanding is that future versions of MediaWiki will separate the two altogether) so that things like sorts for multiple categories can easily be changed at the same time, and the categorisation can be seen as one unit. The problem you come up against here is that the category is going to be right in the middle of the page - and quite hard for editors to find quickly. I think your point (3) has merit, though it highlights the fact we've not got anything similar in our existing category structure that requires such a close association. Oh, that reminds me, there's a thing somewhere about having certain maintenance categories (like this one) listed on the talk page, not the main article, but that's another debate entirely. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- even as a techical category (for user pages), this seems a pointless one. The kind of maintenance that might be needed would be undertaken by a bot and it could as easily search WP for links to the googlebooks domain. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If deletion is to occur can someone PLEASE explain how to do whatever the hell it is you're talking about rather than just merely saying "it is possible to do with a bot so dump this"? It appears that if I am not a wikinerd, then when this category is gone the search data will be unretrievable by me or anyone else and becomes just merely a theoretical thing that isn't actually possible. DMahalko (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a reply regarding this. DMahalko (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hopelessly incomplete; if full there would surely be '000s here, instead of 87. The first one I looked at, Wieliczka Salt Mine, only has a google books external link, which is not at all the same as a reference. Mid-page categories are surely not allowed. In fact all these seem to use "Popular science", so the category is ? identical to the one in the nom above. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It is "hopelessly incomplete" because Google Books has only just started making the back issues available in the past year or so, and no editor has cataloged all the cites yet. There have been about 12 issues of Popular Science [Monthly] per year over 125 years, and which just keeps on growing each month, so I am terribly sorry if the cataloging of citations from the 1500 issues in the entire history of the magazine is not up to your expectations for this category at this time. DMahalko (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response to this by anyone so it appears there is no disagreement to this argument. DMahalko (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It only contains Popular Science at this time because no other editors have yet cataloged citations in the other magazines in the Google Books archive. There's another 100-some years of Popular Mechanics in GB, which is yet another 1200 issues to be cited. I have tried to get a wikiproject going but it appears nobody cares about this effort. DMahalko (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the one above were a keep, all the contents should not be repeated in this parent category, which as it would apparently contain only the 1 sub-cat, is unecessary for now. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- External links are generally citations that are not used directly in-line with the article topic, used as supporting material for whatever the article is about. So while that URL is not strictly a formal inline-cite it still provides additional citable and referenceable information about the article topic. DMahalko (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles by sourcing is a bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What is the problem with noting that certain online resources have the potential to be heavily cited within the free encyclopedia? Google's contributions to this encyclopedia is meritable, because without their scanning efforts NONE of these magazine news citations would be verifiable by other editors without access to a very large metro or university library that has physical archives of the hundreds of articles on microfilm/microfiche to examine. due to Google's efforts, verifying a cite is as ridiculously simple as clicking on the provided URL in the cited reference or external link, which links to the exact page where the cite occurs. DMahalko (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response to this by anyone so it appears there is no disagreement to this argument. DMahalko (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Free and public domain books which may be freely ripped and raided for addition to this free encyclopedia are worthy of at least a category page that notes all their contributions to the ecnyclopedia. For example, there should be a similar category page for all articles sourced from the public domain Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. DMahalko (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are traceable from the template (if they use it), which would probably be a better way of doing it here. But the case for doing it at all does not seem to be winning support here. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "the traceable template" that you are referring to? DMahalko (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, so because three people object to the existence of this category, it gets wiped out? I spent days working on this category developing it, and you're just going to destroy the whole damn thing in short order because three people don't like it? DMahalko (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. To be fair though, the citations themselves are wonderful, it's just using a category which doesn't seem like a very good idea. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Northumberland footballers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:People from Northumberland.--Aervanath (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation. We categorize footballers by club, country of origin and playing position. A further sub-division into county of origin is unnecessary Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:People from Northumberland per nom. This is perhaps intended as a companion to Category:Northumberland cricketers; but this is for cricketers who played for Northumberland (see Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team), whereas the footballers are from Northumberland. Occuli (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People from Northumberland. Categorising footballers by county of origin? No thanks! – Pee Jay 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probably keep~~ Upmerge. I was the one who created it. My rationale is that Category:People from Northumberland is just a long list of people born in Northumberland. I wanted to help users by categorising them within Northumberland. I added it also to Category:English footballers for completeness, although I can see your argument that it should not be there. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts I think that I can achieve what I want by creating List of people from Northumberland by occupation. That will remove the clash with National categories referred to above. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cornish footballers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus--Aervanath (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation. We categorize footballers by club, country of origin and playing position. A further sub-division into county of origin is unnecessary Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is part of Category:Cornish people which is an ethnic category (and rather a minefield to the unwary). Occuli (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are all of the players in the category actually Cornish, or were they just born in Cornwall? – Pee Jay 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People from Cornwall. Categorising footballers by county of origin? No thanks! – PeeJay 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not by county of origin, as I have just said. See Cornish people. Occuli (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, are the players in this category actually Cornish or are they just from Cornwall? – PeeJay 21:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The parent is Category:Cornish people, as I said. See Cornish people, as I said. (I have nothing to do with Cornwall myself but I have noted that related debates tend to become fractious, as with Northern Ireland.) Occuli (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The difference between Northern Ireland and Cornwall is that Northern Ireland is a country that has representation at FIFA; Cornwall does not. There is no Cornish representative team that competes at a national level. This is akin to a category for Catalan footballers or South Ossetian footballers. – Pee Jay 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Catalan footballers. (I was comparing fractiousness anyway, not football teams.) Occuli (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriately organizes these athletes by a common defining characteristic for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the fact that these players are Cornish (or are they; see above) relevant to their football careers? There is no Cornwall national team registered to FIFA, so this is not categorisation by nationality, and a player's "ethnicity" has no effect on his football career. – PeeJay 21:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm ambivalent about this one. Cornwall does have a "national" football team; they play regularly against both Jersey and Guernsey. These two other national teams are similarly not affiliated to FIFA - yet we seem to be happy enough about Category:Jersey footballers. However, if kept it would need renaming to Category:Cornwall footballers, to indicate that these players have played internationally for Cornwall - and such strictures must be placed on any articles in it. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been talk of Cornwall competing "nationally" in things like Europeada. I don't know if anything has come of it but it's still very early. --Joowwww (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall has also apparently approached the Commonwealth Games Federation about separate membership, if Cornwall Commonwealth Games Association is to be believed, but - as you said - early days. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cornwall is a county not a nationality. Cornwall does not even have a professional club (I think). This could survive only if we were prepared to have footballers from Essex, footballers from Shropshire, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know you're right about the lack of professional clubs... but congrats to Truro City F.C. (who are semi-pro) on their promotion anyway :) Grutness...wha? 07:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary ethnic category. How Cornish ethnicity must one be to be included and how do we verify that no Saxon blood entered the lines? Same uselessness as usual for ethnic categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cornish ethnicity is recognised on the UK census. Like all "ethnicities" in the UK it's never so much about bloodlines or genetics but about personal identity. --Joowwww (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealander classical pianists[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) 00:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Zealander classical pianists to Category:New Zealand classical pianists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Incorrect use of denonym. "He is a New Zealander" but "He is a New Zealand pianist". dramatic (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per dozens of similar examples (eg Category:New Zealand pianists). Occuli (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - surely this should be speediable? Grutness...wha? 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - yep, this qualifies as speediable under criterion 1, due to prior precedent going back at least as far as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_11#New_Zealanders. -- Avenue (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.