Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 11 March 13 >

March 12[edit]

Academics by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete'. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. There have been academics for several centuries (tho not quite as we know them today) ... but most biographical articles relate to the last two centuries and 100-year blocks are a bad way of grouping articles from the last 110 years, which is why numerous recent discussions of people-by-occupation-by-century categories have shown a strong consensus against 20th- and 21st-century categories. If fully populated these two categories would be huge, leading to pressure to sub-categorise, but in most cases that sub-categorisation would be a bad idea. If applied at the country level it would group an early-1900s expert on ancient Rome with a 1930s eugenicist, a 1950s nuclear physicist and a 1990s media studies scholar; a grouping which is of no use for navigation. Splitting it up by decades or doesn't help much (we'd still have a 1960s sociologist of sexual liberation in the same category as a computer scientist studying databases on mainframe computers), and would create huge category clutter because most people's careers last for 40 years. (Academics frequently move from one country to another, so an Irish academic in Australia could easily be in a stash of by-decade categories for each of the two countries). And splitting each discipline into 20th- and 21st-century categories just lengthens the names of the categories in which most articles will appear.
There may be a better case for by-century categories of 19th-c (or earlier) academics, but so there is no Category:19th--century academics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - according to much recent precedent, but 19th century and earlier categories should be permitted. However no person ought to be in more than one century - that in which they were most active. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per my support for deletion of all century categories. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Gobonobo T C 05:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sex segregation[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:  Relisted at 2010 APR 1 CFD, mainly because the category was not tagged for renaming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sex segregation to Category:Gender segregation
Nominator's rationale: Gender is a less ambiguous term. Thundermaker (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent article is sex segregation, and there are two separate articles on sex segregation in specific contexts. At any rate, I'm not sure I understand your assertion, unless you somehow think that sex here may be confused with sexual intercourse, which is unlikely when appended to the term "segregation". Could you explain? postdlf (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on a quick Google search these terms are equally in use, and other objections I simply don't see. Creating Category:Gender segregation as a redirect to Category:Sex segregation might be a good idea. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simply put, it's not ambiguous at all. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Gender segregation. The head article does not describe segregation according to sex (for which a test is rather complicated); it describes segregation according to the social construct of gender. It says so explicitly in the first sentence: "Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their gender". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I just notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies, and while doing so I noticed that the category had not been tagged.
    In view of the lack of either tagging or wikiproject-notification, I suggest that this discussion should be relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As another mentioned above on Google the two terms are about equally used: "Sex segregation" 147,000, "Gender segregation" 118,000 (only 20% difference), but gender can refer to languages (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter). Gender is apparently the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). Perhaps the beginning sentence in the head article needs to be improved. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Politicians by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: DELETE ALL. postdlf (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Rationale under two headings: "scope" and "problems".
Scope. Numerous recent discussions of people-by-occupation-by-century categories have shown a strong consensus against 20th- and 21st-century categories, partly because most biographical articles relate to those two centuries and 100-year blocks are a bad way of grouping articles from the last 110 years. In this case, Category:Politicians by century also has a sub-cat Category:19th-century politicians, which I have not included in this nomination, because the consensus of previous discussion has been that 19th-cent categs of people-by-occupation are useful in some cases. Nor have I included the related 20th- and Category:21st-century rulers, which raise some separate issues.
Problems. In the countries where Wikipedia's coverage of politics is well-developed, politicians tend to be categorised in a number of ways: by sub-national region, by office held or sought, by political party. In some cases (e.g. the Oireachtas, United Kingdom House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament) they are also grouped by the periods for which they were elected (usually blocks of up to 5 years). However, most politicians are not directly grouped in this way. However, many are indirectly grouped chronologically, in ways which do not fit neat by-century blocks, e.g.
  1. Category:Members of the London County Council covers a precise 76-year period from 1889 to 1965, when the London County Council was abolished
  2. The Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) has existed only for the 91 years since 1919
  3. The Parliament of Zimbabwe has existed only since 1980, so Category:Members of the Parliament of Zimbabwe cover the period 1980-now. Similar situations exist throughout most of Africa and Asia, and also in much of Europe: the German Bundestag, for example, has existed since 1949, so Category:Members of the German Bundestag covers the period 1949-present.
  4. Ireland has has County Councils only since 1899. Before then, elected local govt existed only in the few towns and cities with corporations, so there were not many local politicians.
The crucial point is that in each of those cases a natural, topic-derived, chronological grouping already exists within the category system. This by-century structure could be applied to in two ways, both of which actually reduce of ease-of-navigation and damage the logical organisation of categories:
Splitting the existing categories by century, would for example split Category:Members of the London County Council into Category:Members of the London County Council 1889–1900 and Category:Members of the London County Council 1900–1965, a lop-sided pair of groupings which would simply impede navigation. Same goes for Category:Members of the German Bundestag, Category:Members of the Parliament of Zimbabwe, and hundreds of other categories.
The alternative is to create wider by-century groupings, a path with would fail in the same way as the other by-century categories we have seen recently. A catch -all Category:20th-century politicians in Ruritania would be uselessly huge, so the logical step would be to try sub-categorising intersecting it with parties. But since most politicians are already categorised both by party and by office, and usually by an intersection of the two, that would create horrible category clutter, and the clutter would be worst on the current politicians, nearly all of who would end up in both 20th- and 21st-century articles.
These flaws are no doubt one of the reasons why the categories under discussion are sparsely-populated: editors recognise that they are a bad form of categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, per much recent precedent. We split UK MPs by the Parliament(s) in which they sat, and I assume that something similar is done for politicians elsewhere. We might retain some of these are parent-only categories, but the politicians themselves should be in subcategories acoording to what they do/did. "national politicians" and "local politicians" are certainly much to far reaching to be useful, except possibly as parents for categories by country. Local politician categories that I sampled seem poorly populated. They seemed to be used mainly for those elected to provincial Parliaments in Canada, apart from a stray Indian, who had been an Indian MP and then state governor, and is probably misclassified. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per my continued support for deletion of all these century categories. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per BrownHairedGirl's compelling points. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Gobonobo T C 05:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; noted that some of them have been applied only to a very small and oddly-chosen handful of Canadian politicians. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mumps[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. postdlf (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mumps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated (only 2 pages included within it), and, in my opinion, useless (there is no use for category devoted entirely to a single disease, particularly if it is a fairly unremarkable disease). Immunize (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The main article, possibly with a navbox, will provide an adequate navigation tool. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and per WP:OC#SMALL, due to little prospect of expansion. Currently contains only 2 articles: mumps and Mumps outbreaks in the 2000s. I have no objection to re-creating the category if a enough further articles are created (e.g. on outbreaks in other periods), and suggest five articles as enough to require a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that 10, not 5, articles is enough to require a category. Immunize (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I do not think the rationale for deletion is convincing, especially since I've sorted eight more articles into the category in just the last few minutes. I particularly disagree with the assertion that there is little opportunity for expansion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changing my !vote). The articles just added to the category all clearly belong there, and 8 articles is enough to make a category useful for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like this category is worth having. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 21:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn Because the addition of further articles that belong in this category recently, I feel this category now meets Wikipedias criteria for inclusion. Regards. Immunize (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Convicted book-thieves[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: NOT RENAMED. postdlf (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Convicted book-thieves to Category:Book thieves
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing of a contested [1] speedy rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at WP:CFD/S
  • As creator, I don't really mind. I thought the trend was to restict criminal categories in this way, for BLP etc reasons? Probably better to rename the others, per GO. If this were renamed per nom I think a couple of dead people could be added, though i forget who. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My speedy was contested because people preferred adding convicted to all such categories including Art and Jewel thieves rather than subtracting it here. I have no problem with that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I too thought we had been adding 'convicted' at cfd but much of Category:Criminals omits 'convicted' (in particular Category:Thieves). Indeed we have Category:American murderers with a subcat Category:American people convicted of murder. Occuli (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the target since the category includes document theft and theft of any material from a library. Neither the current or proposed names adequately describes the listed content. Lacking a better name, I would lean to Delete. Any suggestions on re-purposing or another name? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Books" meaning "books and documents" is not much of a stretch, and found in many contexts. I did think of including (book and manuscript) forgers as well - there are a few of those. I wouldn't know what to call that. If you went to Category:Library criminals you could include Joe Orton and Kenneth Halliwell. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, "books and documents" is not much of a stretch. But does our definition of documents include maps? I'm not sure, but maps are library material. So are newspapers and CDs and DVDs. So maybe if kept the solution is a rename to Category:Book and document thieves or Category:Document thieves (if books are documents) and a refocus of the introduction to remove the library contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of these cut map pages out of books. I still think books is adequate to cover the lot. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose --In principle, issues of libel mean that we cannot include living unconvicted persons. I would suggest that those who died unconvicted, but where there were good grounds for believing their guilt could be included anyway, possibly by including this is a category-defining headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I agree in principle with Peterkingiron. I expect that "Convicted" is used to help ensure that people are not wrongly or prematurely categorized. I wonder whether there is a good way to address both concerns. I'm open either way about including "document," which is broadly encompassing, but I would not replace "book" with "document." Also, does a guilty plea (in contrast to being found guilty) included? If so, I think that's not clear. Maurreen (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"convicted" covers guilty pleas surely? Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in order to have the word "convicted" for BLP reasons. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Americans of Dominican Republic descent[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: Having been listed for a further 48h without objection, Speedy Rename Category:Americans of Dominican Republic descent to Category:American people of Dominican Republic descent - WP:CSD#C2C - Rename to bring category into line with conventional forms.
A few observations. I've read the discussion on whether this should have been brought to full Cfd with interest. In my view, User:BrownHairedGirl was correct to bring this to a full nomination after the original challenge. It should always be open for editors to challenge the status quo - challenging a speedy rename may well operate as a test case, being the humble acorn out of which grows a mighty oak... Of course, the contrary arguments do have a good deal of merit, especially in the light of the fairly eccentric objection in this particular case. That said, there is no deadline - does an extra few days really matter that much?
The speedy rename system reduces traffic on Cfd, eliminating those nominations which are thoroughly uncontroversial. Personally I'm prepared to be expansive in my definition of 'controversy', if for no other reason than to indicate an openness to editors who might not be as thoroughly familiar with the nuances of categorisation as we might wish. Of course it is a question of judgement as to whether a particular objection has a frivolous motivation, these should certainly be disregarded - but in this case I think that the correct course of action was taken.
--Xdamrtalk 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Americans of Dominican Republic descent to Category:American people of Dominican Republic descent
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing of contested speedy rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at WP:CFD/S
  • Rename per nom (or keep, either way), but the alternate rename in the collapsed content is just silly. Sticking a disambiguator in an extra parenthetical when it can readily be dealt with in the name itself just makes an unnecessarily awkward name, is no more correct in terms of using the proper demonym, and is contrary to how WP handles this problem in all other categories. postdlf (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, the obvious name for the intersection of Category:American people and Category:People of Dominican Republic descent. (Perhaps objections to speedies should not be allowed if the objection is to a part of the name that is not being changed.) Occuli (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the only valid objection to such a speedy should be that the proposed rename would not actually be consistent with an established standard, or that local usage would dictate a different result for that particular category notwithstanding its membership in an otherwise conforming series of categories. Here, the objection was basically that the entire People of Dominican Republic descent structure should be different, which is completely irrelevant to whether the rename would conform this category to the existing structure. So it should have been speedied. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (which might all just be a longer-winded version of what Occuli said) postdlf (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really like that idea from Occuli & Postdlf, because that would make it very difficult to challenge the status quo. The occasional contested speedy is a good way of reaffirming the convention if it still stands, or of flagging up changes in consensus if they are brewing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The status quo can be readily challenged in the usual way via a cfd at any time. Here the speedy could have been accepted (changing 'Americans' to 'American people', a change which has not been disputed), and the onus would be on the challenger to take the Dominican bit to cfd. Occuli (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right. The whole point of this speedy criteria is consistency, and someone's objection to something else entirely should not hold up maintenance of that consistency. It simply isn't the time or place to be arguing that a whole category structure should be different, when that may involve a dozen or a hundred other categories. Do it in a dedicated CFD that covers the whole structure. postdlf (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I support renaming per my original speedy nomination. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to "vote" again or if I'm considered the nominator here, so I'll avoid placing a vote here in bold. I think it's a bit funny that an "oppose" vote like this can prevent the change for consistency from happening, especially when the opposer shows no initiative in starting a nomination to propose his suggestion, but it happens so rarely at CFDS that we may not need to worry too much about what to do when it does happen. Overall I'm not too annoyed, but I do worry about the waste of admin time on things like this. If BHG doesn't mind, then it's OK with me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The objection, doesn't stop the renaming from happening, it just requires that consensus be sought for it. This might become a problem if it happened often, though luckily it hasn't, and I think it's important to start with the assumption that any objection is made in good faith. However, in this case some discussion with the objector has led me to question whether the objection was made in good faith. If someone objects to a speedy, then I think they have an obligation to contribute to the full discussion on seeking an alternative, and this objector refuses to do so :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator, for consistency. The alternatives suggested by the opposer of the speedy are clumsy and contain redundancy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
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.

Wildstorm Comics[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:  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 2#Wildstorm Comics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing of contested speedy renames. At this point I have no view on the substantive merits of the renaming; my objection was that this did not precisely meet the strictly-defined criteria for speedy-renaming of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of speedy proposal
CFD discussion starts here
  • Notifications: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Category:Wildstorm_Comics.
  • Rename - it has niggled me for a while now as "Wildstorm" is the main title they use (sometimes referring to "Wildstorm Productions" but not "Wildstorm Comics" or if they do it is rare). The only slight complication is they do use CamelCase (WildStorm), so I don't know if that is an issue - the problem with using that for the categories is I might not expect everyone to know that and things could get messy. (Emperor (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename but - having checked the indicia on 20-odd series from 1999 (early Authority) to 2010 (Dante's Inferno), the company is always Wildstorm Productions, even on the 'Wildstorm Signature Series' titles such as Ex Machina. Overstreet is unhelpful. It uses Wildstorm and Wildstorm Publications interchangeably, and ditto DC/Wildstorm or DC/Wildstorm Productions for later material, even though those titles always have a separate DC Comics and Wildstorm Productions entry in the indicia. Unfortunately that leaves the potential for things like 'List of Wildstorm Publications publications' , but the indicia always rules as it's a legal requirement not just a frippery. So that's a vote for Rename, but for accuracy an emphatic No to 'Wildstorm' and Yes to 'Wildstorm Publications' . Individual characters that need disambiguation can still remain 70sDisco Man (Wildstorm) just as precedents 70sDisco Man(Marvel) 70sDisco Man(DC) etc. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Episcopalianism[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:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism. Actually, as the category has already been emptied, all that's left is to convert it to a category redirect, which I've done. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Episcopalianism to Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Essentially duplicate categories. "Episcopalianism" is just the word for "Anglicanism" that is used in the U.S. and Scotland and a few other places. There is only one article in the category currently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York (state) libertarians[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 to Category:New York libertarians.
On the procedural issue of whether the category should have been put through a full CfD, I think we can—since the criteria for speedy renaming are part of the speedy deletion policy—defer to the general principles that apply when dealing with any contested speedy deletion. In other words, "administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion" and process WP:CFD/S requests, such as the one for this category, that meet the speedy renaming criteria. However, speedy renaming should be reserved for obvious cases, and categories about which there is good-faith disagreement generally should be put through a full CfD (if only to confirm that the previously-reached consensus still stands), although brief discussion at WP:CFD/S to address objections can be useful. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:New York (state) libertarians to Category:New York libertarians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was proposed by me in the speedy rename section, but was opposed. I am moving it here for a full discussion. My rationale was basically a proposal for consistency: that no other categories disambiguate "New York" when it refers to people from that state. The complete speedy discussion is copied below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:New York (state) libertarians to Category:New York libertarians C2.B; disambiguation is not used for people from the state — Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object I think all the NYS categories should include "(U.S. state)" like Washington and Georgia do. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to full discussion at this point. Please make new comments below this line.
  • Rename per nom. This is completely consistent with the rest of the category system, in which Category:New York means the State of New York. Category:New York City means the City of New York. (and Category:Manhattan means New York County...). Georgia has to distinguish itself from a country. Washington...well, I've always disagreed with that one, but anyway, there you have it. If Mr. 70.29.210.242 wants to nominate the entire New York category structure for disambiguation in this way, go nuts (though I will oppose), but it certainly shouldn't be done to only one category. postdlf (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency with other sub-cats of Category:New York. The IP 70.29.210.242 is of course welcome to make a group nomination to rename Category:New York and all its by-state sub-categories to follow the principle proposed for this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've noted above in another CFD, this should have been speedied because the objection is completely irrelevant to whether the rename would conform the category to an existing, well-developed category structure. So if the objection to such a speedy renaming proposal is just that the existing structure should be something different, it should be ignored. postdlf (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really like that idea, because that would make it very difficult to challenge the status quo. The occasional contested speedy is a good way of reaffirming the convention if it still stands, or of flagging up changes in consensus if they are brewing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This point replied to in above CFD by me and Occuli. postdlf (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As that CFD is now closed...I'll add a further thought here. It probably should be difficult to challenge the status quo when it comes to the naming of a whole structure of categories. But regardless, that's all beside the point, because it certainly isn't necessary to do so by beginning a test case CFR through a speedy renaming objection. The only thing that accomplishes is that it shifts the labor of starting a CFD listing from the objector to someone else, and it maintains inconsistency in the structure pending the outcome. A far better practice would be to ignore objections to such speedies that are not relevant to consistency in the existing structure, which would still leave the objector the options of listing a CFD test case, listing the whole structure at CFD, or starting a centralized discussion on a talk page somewhere to gauge support. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was my initial impression of the approach that should be taken in cases like these. Why should the objector not bear the burden of starting a formal discussion if he desires the status quo to be changed? In any other context in WP, the onus is on the ones wanting to change things. But again, this type of thing is quite rare at CFDS, so perhaps we don't need to resolve the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who died in their 20's[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: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 as a re-creation of deleted material. As per the links provided, categories by age at time of death have been repeatedly deleted before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People who died in their 20's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization at its finest, me thinks. — ξxplicit 07:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:South African municipal election, 2006[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:South African municipal election, 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. All the articles in this category have been merged into the main article South African municipal election, 2006. htonl (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_12&oldid=1144513959"