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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to group people involved in events of Norway in 1814, in which Norway started as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, briefly became an independent kingdom, and ended the year in a personal union under the Swedish king. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a suitable collective name for these events (which is presumably why the head article is called Norway in 1814). I don't like a category named simply after a year because it's too vague, and could end up being populated with any Norwegian who happened to be notable at the time. Is there any better solution? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I don't think that's a good use of the category system. A politician or some other prominent figure could easily have hundreds of such categories attached. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow. In 1814, Norway seceded from Denmark; a constituent assembly created a constitution; but then the country was taken over by the Swedish king. The category contains a category for the constituent assembly and two more participants in these events. Unfortunately, I do not know how these events are collectively desrcibed. I do not think it is "Norwegian Revolution", but there ought to be some such term that we can use. Category:People concerned with the 1814 Independence of Norway would be a horrid mouthful, but that is what it is about. Listify should not be an option. We ought not to get 1813 or 1815 categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are only two people and one category in here: the "What's the point question" seems to arise... could just delete? Simpler --Jubilee♫clipman 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the individuals included in the category were participants in the Meeting of Notables, and the members of the Constituent Assembly already have their own category, so it could be easily converted into a category for the Meeting of Notables particpants. There do not seem to be any other individuals involved apart from these 2 groups. Although I am not sure of the population of Norway in 1814, Category:Norwegian people of 1814 does seem a little vague. Cjc13 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A category only for Meeting of Notables participants would be overcategorization, whereas a category for "Norwegian nationalists of 1814" would be imprecise. The category was meant for people who did things like attend the Meeting of Notables, attend the Constituent Assembly, participate in the summer war against Sweden, participate in the negotiations and re-signing of the Constitution after Sweden's victory. These were some of the events in this extremely notable year in Norwegian history. I hardly see how "nationalists" can be fitting as a label here. Especially since the doctrine of nationalism was undeveloped at the time. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated this category for renaming, but there seems to be no way of coming up with a name which doesn't have at least as many problems as the current name, and since the category only includes three articles it's not much use for navigation anyway. No objection to listification. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. When I first saw this category, I thought it might be part of a series of categories for each year, which would be a recipe for massive category clutter. However, while it is part of the badly named Category:Norwegian people by historical year, the contents of this category relate to the Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905. That seems to me to be a potentially valid basis for a category, grouping together the major players in a historic process, but the name does not convey this. The best name I can think of so far is Category:People of Norwegian Independence, but that doesn't seem quite right. Any better ideas? BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I don't think that's a good use of the category system. A politician or some other prominent figure could easily have hundreds of such categories attached. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The name of this category should incorporate one of the actual names of the facility. Originally, during the period when GIs murdered several captives, the facility was called the "Bagram Collection Point". Subsequently, it was renamed the "Bagram Theater Internment Facility". Its official name has never been the "Bagram Theater Detention Facility". Since it is an "internment facility", I suggest the individuals held there should be called "internees". Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my !vote for now. The comments below persuade me that this may be more complex than I thought. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name of that article might not be a good reference for the status of the prisoner that is reflected in the category name. This article was also renamed in the past by the nominating author himself without given good reasons and or community participation. I think that article name can be discussed at another place and is not much value of as a reference for the name of this category.
A similar discussion of the naming of "detainees" held by the US in various camps in the so called "War on terror" has been started by the same nominator and is ongoing here Talk:Uyghur_detainees_in_Guantanamo#Move.3F and the result there is so far against the nominator and to call them detainees. IQinn (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back on September 29 2009 you wrote something that seems inconsistent with your current position. You wrote:
Of course you are entitled to change your mind. But forgive me if I suggest the rest of us can be forgiven if we ask you to explain why you have expressed two views that seem inconsistent. Note: Guantanamo and Bagram share one sequence of Internee Serial Numbers. Geo Swan (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of context quote from a discussion about Internment Serial Number what has absolutely nothing to do with the name of this category and the discussion here. Please be more careful not to quote other people out of context. Sure i assume good faith but considering the presentation of the quote and past experiences i would like to ask you to have a look at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility (2d) IQinn (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May i ask you why you used Internee Serial Number the right term is Internment Serial Number? And you should know that well you just created the redirect and worked on that article before. I must say i found that a bit misleading. Any reason for that? IQinn (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- except keep the word detainees -- the only proper rationale to rename the category to "internees" would be if they're actually called "internees." They're not. They're called "detainees" by the U.S. government, and by the media. I suspect there's a reason for this but I don't yet know what it is, and it's not in the article. -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- except keep the word detainees -- per Randy IQinn (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Containerize using {{container category}} for most categories. Categories that do not contain subcategories will be deleted and recreation is allowed when there are appropriate subcategories. This is going to take a while to close, so if anyone wants to lend a hand, feel free to do so. I'll start on this later tonight. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed all these categories for merger or deletion, and will tag them as such, but per the rationale below I suggest that we also consider the option of making them all {{container category}}s.
This is a fundamentally flawed logic, because it is involves converting double intersections into triple intersection, triple intersections into quadruple ones, and so ... and the more intersections involved the harder the category becomes to use and to maintain. If and when Category intersection is implemented (and don't hold yoir breath), we can place everyone in a xth-century people category and dynamically create all possible intersections ... but until then, this idea just doesn't work. In some narrow circumstances it may create navigable groups without cluttering articles, but those situations are rare. In most cases it complicates category trees, clutters article, and arbitrarily divides categories by time-bands which bear no relation to the widely-accepted historical epochs.
Solution 1: merge & delete This is simplest route: just get rid of the categories. They are all listed here, and the bots can do the work.
Solution 2: containerise. Instead of deleting or merging these categories en masse, tag them all with {{container category}}, and remove from them all individual biographical articles. They can still contain lists, or categories such as Category:Watergate figures or Category:Norwegian people of World War II, but will cease to clutter individual articles.
This removes the clutter and the endless succession of triple intersections, but retains the crucial aspects of the by-century groupings sought by those who defend these categories. My only concern is that some monitoring will be required to ensure that they remain as container categories, but I don't think that this is insurmountable. Some categories will initially be emptied, but it will be rare for any country not to at least have some lists which could be categorised in this way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Aren't Xth-century people by nationality simply top level cats that contain all the lower cats i.e. Xth-century [Country name] people? I envision this as similar to the the way that Category:Works by composer contains Category:Works by Richard Wagner contains Category:Compositions by Richard Wagner contains Category:Operas by Richard Wagner. Perhaps the lower level cats need to be rationalised and better organised? Not sure that merging all those cats upwards to [Country name] people helps much as it would cause those cats to become inflated: better to make sure that the [Country name] people cats are also simply container cats and move people to the relevent Xth-century [Country name] people, IMO. I may have missed something in the nom's rationale, however, as I know nothing about Category intersection nor do I quite follow the problems address by the nom; I will read up on it, though, and decide after I have informed myself of the facts --Jubilee♫clipman 03:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Xth-century people by nationality categs do contain Xth-century [Country name] people categories. If you expand the box at the top of the nomination, you'll see them all listed.
Thanks. I am beginning to understand this, now, especially looking at the examples giving by Occuli. I'll think on a bit more and get back --Jubilee♫clipman 18:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the consensus of lots of other discussions of people-by-century categories has been that they may work for periods which contain a minority of biographical articles, but are problematic for the 20th & 21st centuries, which would contain the majority of articles. My crude sample checks so far suggest that over 60% of all Dublin biographical articles are for 20th-c and 21st-c people, but only 2% are from the 17th century, 5% from the 18th-century, and 15% from the 19th-century. (I'd like to see better data, and am trying to figure out how to get it)
So categorising by century for periods before the 19th century is much less likely to create the huge categories that we get from 20c/21c, which means much less pressure to subdivide those categories and thereby break up the rest of the category tree. If those figures are replicated more widely, then I think that we might be well-advised to take another look at the 19th-c, but more data is needed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Containerise – Ali Dizaei gives a good example of category clutter; he has been Iranian and British in consecutive centuries but wasn't a criminal until 2000 or later. Jordan (Katie Price) in contrast became British after 2000, apparently. I don't think we have yet identified a single Category:''21st-century XXX YYY people'' which is valid except as a container category for subcats such as Category:UK MPs 2001-2005. No-one yet says: Andy Murray, the 21st century tennis player; perhaps they will in 2110. I am pretty sure we don't need any upmerges as these will all be in some other 'fooian' category. The 'Containerise' option seems to be a good idea. Occuli (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep orContainerise. ButDelete/MergeCategory:XXth-century Fooian peopleif it has four or less (or so) articles and is not a G8 nation and is not an English langage speaking nation (the langage of this Wikipedia), such as Category:21st-century Ivorian people. Also Delete/Mergeif it has one or two articles and (is either not a G8 nation or is not an English langage speaking nation). Carlaude:Talk 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does being a G8 or English-speaking nation have to do with it? And why keep the categories which are cluttering the most articles? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you always going to try and argue with me now? Are you trying to have me disagree with your proposal even more than I do? What does being "20th-century" have to do with "it"? (No, please do not repeat your views stated above. Just try to spend some time improving Wikipedia.) Carlaude:Talk 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carlaude, I assume that we are all here to improve wikipedia, and this is a discussion about one small aspect of how to do that. In a discussion, people say things to each other, ask questions, and agree or disagree; that's how consensus is formed. I just hoped that you would explain why you suggested what seemed to me to be odd criteria. You don't have to reply, but I dunno why you complain about being asked. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the identity of the questioner is creating tension (?), Carlaude could assume that others are wondering the same thing: why does being a G8 nation or an English-langage-speaking nation make a difference here? Such criteria seems quite arcane to me. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. What do those have to do with anything? --Jubilee♫clipman 12:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Containerise or delete if that is too impractical. Clearly, these cats are going to contain an enormous number of people since WP is skewed towards these centuries at the moment. A giant cat (!) is next to useless (or even dangerous...) --Jubilee♫clipman 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom -- Over recent weeks we have been merging all 20th/21st century splits as overcategorisation. These group should be dealt with according to this recent prcedent. This should not be carried further to previous centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge Everyone listed is already listed in sub-cats for Category:People by nationality and occupation, so a merger would just clutter. Given that this is likely going down and a complete tree of Category:People by century is not desired by the majority, I also favour the ultimate deletion of 21st and Category:20th-century people by occupation. Containerising requires the appropriating tagging at the heads of pages - neutral on whether to do it or not. Lastly, I think the same should be done with the 19th-century too, given its volume (15%), leaving 18th-century (at just 5%) the most recent century that we maintain. (But jumping ahead somewhat, admittedly.) Mayumashu (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning towards your suggestion of doing the same thing for the 19th-century, but I think that a little more data would help. My Dublin figures above are a bit tentative, so I'm going to see if a WP:BOTREQ can persuade some kind botmeister to produce better figures. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I'm leaning towards deletion of these. They could be containers, but they certainly should be purged of any articles. But if changed to containers only, how would their container status be "enforced"? It seems it would take constant vigilance. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 20th and 21st century, Keep the Rest I like Brown Haired Girl's thought (if I may paraphrase) that the older categories are both smaller and more useful, while the latest two are larger and less so. Also, I think that counting the present numbers in a category is not a good criterion -- after all, we all expect that the numbers are going to expand as more articles are written. Which leads back to my first comment -- the 21st century cats will grow both because more people achieve notability and more articles are written about minor notables -- the older ones have only the latter.Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Containerise As parent categories, they are a useful search term. For example "20th-century Greek people" is a container category for subcategories "People of the Macedonian Struggle", "Greek people of the Balkan Wars", "Greek people of World War I" and "Greek people of World War II". Several of the others have manageable subcategories Just prevent people for adding individual articles in the parent category. Dimadick (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Living in a century is not a trait used to categorize people together. Geschichte (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:All-Japan Grand Touring Car Championship drivers[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I am proposing a merge as these two series are literally the same (organisation, rules, almost everything), only branding and an unsucessful attempt to internationalise the series that makes them appear different when nothing to suggests that they are. I don't personally know why there is a need for two different categories when one is necessary. Donnie Park (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete as trivia. It may be appropriate to categorise sportspeople by the major competitions they won, but categorising them by the stadium in which they won seems rather trivial. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this would be an enormous category lumping together footballers from most leagues, both amateur and professional, rugby union, rugby league players and even American football. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Only one article so far, but this would be a performance by performer (or worse still performer by venue) category. If fully populated it would have 1000s of articles and be utterly unusable. I think the creator misunderstood what categories were for - a navigation tool, not a system of bullet points. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Peterkingiron. Overcategorisation. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. On a side note, I see assuming good faith means nothing around here anymore. — ξxplicit 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I don't think that categorising bus routes by shape can be justified as anything other than trivia, per WP:OC#TRIVIA. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. Circular routes are quite rare, their operation is a bit trickier than that of linear A-B routes, so it's a significant defining property that justifies a separate category. I'm not voting oppose because I'm not confident in notability of any bus route (should they be AFD'd the whole point is moot). Sister Category:Railway loop lines is a clear keep. NVO (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the distinction is quite so important, but if it is kept, do we really need to separate Circular bidirectional bus routes from Circular one-way bus routes? Wouldn't a rename to Category:Circular bus routes be more inclusive? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You speak in riddles NVO, what does "AFD'd" mean? Mu2 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - keep it - It is not a categorisation by simply shape, whether a square, circle pentagon etc., but rather a categorisation by operation. Essentially "circular" is used in the topological rather than geometric sense. Large numbers of bus routes operate as end to end services with each bus operating in both directions. Certain routes however, usually particularly important and busy routes, such as the 11 (and 8) in the category, are configured to provide independent opposite direction paired routes. The 11 is also notable as the longest urban bus route in Europe. As such the categorisation is not arbitrary. What is the nominator's specific objection under WP:OC#TRIVIA? Mu2 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps renaming to include unidirectional circular routes may reduce the specificity of the category, if that is the original objection. I think that might be beneficial. Mu2 (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of my head I can recall around ten one-direction bus routes that I used in my life (like campus or fairground shuttles) but only two truely bidirectional loops (one is now reduced to unidirectional. Incidentally I live where these two loops touched each other). From this highly randomized sample I make a conclusion that, yes, your proposal will be more inclusive (and it sounds better) and no, it won't make a big difference because those campus shuttles aren't notable anyway.NVO (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've been bold added the code needed to get a bot to move the category to "circular bus routes", which I hope meets our consensus of three that it would be better to be less specific, although perhaps sub-categories would be useful between uni and bidirection routes, as to my mind a unidirectional route is not a method of operating a high capacity major route like circular bidirectional routes such as the number 11 in Birmingham, UK. Mu2 15:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and I have reverted that. WP:BOLD is not a license to take unilateral action while an issue is being discussed.
This discussion exists to form a consensus about what to do with this category, and you should let that discussion run its course. At the end it will be closed by an uninvolved admin, who will weigh the consensus, and the bots will implemented that consensus. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit (a lot actually) rich, given what you've done with the London Bus route articles. It's fine for you to ignore a dicussion, but no one else? Arriva436talk/contribs 13:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you had checked your facts before making personal attacks, you would have seen that I have not made any unilateral merges, renamings or deletions of London bus routes: I have opened discussions through the normal process to seek a consensus on whether to delete some articles, and no discussion was taking place elsewhere about any of those articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever you want to believe. Fact is, you ignored the WikiProject London Transport discussion, and then AfDed some articles. Birmingham is irrelevant. And it wasn't ment to be a "personal attack". Arriva436talk/contribs 09:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not "what I want to believe"; what happened. No discussion was taking place on the talk page of those articles, and when the WikiProject London Transport discussion was drawn to my attention it was clear that there had been discussion of only one individual route ... and even the lone the editor praising that one now supports its deletion.
In this case there was an open discussion on the fate of this particular category, all properly tagged and listed, and the editor went ahead to try to misuse the speedy renaming process to rename it ... even though speedy renaming is not supposed to be done for controversial moves or for and end-run around consensus-forming processes. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was hardly unilateral given the consensus of the thread up to that point, it seemed no-one else was interested. What a stuffy way to run a wiki, it will turn potential contributors off. Why are we wasting effort discussing a narrow category that even those in favour of acknowledge needs broadening?!Mu2 13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't care how rare or common this is—the shape of a bus route is nothing more than trivia. Wikipedia is not a directory for every possible interesting permutation of facts. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change it to just circular bus routes. Bi-direction is a bit too much, but circular routes are quite unusual. Of course it's not just their shape, it's everything to do with their operation and numbering. Arriva436talk/contribs 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change to circular bus routes, as Arriva436 said. When I get around to writing the article for Redditch routes 57 and 58, that'll be in this category. This nomination seems to be one of many in BHG's crusade to get anything remotely bus related off Wikipedia. Jeni(talk) 19:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. There is no such crusade because I have no such objective, and Jeni should stop this campaign of telling lies to try to attack contributors. There are a lot of articles on notable bus-related topics, but there is also an excessive amount of non-notable trivia, and its a great pity that a small vocal minority of participants in the bus projects prefer to engage in personal abuse rather than trying to distinguish between the two. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No way! any encyclopedic value? really??? Per nom. Outback the Koala (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real point having a cat that only contains three articles. Anyway, rather than reading the above pointless exchange, has any one actually looked at those articles? One of them even contains a very interesting 5m video from birminghamitsnotshit.co.uk covering the entire route!!! Cool!!!... not. None of the articles are on notable subjects and are only backed up with non-indepentent non-reliable sources so the cat will be redundant once they disappear... --Jubilee♫clipman 12:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think that Europe's longest urban bus route that carries 50,000 people every day is notable? Arriva436talk/contribs 12:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS: "Articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories) typically are already links in the eponymous article in question." In this case, they already are. (BTW, the creator of this category is rather appropriately named). BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't even see the point of it --Jubilee♫clipman 02:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also the template. The information can all be satsifactorily included in the Infobox in her article. Unfortuantly, that (like many infoboxes) is cluttered by having predecessor and successor fields for each post held, when these are already covered in the succession box. The solution is to prune the infobox of its excess detail and add some family items. Alternatively rename to "Harman family". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Totally excessive templating and categorization. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. — ξxplicit 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:TM, and a rough agreement at WP:RM on article names ( whatver -> Sony Alpha xxx) 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Another alternative is to create the proposed renamed category moving the current contents. Then move all the season to the extant category.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). The only article-space content was the eponymous article, which was speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#A7, and the only purpose of the category was to give undue prominence to the non-notable subject. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Self-promotion. Recreation of a speedied article in category space. No speedy criterion seems to fit this case. HansAdler 17:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily as it is empty (apart from a user-page, which is not a legitimate member). Occuli (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The category's main article, Lamellophones, as well as Electric lamellophones, spells it with an 'o'. There is not a consensus on this spelling - a search for 'lamellaphone' returns 33 pages; 'lamellophone' returns 40.Brian2357 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This category has no wider equivalent (there is no Category:Online journalists, and it is a pointless divide because nowadays nearly all journalists write for online news media as well as for print: every major newspaper (and most small ones) also publishes its articles on a website. (Note that this category is just one of the latest from an editor who is creating a lot of new categories, and in engaging in widespread recategorisation while refusing to discuss the problems created by her high error rate). BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless someone can tell me what an online journalist might be (the single person included does not seem to be an online journalist). Occuli (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And I agree that online journalists are overlapping and not-syonymous fields. Some bloggers, along with some other people in media in general, are in a gray area where there is probably some division about whether they as individuals are journalists. Maurreen (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not intended for all journalists who are published online. It is intended for those with an online focus. I added clarification to the category page.
The cat now includes Category:Slate magazine people, from an online-only publication; Adrian Holovaty, a programmer-journalist who has won a couple of major awards; Roblimo, aka Robin Miller, who "was the Editor in Chief of Open Source Technology Group, the company that owns Slashdot;" David Talbot, founder and former editor of Salon.com, an online-only magazine; and Joan Walsh, Salon.com's current editor. Maurreen (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is an "online focus"? Just how online-focused does journalist have to be to be included?
About what is an online focus -- As with many things, there is some gray area. But this is what I wrote on the category page:
"This category is for those journalists who currently or previously have had a strong online focus, such as being employed by a publication that is solely online, or making a distinctive mark in the field of online journalism.
"Journalists who just happen to published online or who have little work that is digital-specific, should not be categorized here."
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep all. — ξxplicit 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curious. "Associated"? Do you really want to put coalminers and fat capitalist bloodsucking menbearpigs in one bucket? Although Category:English miners is populated mostly with footballers and politicians, so resistance is futile... <rant ends> Oppose, first, for a flawed rationale. Category:People associated with energy is a misnomer that itseld screamd for a CFD. There's no need to multiply an awkward fault downstream. Second, because after you put businessmen, miners and miners-turned-footballers in one bucket the next step will be splitting them into separate subcats, recreating "businesspeople". NVO (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all per NVO. "People associated with" is hopelessly vague; just how closely associated with it do you have to be? The existing category names are much clearer. The parent category should probably be renamed to something less ambiguous, along the lines of Category:Newspaper people (although "Energy people" does also suggest people with lots of personal energy, like the Energizer Bunny). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the last 3 per nom. We have thousands of categories beginning 'People associated with' - see eg Category:People by university or college in England - although I would prefer them to be restricted to container categories for better defined subcats. Keep the first 2 well-defined categories and consider creating Category:People associated with the coal industry as a parent. (The 'miners' category is not restricted to coal and contains eg gold miners.) Occuli (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen characters[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. No case made to overturn previous G4. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has been deleted before, and the same considerations still apply. I quote the previous nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. These characters were not made to be featured in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and being so is not relevant to the characters themselves. If only the original characters were to be categorized, I'd be content, but as is, practically every major character of Victorian fiction is destined to end up here. —Paul A (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a legitimate category and no different than the dozens or hundreds of other comic character categories. Kuralyov (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Kuralyov; also there are very few (if at all) original characters in LoEG—that's the idea.--Oneiros (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may indeed by the idea of this series of comic books, but being portrayed in those comics is not a defining characteristic of the characters. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This comic is made entirely out of characters that long-dead people have created. This is very much non-defining for a personage like Captain Nemo. Just because the comic is great doesn't mean it gets to be on even footing with the original stories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete these characters/people are not defined by Alan Moore, rather by their existence before Alan Moore added them to his piece of fiction. The only characters that should be in this category would be the ones that were created by Alan Moore for this comic. Those characters would be better served merged into a list. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created and maintained almost solely by user Fanoftheworld(talk), who is currently banned and has had a long history of promoting and advertising Steinway & Sons pianos on Wikipedia. The category does not represent a definitive property, though some schools may pride themselves on being All-Steinway Schools. Instead of a category, I suggest that mention of this distinction be placed on each page, and/or a list be created. If the category is not deleted, I recommend moving it from Category:Schools into Category:Awards given to schools, which currently only holds two sub-categories and is a much better description of Category:All-Steinway Schools. Brian2357 (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. I don't think that there should be a mention of this distinction be placed on each page (what's next then? All-IBM Offices? All-Airbus airlines?). Being a school that only owns a particular brand of pianos doesn't make any difference to the quality and prestige of a school.--Karljoos (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, All-Steinway Schools is a significant program that schools often spend millions of dollars to gain entry to, and there is an application process. A school can't just buy all Steinways and call itself an All-Steinway School - it needs to be recognized by Steinway & Sons. The All-IBM Offices argument is a good point, but it is not convincing. Being an All-Steinway School can very much affect the prestige level of a school, Karljoos, as the Steinway brand itself is extremely prestigious.Brian2357 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the above comment was inadvertantly deleted in this diff. I have restored it --Jubilee♫clipman 05:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please see discussion on Category:All-Steinway Schools talk page which favors deletion. I suggest including a description of the All-Steinway School program in the Steinway & Sons article with a link to the Steinway & Sons website section with the All-Steinway School list. A list on Wikipedia is not needed as Steinway & Sons updates the list.Sandcherry (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete even if it had not been created by that particularly annoying user, it would still be blatant advertising. I strongly advise caution against creating a list, also. Mentioning the award in-article is clearly fine, though, if done in a non-promotional manner --Jubilee♫clipman 02:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:reverse merge. Although the target category was not tagged, its creator participated in this discussion and supported the reverse merge (see CSD G7). -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Yarnalgotalk to me 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. There is no need to use a gendered word when a non-gendered one is available, and more accurate. Women play lacrosse too: see box_lacrosse#Women. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I don't really care which one stays, there just shouldn't be two. --Yarnalgotalk to me 04:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge as per BrownHairedGirlMayumashu (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge – also a parent category is Category:Defenders (sport position) and 'defense' is not necessarily thus spelled throughout lacrosse (eg in the UK, although I can find no British lacrosse defencepersons). (The target is not tagged however.) Occuli (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge for gender-neutrality and avoiding American–British spelling difference... lil2mas (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 16#Category:Norwegian people of 1905. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 6. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)