Category:Flagship professional wrestling pay-per-view events by promotion[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: Limited in scope and requires original research (only about 7 promotions have even held PPV's, yet alone have a flagship one). TJSpyke 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. You have explained what you dislike about the category, but not what you propose doing with it. Deleting it? Merging it (and if so, merging to what?) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I propose Deleting it. TJSpyke 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the name seems to be excessively complex. This seems like overcategorization just because of the number of intersections involved. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:24, 10 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: I think that this category is unneeded at this time due to the fact that there is almost no content to add to it. The main article in the category is Sigma Force, which is a redirect to a section in the article James Rollins, and six of the seven novels in the Sigma Force series are currently red-linked. If kept, then rename to Category:Sigma Force novels or Category:Sigma Force series. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good catch... I support, of course. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:04, 8 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:Upmerge, meaningless and/or inaccurate distinction. This was renamed from the even worse Category:UFO-related vehicles, but it's still not acceptable. That something was unidentified and flying isn't typically what is being "alleged", in that someone saw something and that this something is not readily identifiable isn't always controversial. For example, no one apparently thinks WWII pilots didn't see what were termed "foo fighters", and their observations have never been conclusively explained. Any "allegation" (a strange word to use here) would instead be about what that something supposedly is, such as the claim that a UFO was an alien spaceship or angel-driven chariot or whatever, but that's not at all what this category name means. The parent category Category:UFOs has plenty of room for these; some of the included articles are already in it. Alternatively, a rename might fix it, to something like "UFO types". I'm tempted even to suggest "UFO objects" notwithstanding the internal redundancy. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Since all UFOs are by definition merely alleged, the distinction is meaningless at best, or POV-pushing at worst. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG. Precisely what I had in mind. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nom. Makes sense to me. The two seem close to warrant such. Avicennasis @ 09:03, 9 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:Delete. There is zero need for an eponymous category for a musician/musical group that only contains its eponymous article and subcategories of songs and albums, which in their entirety are listed in that article. Overcategorization per WP:OC#Eponymous as the main article serves all navigational needs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The albums and songs subcategories are already categorized in their respective 'by artist' categories. -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:39, 16 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. Merge not needed since all of the articles are already categorized in the target tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete both. Numerous previous 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 that period. In the case of journalists, we currently have these two categs and Category:19th-century journalists, all of them sparsely-populated. The 19th-c group is an excellent one, because it covers the era of initial growth, when newspapers began to gain wide circulation, thanks to growing literacy rates and a variety of technical advances such as rail transport for distribution, and the electrical telegraph for news-gathering. The much larger 20th-c group is not useful for navigation, because if fully populated it would be far too big and would include the overwhelming majority of journalist biographies, while the 21st-century category will mostly overlap with the 21st and serve as a "current" category, contrary to long-standing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my long-standing support of deletion of per-century categories. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 9 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:Jewish members of the Cabinet of the United States[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.
Suppport nom. Categorising by ethnicity within a country, per convention for WP categories, is only refined to the level of generalised occupation (i.e. sportsperson and not baseball player). (There may be other cat pages that contravene this and they too should be upmerged.) Mayumashu (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the argument set forth in the nomination. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 8 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:Delete both. I opposed deletion of Category:Centrism when it was renamed to Category:Centrist political parties at CfD 2010 January 1. At the time it seemed like a meaningful grouping of parties which intentionally remained in the middle-ground of whatever political divides existed in their countries ... but I'm not so sure I'd still stand by that view, because I any such category risks becoming either vague, or a grouping by shared name or outright POV ("I'm in he centre-ground, but you are an extremist"). However, while I think there is a case for categorising parties that way, I don't see any case for categorising other organisations in this way; outside of a parliamentary context, "centre" could mean too many different things. These two categories contain only one article, National Students Union of India, which is closely linked to the Indian National Congress party. I think is very poor categorisation: "centrist" is a misleading distortion of Congress's historical role as the catch-all national liberation-movement-turned-natural-party-of-government. I would have removed National Students Union of India from Category:Student wings of centrist parties, except that would have triggered the categ's speedy-deletion as empty and it seemed more appropriate to bring the 2 categories here for a consensus decision. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As described in Centrism, this name has been and is used in different contexts for either "between left and right" (whatever is considered as left and right), or for "between revolutionary and reformist" in an inner-Marxist context. So the political position is actually just negatively defined by what it is not. This may vary from one to the other country, meaning the ascription is only possible from within the specific context. So this is a clear case for deletion, even though I created the categories. However, I don't agree that there was so much a difference between categorizing parties with this label or other organizations, which is why from my POV Category:Centrist political parties should have been nominated with the others to ensure a significant discussion. — PanchoS (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right on all counts, PanchoS, so I have added Category:Centrist political parties to this nomination, and support its deletion. Note that as well as the left-right and intra-Marxsist positioning, there are also "centrist" parties whose position relates to a nationalism-related spectrum, such as the 1930s National Centre Party (Ireland). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that "Centrist organizations" was intended as "Organisations affiliated with centrist political parties". I propose renaming it accordingly. The other categories should simply be populated, since centrist political parties exist in abundance. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what exactly are the criteria for deciding which parties are to be assessed as "centrist"? The applicability of the term depends on where the observer defines the centre-ground, and that's a highly-subjective process, not least because many politically active people like to portray themselves as moderate and reasonable, whilst labelling their opponents on all sides as extemist. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I agree with Debresser on that underpopulation of the category is no valid argument, since these categories could easily be populated. However the ascription or self-definition of organisations to be "centrist" highly depends on the political spectrum of a specific country and/or period in time, making it questionable to use this label for categorizing political organizations on an international scale. PanchoS (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Underpopulation was not part of the deletion rationale. I mentioned the lack of articles solely because if I had removed the one badly-categorised article, the categories could have been speedy-deleted, and I specifically chose to avoid that route and instead seek consensus on the substantive merits of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this was certainly no objection to your rationale, just wanted to comment on Debressers argument. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy enough to base inclusion upon reliable sources and so avoid the whole question. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. There could be room for inclusion of this category requiring :reliable sources stating that an organisation or party is "centrist". But in politics, I just don't think that can be done. Reliable sources are likely to have differing views between themselves.. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought that these vague directional-politics categories might be a bit different than the "liberal" and "conservative" ones, but upon reading the arguments, I don't think they are. It's just as subjective. Damn directional political spectrum--you are no good to us! Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:33, 16 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:Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge both. At this early stage in the 21st-c, nearly all the articles in the 21st-c category will also be in the 20th-c category. So the 21st-c category is effectively a parallel "current businesspeople" category, contrary to the long-long-standing consensus against "current" categories. The overwhelming majority of biographical articles in Wikipedia relate to the 20th- and 21st-centuries, so the 20th-c category will contain the overwhelming majority of articles on businesspeople, making it useless for navigation: if fully populated, it would effectively become a grouping of nearly all biogs of businesspeople. Splitting it by nationality, or by national sub-district would be no better: Category:20th-century businesspeople from Seattle or Category:20th-century Swedish businesspeople would still contain the overwhelming majority of articles in their respective parent categories. There is no Category:Businesspeople by century, but there we do have a Category:19th-century businesspeople, which I have not included in this nomination. I suggest that Category:19th-century businesspeople should be kept, because it offers a useful distinction from the mass of 20th & 21st-c people. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging per nom: just useless ballast. PanchoS (talk) 10:21, 9 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:Keep. This is an interesting Cfd insofar as the result seems to be clearly in conflict with a number of past decisions and with WP:OCAT as it stands. Perhaps this indicates a change in consensus in this area: one which it would be beneficial to discuss further. --Xdamrtalk 19:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Only songs and albums subcategories and its own eponymous article fill this category. Should be deleted per WP:OC#Eponymous and numerous CFDs as precedent, such as this CFD 2007 Sep 19. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the logical way of tying together the material related to the band. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that precedent is against such categories but it is indeed the obvious parent to Category:Thievery Corporation albums and Category:Thievery Corporation songs. No-one has successfully explained to me how OCAT arises as the category appears on exactly one article and there is no clutter that I can perceive. Occuli (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OCAT refers to 'category clutter', ie a single article being in a host of categories. Category:Categories named after musical groups becoming large has no bearing on category clutter unless Category:Thievery Corporation becomes an unfocused sprawl, and at present it is anything but a sprawl. There was an initial danger of things like Category:John Wayne filling up with any article that mentioned him (which will lead to category clutter as a film will get categorised under each actor who appears in it) but I don't see that there is any problem with a tightly focused eponymous musician category consisting mainly of entirely legitimate subcats. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the point of having a category that is only listed on one article and has the articles on the band's albums and songs in subcats, when links to all those articles are right there on the main article you're looking at. That's OCAT and that's what OC#Eponymous says is unnecessary. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:13, 10 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, although it should have been speedied per CSD G4. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We don't categorize television writers by the series they wrote for. We essentially treat doing so as a type of "performer by performance" overcategorization. We do have a number of lists that contain such information. This information is already contained in List of Saturday Night Live writers. This category was previously deleted in 2007; I see no new information that would suggest that we should reverse that decision. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:34, 8 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:Alumni of the University of the South Pacific[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Duplicate categories. Proposed target seems to be the more common format. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:26, 8 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 from Santa Clara, California[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:Reverse merge. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have these two categories, which I can't see a distinction between, given they're both child categories of Category:People from Santa Clara County, California. I feel I'm missing something obvious here; or at least a more elegant solution than a simple merge. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. I disagree that article page names should dictate category page names. (e.g. See the WAGs nomination a few down from here.) The nominated merger clarifies what is meant by 'Santa Clara' to someone who does not happen to know that locally or even typically 'simply Santa Clara' refers to the city Mayumashu (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the point of reversing my !vote here, because I think that Mayumashu raises an important point of disambiguation. However, choster is right to note that the convention is not to add a disambiguator to city category in this way, and I don't think it is right to make Saanta Clara a lone exception when there are so many other examples of USAnian cities with an eponymous county. But it would probably be a good idea to explore this ambiguity problem a bit further, either by a group nomination, or preferably by starting with a discussion with whatever USAnian wikiproject takes an overview of these matters. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge There is no ambiguity in "Santa Clara, California": Foo, State placenames in the U.S. invariably refer to a locality, and California thankfully lacks the town/village/hamlet/borough/township/etc. permutations many other states must endure. U.S. counties and parishes are furthermore denoted as Foo County in both speech and print unless they are coincidentally co-extensive with some other municipality with a simpler name.- choster (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They do so in the U.S., but if I'm not from there how am I suppose to (necessarily) know this? Disambiguation is done for the sake of those not in the know, presumably. Mayumashu (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, disambiguation is done for the sake of readers who think of one thing when confronted with a name that could be applied equally accurately to some other topic: bass vs bass vs bass. It is not equally accurate to call an article "Santa Clara, California" if it is about Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara area, Mission Santa Clara, and so on. If the principle behind dab was to provide insight into the nature of the subject without context, almost every article with a title not found in a kindergartener's vocabulary would require it.- choster (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge makes sense to me, as well. (If I hadn't been quite so tired, I like to think I'd have thought of that, as well.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge to use the unambiguous title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 10 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 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:Merge all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Merge all. Numerous previous 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 dividing them. In the case of photographers, we currently have this 20th-c category and Category:19th-century photographers. The 19th-c group is an excellent one, because it starts with photographers from the pioneering era and ends just before the release in 1901 of the first mass-market camera, the Kokak Brownie. The much larger 20th-c group is not useful for navigation, because if fully populated it would be far too big and would include the overwhelming majority of photographer biographies. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More added. When I opened this nomination, there was only a Category:20th-century photographers. However, despite being notified of this discussion, the category creator proceeded to create Category:21st-century photographers and a series of 20th- and 21st- century national sub-categories, so I have added them all to this nomination and asked the editor concerned to stop and await the outcome of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't see that having a category for photographers from 1901–2000 is useful to navigation. Can we include the recently created by nationality subcategories in this nomination? Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposite, I already resort this category (and a small 19th Rus, 21st century) by nations. Sorry for delay. — Jack 08:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Jackie, this is a discussion, not a vote. Please explain why you want to keep these categories ... and please do not create more similar categories or populate these ones while this discussion is open. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge as necessary per nom. I agree that the 19th century distinction is meaningful. Between 20th and 21st much less so. postdlf (talk) 12:35, 9 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 15 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:No consensus. In reading the comments, there does appear to be support for a deletion of this category, but there is no consensus since this discussion mostly revolved around the abbreviation vs. the various ways to fully spell out the contents of the category. While some points were raised about several articles not belonging, that does not directly affect this discussion, but could influence a consensus on a deletion nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think this is an awful category, so I'm really in favor of deletion, but since I don't think that would pass, I'd at least like it renamed to match the main article, WAGs. Currently, Category:WAGs is a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WAGs is a UK-term, without any global resonance. Most of these people are notable only for being WAGs, so it is defining for them. Occuli (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Awful stuff, barely if at all notable. And picking two articles at random, I'm not seeing why they're in this midden of a category: Hadise, Raica Oliveira? AllyD (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The word Footballer is required for accurate scope - numerous other celebrities have wives and girlfriends. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for two reasons: a) The acronym "WAGs" is a trendy neologism which appears to be popular in the UK tabloid press, but has little or no international recognition; b) per Colonel Warden, the word Footballer is required for accurate scope. If the articles are on non-notable subjects, take them to AFD, but that's not a matter for CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see no reason to have this. People aren't notable on the basis of relationships. If kept, spell our for clarity. Maurreen (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the people in the category aren't what I would describe as "WAGs" (Jamelia, for example). The category is in effect "Women who have had long-term intimate relationships with footballers", which is a silly thing to categorise people by. anemoneprojectorstalk 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 10 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 both. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nominator to expand obscure and ambiguous abbreviation (see VTV), but create {{category redirect}}s from the unaccented versions of the names (UK and US keyboards do not include accented characters, so they are a nuisance to type). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 10 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: Only two articles, non-notable award. This can be accomplished by a see also section. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a typcial awards category. We have a main article and a list article. We ought never to have more, as we do not like award categories. The article and list will be mutually linked, and that is all the neviation aid that we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per WP:OC#Award_recipients: "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 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.
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:Remname. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Virtual private network. Note that I also took the autoinclusion out of {{VPN}}, so approximately one-third of the articles disappeared from this category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 8 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:28, 10 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 10 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: Proper demonym for United States, no other "US X" categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually it's not necessarily the "proper demonym". A large number of Latin Americans object to the USA hijacking it. Has a proper open discussion ever been held on this subject? --MacRusgail (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mean "proper" only to the extent that this is what has arbitrarily been used on Wikipedia. Of course you could use "US" or "American", but the rest of them use "American". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many times and a long time ago, both in CFD and outside of it. The fact is that "American" is the dominant demonym for the U.S. in English worldwide, and as a continental or regional demonym it doesn't have anywhere near the usage of "European." That some people don't like that the U.S. has hijacked it doesn't change the fact that it has been "hijacked." postdlf (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Proposed name lacks clarity owing to the potential for confusion with American football. US more clearly indicates that these are US-based teams not players of some American variant of the game. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one calls American football "American rugby union", so I don't think there's any chance of confusion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. I agree that "American" is overwhelmingly the dominant demonym for United Statesians both inside and outside of Wikipedia. No one calls American football "American rugby union", so I don't think there's any chance of confusion, even if American football had its origins in rugby. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wider comment. As above, I think that the concerns about ambiguity are misplaced in this case. However, it does illustrate yet another problem with the whole "Fooian x" structure of "things by nationality" categories, in this case that "Fooian x y" may have different meanings depending on whether the words are parsed as "Fooian {x y}" or as "{Fooian x} y". The closely-related example is that we can't have "American football players", because that has very different meaning depending on whether it is parsed as "American {football players}" (people of USAnian nationality who play any football code) or "{American football} players" (people of any nationality who play American football) ... so we necessarily broke the convention. We have another problem with languages, which mostly overlook: does "French writers" mean "French people who write" or "People who write in the French language?" Either reading is perfectly reasonable, but we have chosen one. Then we have the non-neutral demonyms: "Northern Irish", "Afghan", "British". We broke the convention for the first one, but not the latter two, and there must be many more examples. In some cases we have compromised on grammatical horrors, such as using the noun "New Zealand" as an adjective, or ugly compound adjectives such as "Bosnian and Herzegovinan" (common usage is the simpler but non-neutral "Bosnian"). We also have an under-scrutinised mess of demonyms in central Asia and the Middle East, where national boundaries can be radically different to ethnic boundaries, but the adjective means different things depending on whether it is used to refer to a state or an ethnicity. Mercifully, Category:Letters (message) has not been divided by nationality, so we do not have a Category:French letters, which would have a rather difft meaning. All these tangles could be avoided by simply dumping the demonyms from the category tree, and restructuring category names to use nouns rather than adjectives. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with your broad points here, though I think ultimately it may be a lost cause. But as Grutness would want it said were he still around—using "New Zealand" as an adjective is not a "grammatical horror". It has always been the accepted adjective in English for things of New Zealand, and is widely used. And we don't use "Bosnian and Herzegovinian", we just use the grammatical horror of "Bosnia and Herzegovina" as an adjective. The point is also valid about other nouns we use as adjectives, though, like "Dominica", "Republic of the Congo", "Trinidad and Tobago", etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Yes, NZ was an incorrect example; "Trinidad and Tobago" is a better illustration.
You are probably right too that it's a lost cause. But I still indulge myself by raising it from time to time. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, you never know what might happen when you go out on a limb and propose something that you kind of think is a lost cause, as recent CFD happenings demonstrate. Sometimes surprising things happen and more people agree with you than you thought. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:02, 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.
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. --Xdamrtalk 19:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sheer membership in a political party is rarely defining for people who are not politicians or political activists, created Category:Socialist Unity Party of Germany politicians instead to be selectively populated. PanchoS (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
opposeReiner Kunze was writer not a politican but his writings are from the SED perspective and his works are notable for it. Gnangarra 07:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In communist states, membership of the communist party was a defining characteristic, because the party's "leading role in society" under communism ensured that membership of the party was a significant factor in anyone's career. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the German Wikipedia, the SED had 2,3 million members of 8 million labor force or 16,8 million total population. This means membership wasn't unusual or particularly significant, neither was non-membership. However I admit that there are some cases where it was indeed significant. There are also enough cases where someone was listed as member without knowledge or consent. To me the question is: is it possible to come up with a rationale that embraces exactly these cases of significance but doesn't allow for tagging of random people who happened to be listed as a member? I'm a bit sceptic if this can be achieved with a category so broadly named. For people like Karl-Heinz Kurras it enough to categorize them in Category:East German spies, those who lost their SED-membership like Günter Kunert are more significantly non-members, someone like Erich Weinert could be better categorized in Category:East German communists if that existed. Many people are missing in this list. I just think it's not well enough conceptualized. PanchoS (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we don't categorise by attributes solely because they are rare, an attribute doesn't have to be rare to be defining. It seems to me that the issue here is what difference being an SED member made to the life and/or career prospects of a citizen of the DDR. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mere membership in a communist/socialist party in Eastern Europe before the fall of the Iron Curtain should not be a defining characteristic. For Romania we eschewed that nicely by having Category:Romanian communists and Category: Romanian Marxists for people who were actually ideologues, activists and/or in leadership positions. Suggest doing the same here. Pcapping 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 00:46, 8 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:No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, articles directly related to the subject are already links in the eponymous article in question, negating the need for this category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a parent for the existing eponymous subcategories. Per WP:CLN, we should keep both the article links AND the category and allow both to exist as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would agree if there were more than the songs/albums categories. You are then in favor of an eponymous category for every musical artist? To me, it is simply overcategorization for so few articles/categories. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note We have usually deleted eponymous musician catgeories such as this with 2 subcats, but then historically we had Otto and Carlossuarez who were vigorously opposed to such entities. It is certainly a means of navigating within category space between a song and an album, lost on deletion. It is also a means of seeing at a glance whether there are any other subcats (eg images, tours, videos, songs written by etc). Marginal either way in my view. Occuli (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am in favor of all these recording artist categories (especially with bands, who will have "X members" subcats.) I think it is a useful aid for navigation. That having been said, this is a pretty marginal case, as it only contains "X albums", "X songs", the main article, and a discography. As well as some image files with no fair-use rationale (I have since added __NOGALLERY__.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 8 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:Lists of infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename, because it contains only bridges, and the text on the category page makes it clear that it is intended to contain only bridges. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 00:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is more intelligible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - assuming there is nothing there but bridges (which i have not checked), and possibly if there are a few exceptional inclusions. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 8 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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 15. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)