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The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn by nominator.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale this is overcategorization by shared characterizations of a name. We have articles on things, not on words. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Dictionaries class owrds by their origin. We class things by what they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—As this is the English Wikipedia, well over 99% of the words used in this part of the encyclopedia would belong here, the category would become impossibly large and therefore pointless. Every head term in the Oxford, Chambers, Websters, or the Urban dictionaries belongs here. This is because regardless of their source (Old English, Norman French, Sanskrit, Maori, American English, &c.) the words are now a part of the English language as spoken in some part of the world. This is why we have Wiktionary. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up - Unlike the loanwords categories this does actually contain a significant number of articles where the subject is a word - for example many of the articles in this category have a title that ends in "(word)". DexDor (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw with very little hope that people will actually consistently use this category correctly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2013 (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 first off this is overcategorization by shared name. We categorize things by what they are, not what they are called. Added to this, I just cringe at the total wrongness of the category name. There is no "African" language, and to put this in as a parraelell to Category:French words and phrases and such is just wrong and insulting to the hundreds of languages in Africa, and a perpetuation of the colonist dismissal of Igbo, Zulu, Yoruba, Amheric and hundreds of other languages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with this and the other two categories I think the best example of why this is just a plain bad idea is that Looting is in Category:Hindi loanwords because of the decision to use that name for the article and not Plundering. If this was a dictionary that would make sense, but this is an encyclopedia and articles are about things. Looting should stay in the same categories even if we rename the article to a synonym.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - don't delete this category without checking how the category is being used and first deleting the subcats such as Category:Swahili words and phrases. I think we should deal with the loanwords categories before looking at these ones. DexDor (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is African a language? No. Then delete. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete African languages are diverse and lumping them territorially is not really scientific. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2013 (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:purge of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase ... and then if it is empty, tag for speedy deletion with {{db-catempty}}. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale this is categorization by shared named. This is an encyclopedia, so articles are on things, not on what they are named. We do not categorize things by what they are named, but by what they are. The things in this category are things, and often fit into categories like Category:Hindu cosmology and such. We should not be categorizing the things by what they are named. They are things, not words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: have you checked how many subcats exist under "Category:Words and phrases by language"?--GDibyendu (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just becaue the categories exist does not mean they are a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prune and see if anything is left - merely being a Sanskrit word is trivial (WP:OCAT), unless the article itself is about that Sanskrit word - as opposed to some concept with a name borrowed into English from a Sanskrit original. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is good in theory. In practice what happens can be seen from what has occured with Luau. That is clearly an article on a Hawaiian gathering, it is not on a word. So I removed the word categories, someone restored them. I then explained my rationale on the talk page, and have been dismissed with "what a bizarre idea". As long as we have these word categories people will insist on adding articles on things to them, and will fight attempts to prune them. Unless some people are willing to work hard to enforce limiting them to articles clearly on words, they are going to be magnets for overcategorization by name of articles that are clearly not about words at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sympathetic to JPL's views - having myself encountered similar resistance to cleaning out the contents of categories (see essay at User:DexDor/TermCat - comments on that are welcome, by the way). However, there may be enough articles in this particular category that are about words (e.g. articles that begin "Arya is a term ..." and "Bhūta is a Sanskrit word ...", although I haven't examined these articles in detail) that this category should not be deleted (don't throw out the baby with the bath water). I.e. in this case it may be necessary to look at each article and recategorize it, rename it (e.g. to "... (word)"), PROD it etc. DexDor (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2013 (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: consensus to keep. There was also general dissatisfaction with the current name, but no consensus on any alternative. Having been relisted once already, the discussion has now been open for a total of nearly 4 weeks ... and since the idea of renaming hasn't made any significant progress since the last relisting, it's time to close. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was going to speedy nominate this to become "Artist writers," but this is a weird hybrid category, and might be better if just deleted. It's "for professional artists in the Visual arts who also wrote books that were other than collections of their artworks." It seems enough to categorize them both as artists and as writers, but I don't see the value in categorizing them as both simultaneously. If this doesn't get deleted, it should be renamed to Category:Artist writers or something else without "author" in the title.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we generally avoid most dual profession categories. To have them, there needs to be evidence that the intersection is more than just trivial, and I see no such evidence in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (as creator) This is a highly significant and un-trivial category, which catches people who were significant in the fields of both art and imaginative literature, like Michelangelo and Dante Gabriel Rosetti, some like William Blake illustrating their own work, as well as artists who wrote important manuals on technique like Albrecht Dürer, Theophilus Presbyter, & Nicholas Hilliard, or were important in art criticism or art history like Vasari and Joshua Reynolds. To call it "trivial" is frankly ridiculous. No particular objection to "Artist writers". Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. William Blake is the first person I thought of when I saw this category. It isn't the same thing as creating a category "Insurance executive poets" (Wallace Stevens) or "Physician poets" (William Carlos Williams), where the two occupations are distinct spheres of activity. "Artist writers" are an unusual class of creative people who practice both arts in a way that's complementary, so that you can't evaluate the writer side without taking the artist side into account. I do wonder, though, how the category might relate to certain graphic novelists such as Art Spiegelman or Neil Gaiman, who have a certain literary stature. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I thought of Calligraphers and other artistic writers ("Ceci n'est pas un pipe"). I suppose it doesn't hurt, as long as you also allow the artist categores and writer categories to remain on the page. Jane (talk)
It is unfortunate that moving to "writers" will create that ambiguity. Category:Calligraphers is of course very different. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is an interesting intersection, for people who excelled in with different arts. I think author is better, because I would like it to be limited to those notable for their writings and to exclude those who may (for example) occasionally have contributed reviews to newspapers. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would a hyphen help, like singer-songwriter? As you point out, the category seems intended for those whose creative career encompasses both letters and fine art, not an artist who happens to write a little. I've been mulling over the aversion expressed at the word author above, and find I don't understand it. I'm not sure "author-artist" or "artist-author" wouldn't be better. Just thinking it through, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All authors seem to be writers now, in categoryland. I think it is just for consistency, hence the original speedy. No occasional reviewers etc should be here, & I don't think any are, but I'm not sure how to exclude them in the name, though a note will help. Those who just write about their own art are excluded in a note. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but can we find a better name? I'm convinced the intersection is likely notable but the name, as others have said, is a bit feeble. Mangoe (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2013 January 16 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus so far not to delete the category, but while several editors want a better title, there is as yet no consensus on any single alternative. Maybe further discussion might lead to a name which is at least some improvement on the current title?
Comment. Best rename I can think of is Artist-Writers. With the hyphen. We aren't talking about people who write about artists, but about people who do both. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In deciding this, we should apply the principle of WP:LISTN by demonstrating that such a combined classification has been used by external sources. I look and soon find such a source: Doubly gifted: the author as visual artist. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2013 (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:Past presidents of The Virginia Bar Association[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: Unnecessary time restriction that locks out the current president, who will qualify as soon as his/her term ends. Also a miscapitalization. Didn't know if this quite qualified for speedy. Rklear (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, because there is no need for a current/former split. I would not object to an alternative of delete+listify (either to Virginia Bar Association or to a standalone list), because I am not sure that this position is defining for those who held it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete. I do not think this is important enough to the people involved to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2013 (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: There is no need to have a separate category for fictional American archers; there aren't that many articles in either category. JDDJS (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a trivial triple intersection, "archers" "american" and "fictional". Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a strong defining characteristic of the characters and an effective aid to navigation. The presence of three words does not make it a triple intersection, and BHG's observation that it "is actually an intersection between Category:Fictional archers and Category:Fictional American people" is cogent. Alansohn (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a triple intersction, because we should oppose as a disruption to the accuracy of wikipedia putting these articles in either Category:American people or Category:Archers or even Category:American archers. Fictional articles should never be put in categories that are not clearly limited to fictional things. Fictional and real people should not be put in the same categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This blurring of reality and fiction is, sadly, quite typical of this type of categorization, where a real nationality label is applied to a fictional character who exists in a fictional universe where identity and geography are entirely malleable and dependent only on the whims of the author. In addition, categorization of this type also disregards the fact that the 'United States' of the DC Comics universe is not directly comparable to the 'United States' of the Dukes of Hazzard universe, not only because of made-up places such as Gotham City and Hazzard County but because each fictional universe presents an entirely different (fictional) reality. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MergeDual upmerge to Category:Fictional archersand Category:Fictional American people. This category does not reflect a defining characteristic of the characters since 'American archery in fiction' is not a topic that exists. This is simply an intersection category that attempts to extend to fictional characters the categorization scheme that exists for real people. From an organizational standpoint, there is no real need for it (Category:Fictional archers contains less than 100 articles in total); and from a logical/theoretical standpoint, there is no reason to combine these two unrelated characteristics. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However when we are doing by nationality categories there is no requirement that the intersection of nationality and occupation have to be a notable topic. We generally divide by occupation categories along nationality lines when they get to big, and that seems to be the case here. Your are confusing a rule that applies to ethnicity with the rules that apply to nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you've said applies to biographical categories for real people; I do not think that we should categorize fictional characters in the same way as we do real people. For example, what is defining for a real person is not necessarily defining for a fictoinal character, and vice versa. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revised per Scolaire's reasoning below. -- Black Falcon(talk) 07:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful division of large categories and upmerging would also lead to more categories in each article, which I do npt think is a desirable result. The fictional characters are clearly Americans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. I do object to fictional nationality in general, but I also object to the particular intersection of American archers for the reasons that it does not reflect a distinct topic of interest within the realm of fiction and that Category:Fictional archers is far from being overpopulated. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The category will not be overpopulated as a result (I make it 46 → 72), and there is no obvious distinction between fictional American archers and fictional archers from any other part of the world. Archers should be categorised by state or by ethnicity, as appropriate, not added as a separate cat in Category:Fictional American people. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only to fictional archers. The more I think about it, the more the argument against fictional nationalities works. What I really think we should get rid of is Category:Fictional American people of Dutch descent, but if I nominate it alone people will say that it is a lone part of a larger tree, if I nominate the whole tree people will object that some of the categories are really needed, and so I don;t see either way working.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2013 (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.
Delete considering there is only one article between this category and its one sub-cat, this seems unneccessary creation of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2013 (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 as not needed; only contains a sub-cat for novels. If not deleted, it should be renamed to match James Clancy Phelan because James Phelan is a disambiguation page which includes other writers. – FayenaticLondon 14:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there is a second sub-cat or articles that do not fit in the subcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2013 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In these cases (not in the case of Category:Snooker venues), WP:OC#VENUES clearly does apply. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC) See below; I have changed this to delete after upmerge, as explained below after the "deletes" that agreed with my original; two later commentators gave a valid reason to keep a non-dated container category. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, and should be separate anyway because the scope is different (not a specific multi-day event in one year, but a seasonal series of such events for a long period of time (88 years - the Summer and Winter Olympic Games were first split in 1924). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:OC#VENUES may apply technically, but I do not think in spirit. The majority of notable Commonwealth Games venues are built, or given major renovation and expantion, specifically so they can be Commonwealth Games venues, making it defining of those venues, something which is definitely not covered by the examples given at the guideline page. Are those voting delete arguing that OC#VENUES supports the deletion of the Category:Olympic venues tree also, otherwise what distinction are they making between the two? --Qetuth (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that comparison seems very wrong to me. Category:Commonwealth Games venues and Category:Snooker venues are very different things. The CG venues are a finite set relating to a particular event (or series of events). OTOH, the Snooker venues are a set by by type, of unknown size. It is highly unlikely that a "list of snooker venues" could ever be complete, but it would not be a huge job to draw up a complete list of CG venues. So the two are chalk-and-cheese. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and upmerge changing vote per SMcCandlish. The games have changed name a few times, I think it is convention that we would put all together in the category of the current name? My major concern is that a connection to other venues of the same C.Games/Olympics is something it is reasonable to think readers might be interested in. The impressive Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games has convinced me a list achieves this better than a category, but I think it should be done somehow. I also still do not think OC#VENUES is as clear on this issue as most others here do, and could do with revision. --Qetuth (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD January 25 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There appears to be an emerging consensus that being a Commonwealth Games (CG) venue is defining in at least some cases, such as when a venue is constructed specifically for the CG. However, it is unclear whether the consensus is to categorise only those venues which were constructed for the games, or to include all such venues. It is also unclear why some editors believe that it would be inappropriate to categorise these venues by a specific dated event, when we have other similar categories such as Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues.
Comment - the existence of the Olympics venues categories is irrelevant to this CFD (however, if they had been CFDd that would be relevant here). DexDor (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not often relevant to CFD, because the category system is built on consistency: consistency of naming, consistency of structure, and consistency of scope. That why, for example, we have squillions of "People from FooTown" categories, but no "Natives of FooTown" categories.
Several editors have pointed to clear parallels between the two. The general presumption at CFD is that the principle of consistency leads us to categorise similar things should be categorised in a similar way. For example we have 220 national categories of politicians by party, because grouping by party is significant in every country. Similarly, we have 221 categs for Olympic competitors by country, because the national affiliation of an olympic competitor is always a defining characteristic.
With the Commonwealth and Olympic Games, we have in each case: 1) a recurring sporting event 2) an event held in a different city each time; 3) an event held in held in numerous venues, at that city; 4) an event for which many venues are purpose-built. So why should we not consider the two sets of categories together? And if a venue is specially constructed for a specific high-profile event, why do editors believe that event is not a defining characteristic of the venue? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That a venue was constructed for a specific event is a defining characteristic, but it's not one we normally use to categorize - there's no "venues by reason of construction" tree (and I can see several problems such a tree would have) (Category:Sports venues by competition is unusual in having just one parent cat) and it's not how these categories have been used (e.g. Wembley Arena wasn't built for the 2012 games). If this CFD succeeds then I might consider CFDing other similar categories. If this CFD concludes that these categories are OK then that will have been established without a CFD tag being placed on dozens/hundreds of categories. DexDor (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see a little hint of a straw man in there :( I can't think offhand of another type of "venues by reason of construction" category which would be defining, and I am not proposing any.
However, we have here a finite set of sports venues which share a common defining characteristic; it seems to be agreed by most contriutors to this discussion that being used for the CG is defining. If so, then why mix all the 2014 Glasgow venues with the 2010 Delhi venues?
Both those categories seem to be well-populated, on the basis of a clear and defining characteristic which fits well into other category trees. Why lump them all together into one huge category? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I can't think of an example of a venue constructed for any event other than a sporting event so I've struck part of my previous comment. If these categories become "venues constructed for X" (instead of the current "venues used during X" ) (note: this would require removing many articles and possibly renaming the categories) then the categories would be OK (that would fix the problem of articles collecting large numbers of "has been used for" categories). The categories shouldn't be merged (it wasn't me who suggested that). DexDor (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that strikeout. I have done likewise.
I think that the important thing about WP:OC#VENUES is the point that you note there: that it is designed to avoid articles collecting large numbers of "has been used for" categories. That's why I don't understand the urge to upmerge the by-year categories; it won't reduce the number of categs on any articles in the current categories. If we had similar categories for every CG, we'd have 17 cities which hosted the games only once, and only two cities (Auckland & Edinburgh) which hosted it twice. I don't know how much reuse of venues occurred on those occasions, but it is likely to be well-short of 100%.
So while I;m glad that we agree that venues-constructed-for-X is a viable basis, I'm not persuaded that we need to restrict the category to venues-constructed-for-X. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a defining characteristic, and as such, doesn't fall afoul of 'has been used for'. Why do these venues merit notability? Because they hosted the Commonwealth games. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With most of these facilities created expressly for the purpose of hosting the commonwealth Games, the characteristic is defining. Grouping them by year serves as an aid to navigation across similar articles, while upmerging would lump unrelated articles together. Alansohn (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2013 (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: Not a defining trait for the most part. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the time being. While the people in this category are not famous for the fact of their synaesthesia, it has in many cases certainly contributed to their art and therefore their fame. Happy to hear arguments to tip the balance. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually think we should get rid of all the "people with x" categories, they are just inherently problematic. What if someone develops a trait long after they were famous. It would be odd to categorize them by having something they did not have when they were notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2013 January 25 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete. Agree with JPL. The problem is that someone can be added to these categories, and this might not be caught for some time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a lot easier to maintain categories if there was a way to see what things have been added to a category. I guess you can just constantly check the articles, but if you get lots that would be problematic. I wish additions of articles to the category would show up on the category edit summary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2013 (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 categories of content (which are interlinked) and one for non-free media--too little content for an eponymous category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category contains three subcategories, albums, album covers and songs, with 19 articles and 13 files between them, five articles: the band's article, the band's discography, a band member's article, a record label created by the group and that record label's discography and the band's template, so there is not "too little content." Three subcategories, five articles and a template should be enough to keep the category. Aspects (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2013 January 25 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep – in my opinion 3 subcats are sufficient to justify an eponymous category (especially as there are dozens and dozens of eponymous band cats with less than 3 subcats: eg I can see 37 of them in the first 200 of Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups). Oculi (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eponymous categories are only supposed to be created when they have sufficient direct contents, they should not be created just to link multiple subcats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get these bizarre ideas about what is 'supposed' to happen? The only rational objection to eponymous categories is that they behave as a magnet for a random collection of vaguely related material at the top level (leading to clutter at the bottom of articles). Here there is nothing vague and no clutter. Oculi (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2013 (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: Proposal defeated. The existing status quo is overwhelmingly preferred. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. As the Gaelic Athletic Association is organised on a 32-county, four-province basis, I propose merging this category to create a single 32-county "hurling clubs in Ireland" category. Brocach (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. These two categories were originally nominated separately. However, the rationales are identical and the topics are the same, so per WP:MULTI I have merged them to avoid having the same discussion under two separate headings. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
BHG's alternative solution would work just as well. However, the last time Category:Hurling clubs in Ireland by county was added to the county categories, by me some months ago, that category was removed by, er, BHG. I would be happy to put it back into the county categories if I thought the changes wouldn't be reverted. The reason for preferring an Ireland category rather than the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland sub-categories is that hurling does not have any separate structures for those two jurisdictions; however if the sub-categories serve some purpose that I can't at the moment see, they could remain alongside the Ireland category. Brocach (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So where does that leave this discussion? --HighKing (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It leaves it with me first needing to correct Broach's mistaken recollection of events in October 2012. :)
However, I question what purpose this would serve. Yes, the GAA organises on a 32-county basis, but plenty of things which are organised on one basis may be subcategorised in various ways. For example, few sports are organised on the basis of the boundaries of Dublin City Council (it's more common to use County Dublin or a wider area), but we have Category:Sport in Dublin (city) and various sub-cats thereof. That's because geographical categories are std feature of Wikipedia categorisation, since they allow readers to find all sorts of things on the basis of a common geographical framework. (The reader can go to Category:County Dublin and find sub-cats for sport, politics, people, transport etc).
In this case, the current structure places all the clubs under a common parent, viz. Category:Hurling clubs in Ireland by county. Within the sub-cats, they are all broken down by county anyway, so whatever we do we are not going to end up with all the clubs in one big category. Categories exist to facilitate navigation, so what is the navigational problem with having these two sub-cats as an intermediate step?
If we start down the path of placing by-county GAA categories in all-Ireland grandparent categories, where does it stop? If we do this for all the by-county GAA categories, we will end up with a massive set of categories cluttered with both a parent and grandparent category. That would add a significant maintenance burden, and add category clutter. Clutter impedes navigation, see I see no gain. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I would say "Merge to Category:Hurling clubs in Ireland by county", but in fact they are all in it already. We have had similar discussions regarding other sports that are still organised on an all-Ireland basis, and I thought that the consensus was that in such cases the NI/Republic split should NOT apply. GAA sports is one of the areas where this applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Firstly, the by-country categories are not already in Category:Hurling clubs in Ireland by county, as a cursory glance would have shown. Secondly, as I pointed out above, deletion or single upmerger would also remove these material from several other categories. And thirdly, I see am aware of no prior consensus for removing the RoI and NI subcats which group the county categories of an all-Ireland sporting category, nor any evidence of any net reader gain from doing so. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. They're already subcats. —Jon C.ॐ 17:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that GAA is done on an all-ireland basis is irrelevant as it would be misleading to do this proposal. For example, Derry City F.C. play in the irish republic's system but still has the category of Association football clubs in Northern Ireland. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BHG rationale. Maybe now some editors will realise that Brocach's long campaign has very little to do with logical schemas and more to do with subversive schemeing. There is a clear irredendist agenda behind his recent edit warring. He wishes to pretend that there is no border and that soon we'll be A Nation Once Again. There's an interesting vote taking place at WP:GAA if youre interested in further proof of same. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subversive scheming, eh? I am merely reflecting the fact that, for the GAA, there actually is no border. Categories grouping GAA bodies as if the organisation was partitioned are a fine case of category clutter - I can't think of any purpose that they serve. However, to add Category:Hurling clubs in Ireland by county to each of the county categories would serve a very useful navigational purpose, in that going to the "Ireland" category one could move immediately down to each county, and vice versa, whereas at present the extra and pointless step through a "Northern Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland" layer is required. I think Wikipedia could afford the extra few bytes needed to store the additional links. Brocach (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The RoI&NI sub-cats cause zero category clutter, because they do not cause any article to be in any extra category.
There is no suggestion that the organisation is partitioned ... but the GAA's area intersects with a geopolitical partition, so by combining the two we have one set of categories which allows navigation through both the geopolitical structure and the GAA structure. If we had followed Brocach's approach of deleting Category:Hurling clubs in Northern Ireland by county, all of those clubs would have been removed from Category:Gaelic games in Northern Ireland. If Brocach cannot see the merit in allowing a reader to go to Category:Sport in Northern Ireland and find all the GAA topics in NI available under that category, then an explanation probably won't help.
The "extra layer" is little hindrance to navigation, because a reader viewing Category:Hurling clubs in Ireland by county only has to make one click on a drop-down to expand the list for the ROI, and another to expand the list for NI. It's a trivial impediment. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we split these categories by political entity so the various sub-cats can be placed with the parent cats of the right political entity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is a matter of legitimate interest what clubs there are in NI and what clubs in ROI. Rugby union is also organised on a 32-county, four-province basis and it is categorised in the same way. Scolaire (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2013 (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 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 without prejudice to re-creating category if articles about his plays are written. Currently contains only 1 page about a novel. – FayenaticLondon 09:35, 1 February 2013 (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, without prejudice to re-creation if any articles are written on her poems. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 10 February 2013 (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. Even though he is a major writer, Narayan is noted only for books, see R._K._Narayan#List_of_works. The "works" category contains only the sub-cat Category:Books by R. K. Narayan. There is no need to keep this "Works" category layer. – FayenaticLondon 09:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as an unneeded level of categorization. I am not 100% convinced we need the eponymous parent either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as per nom.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2013 (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. – FayenaticLondon 14:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name does match the article, but is ambiguous. I'm not sure what would happen if the article was proposed for a move, but clearly this is a poor name for the category especially since there is a least one NHM not associated with the topic included here. The Natural History Museum, officially the National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, could well be considered as the primary topic. Given the length of Natural History Museum (disambiguation), a rename here seems reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match main article. The category may need a capnote pointing to other Natural History Museums, all of thich have longer names. I do not think we need to apply the principle by which categories for Birmingham are at Category:Birmingham, West Midlands to prevent the miscategorisation of Birmingham, Alabama topics, becase there are unlikly to be many NHM categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is a category not an article, hatnotes don't work, ambiguous categories end up containing everything that could be confused with the nominal topic, needing constant maintenance -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Natural History Museum (London) (per GO's suggestion) to avoid any appearance that "London" is part of its name. We can see from Natural History Museum (disambiguation) that "Natural History Museum" is highly ambiguous, so we should disambiguate the category name to avoid miscategorisation. While the London museum may be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that is a policy applied to article space. In categorisation, ambiguity has more disruptive consequences which are difficult to detect, so we place a higher priority on avoiding it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I have doubts the article name works, but the category name is even worse. As it currently stands there is a possiblity people will accidently put things on other natural history museums in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As they already have! It is interesting to note that the affected article also links to Natural History Museum as a generic term. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match the title of the parent article. If consensus in mainspace is that the article needs no disambiguation to distinguish it from other museum's, then we should not only respect that consensus but we should avoid creating greater confusion by having a deliberate and needless mismatch between the titles of the article and the category. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - BrownHairedGirl's reasons fo renaming are better than Alansohn's and Peterkingiron's reasons for not. DexDor (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. A hatnote is sufficient for an article on the primary topic; it does not work for categories. This is sufficient justification for having different titles for the cat and the article. Scolaire (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2013 (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.
