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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on march 16. Kbdank71 15:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:TV Tic-tac-toe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow category. Tic-Tac-Dough, three versions of Hollywood Squares, and a pricing game on The Price Is Right. Somehow I don't see this as being a useful category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Vaguely-strengthed rename to Category:Tic-tac-toe television programs along the lines of the similar "TV shows based on games" Category:Poker television programs and Category:Blackjack television programs. I won't weep bitter tears if this gets deleted but people interested in researching TV shows based on games might find it useful. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Organizes similar articles for navigation purposes by a defining characteristic. Adequate content for category with no reason not to anticipate future expansion. Alansohn ( talk) 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure that defining is the right term, but a template might well be better for expansion, especially if some articles are missing and need to be created. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

What future expansion? I'm pretty well versed in game shows, and I know for a fact that we've had no other tic-tac-toe games besides these ones. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Listify and then Delete - This seems rather similar to WP:OC#SHARED. But in this case, it's not the name that's the same, it's a game show (or a game on a game show) which happens to have a tic-tac-toe theme. It would be like having a category of every game show which used a Wheel of fortune of some kind. (Which would include everything from the spinning wheel in The Price is Right, to a roulette wheel.) Or for that matter, imaging a category for all game shows which used playing cards in some way. (Joker's Wild, several TPIR games, Card Sharks, and quite a few others...) Or how about dice? Or or or... So, as I noted, listification, so that the usage within the game show venue can be explained/described for each instance. (And would also allow for referencing.) - jc37 09:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  This isn't analogous to game shows that use particular pieces of equipment, which I agree would be overcategorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  They all don't use the same diagram? - jc37 04:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  What I'm saying is that Tic-tac-toe is a distinct game and these are based in that specific game, whereas game shows like High Rollers or Yahtzee (game show) incorporate a particular piece of gaming equipment but don't draw from a common source game and so couldn't be included in a "Game shows based on foo" category. I really don't care that much but a list of five is a little silly (a category of five is also a little silly but there are the parallel categories noted above). Otto4711 ( talk) 07:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  If that's the case, then we need to dramatically increase the number of pages under Category:Quiz shows. Consider that most game shows involve some question of trivia to receieve a "benefit" (such as a prize, or an "X in the center square").

  And I don't think watching players in a casino at a blackjack or poker tournament should be directly categorised with the " game show" located on a studio set with contestants.

  There are innumerable themes to game shows, and that includes games which a specific show (or part of show) may be based upon. The wheel of fortune being a good example. How many games involved a spinning wheel of chance. Spin the wheel, and gain the result of the spin. That's a game.

  And by the way, yacht ( yahtzee) is based upon the game of poker... So are we going to start categorising based upon game derivations? - jc37 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  Quiz show is a redirect to Game show so we might want to look at Category:Quiz shows to see if that's the best name and/or structure. Your comments do not address the distinction between a television game show based on a game and a television game show that uses a particular piece of gaming equipment. Fortunately, we do not categorize televised poker or blackjack tournaments as game shows (they are in Category:Poker television programs and Category:Blackjack television programs, sub-cats of Category:Gambling television programs, a sub-cat of Category:Television series by genre and not part of the Category:Game shows structure at all) so your concern there doesn't enter into things. If there are a large number of game shows that are actually based on the Big Six wheel rather than simply using it as a piece of gaming equipment (Wheek of Fortune being based on hangman, not the Big six wheel) then I see no problem with categorizing them as such. I am unaware of any shows that are based on the Big six wheel rather than simply using a wheel-like piece of equipment, so this should not be an issue. Otto4711 ( talk) 08:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  I used those examples, because you note them as examples in your initial comments.

  Also, A single game may be based upon several games. The game show wheel of fortune being one such, having aspects of more than one game.

  As for equipment vs. game, it's the use of the equipment. I pick up the dice and use them/interpret results. The action vs. the objects in a state of being.

  What is tic-tac-toe but a grid in which some symbols may be placed? The grid and the symbols are "equipment", just like the cubes with dots/pips, just like the demarked spinning wheel, etc.

  If it's the usage of the objects and then the subsequent interpretation which makes them a "game", then it would seem that your argument falls apart. (Actually, no matter how I look at it, your argument seems to fall apart...)

  Incidentally, there are some excellent books on the derivations of games out there. They make for some enjoyable reading (I've done so myself : ) - jc37 10:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Eponymous places ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Delete little different than the various other "Eponymous xxx" categories (i.e., a coincidence of how the xxx's were named without regard to any similarities; for example Category:Eponymous cities of which this is really a superset. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - this also is all too true. Occuli ( talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and per the deletion of similar problematic categories. Robofish ( talk) 04:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:People from Pemberton to Category:People from Pemberton, Greater Manchester

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since Pemberton can refer to any one of seven different places in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, it would be appropriate to disambiguate this category according to the Pemberton to which it refers. – Pee Jay 22:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom and per Pemberton, Greater Manchester. Occuli ( talk) 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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/relist Per Choster, will re-write the nomination to clarify intent. Kbdank71 13:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Student societies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Student organizations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Student societies by activity ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We have an mishmash of overlapping and badly mixed up categories for those organizations whose memberships are primarily university-level students, which I attribute to different regional usages of student society and students' union. The main article for such groups is at student society, no problem for the article itself; however, in American English, the term is usually reserved for formal groups with restricted membership, such as honor societies or fraternities and sororities. The notion that one would refer to a taekwondo club as a "society" is, well, rather foreign, except perhaps for an insufferably pretentious taekwondo club. Bt even within the article the usages are inconsistent. The section on Belgium, for instance, considers the term to apply only to Corporations, whereas the section on Canada describes a students' union. Speaking of which, the contents of Category:Students' unions don't match students' union either (what in the U.S. is usually called a student government association or associated student body). I see mainly organizations for ethnic and international students which do not have the status of a union. Category:Canadian students' associations has finagled its way into both branches.

Given this, it's not surprising to find Category:Student organizations has also sprouted, having been renamed from Category:Associations of students last year, "student associations" having been eliminated as potentially misinterpreted as "students' union" again. The Texas A&M student group category was planted here, so I dumped several other institution-specific categories here, lest we forget about that dimension. There is also Category:Student societies by activity, which has been bypassed in some cases with cats listed directly in the parent, and the subcats of which follow innumerable variations on naming such as "college" and "university" when the intended meaning is in fact "student."

To cut through all of this, I propose the following: 1) "Student," as in Category:Student culture, be the preferred modifier for subjects relating to tertiary-level education students. 2) The existing student societies and student organizations categories be merged into Category:Student clubs and societies (per Category:Clubs and societies), or barring that Category:Student organisations. The first I hope captures the sense that any student group should fit, and avoids any spelling variance issues. The latter, at least, would not be as misunderstood as "student society" is in North America. Category:Student groups is used for several institution-level categories, but I think too broad. Once we have settled on a term, I'll work through Category:Student societies by country where different ambiguity is a problem (e.g. Academic Society of Iranians in Japan should be in Category:Japanese student societies under the current scheme, not its Iranian counterpart), as well as the variously named subcats of Category:Student societies by activity. I also cleaned out Category:University and college organizations, which is intended for organizations of universities and colleges, and which can be handled in a separate CfD to further disambiguate.- choster ( talk) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Category:Student groups as the umbrella; Category:Student governments for well... the body of student reps recognized by the educational institution at which they exist; Category:Student activities clubs for choirs, chess clubs, ham clubs, etc; official institute sports teams of educational institutes self explanatory; Category:Student arms of professional bodies for stuff like the student SAE branch; Category:Student life and student culture clubs ie frats. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 04:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment In my experience in the UK, in most universities the difference between a "club", "society" and "association" is usually as follows:
  • Club - Sports
  • Society - Non-sporting activity
  • Association - Normally this is an autonomous group for a defined grouping of students (e.g. a postgraduate students' association or an international one) although not every union has formal "associations"
• ...although there are often variations and individual names sometimes reflect different traditions - for instance traditionally a university Conservative society uses "Conservative Association" in the title, whilst the Labour equivalent is "Labour Club". And in Scotland a "students' association" traditionally means a body that combines the social activities (called a union when separate) with the representative ones.
• A further complication comes because some of these organisations have also allowed membership by staff and alumni. Nothing is simple...
• With regards " student organisation", from experience on Wikipedia this term is not used on discussion pages (particularly AFDs) in quite the same way the redirect implies, going to student society and so it doesn't help when the term is applied to students' unions. I don't think " student government" should be used for a category when it's a redirect to Students' union - if Students' union is a confusing term for some parts of the world then surely "student representative body" is the best international catch-all? Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment To clarify, the core proposal is to merge "Student organizations" and "Student societies" into "Student clubs and societies." No changes are proposed to the various types of groups, such as students' unions. I do not see orgs that include faculty or staff as a problem, as the org can be double- or triple-categorized if necessary.- choster ( talk) 02:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Question: and what do you propose to do with Category:Student societies by activity? I'd like to close this, but I'm not seeing your proposal for that, unless you mean to also merge it with the other two into "Student clubs and societies". -- Kbdank71 13:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Sorry, the idea was to delete it as unnecessary, as the activities are also listed directly in the other categories. Incidentally, if you planned to re-list rather than merge, perhaps it would be better to close as no consensus and I'll write a new proposal. My longish introduction, rather than assuaging editors hesitant to enter a potential US/UK language dispute, seems instead to have frightened everyone away.- choster ( talk) 17:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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. Kbdank71 15:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Grisons to Category:Graubünden

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article is at Graubünden since July 2005, I think it's safe to rename the category now to match. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment In pronciple, I agree as a matter of consistency, but I had heard of Grisons though not of your proposed target. I suspect this is a matter of whether one is speaking French or German; English usage may be to follow French forms as in Cologne not Koln and Aix La Chapelle, not Aachen. Furthermore if this to be carried through the subcategories using Grisons should also be tagged for renaming. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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: upmerge to Category:Cocktails. Kbdank71 15:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Cocktails with less common spirits to Category: to be determined

Nominator's rationale: Rename - "less common" is subjective and may be culturally-centric (I imagine there must be some part of the world where one of these spirits is "common"). Not sure what a better name would be, though. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Cocktails ... this is Category:Other cocktails as opposed to various specific ones such as Category:Cocktails with vodka etc. Occuli ( talk) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• I have no objection to that either. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge per Occuli. Seems like an inappropriate "remainders" category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per Occuli. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per all. Has Pastorwayne taken to drink? Johnbod ( talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:IBA Official Cocktails to Category:International Bartenders Association Official Cocktails

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to expand the abbreviation. In the alternative, could be deleted as trivial. A complete list exists in the main article. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete/upmerge - I checked several of these and none of the articles mentioned IBA (except in the infobox). This leads me to believe that the characteristic is not defining (and the infobox links to the IBA list in 2 places anyway). Occuli ( talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Occuli; otherwise we'll have Cocktails mentioned in James Bond films, Cocktails available at TGI Friday's and thousands of similar categories...call it drink by performance. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all (nb: never buy a cocktail without checking the mixer's IBA card) :) Johnbod ( talk) 02:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Pay for my own drinks? Perish the thought! Otto4711 ( talk) 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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/upmerge. Kbdank71 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Hue Massacre ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete [and upmerge contents to relevant parent cats] - With just the main article & one image, this tiny category is even smaller than the other massacre categories that I've nominated for deletion (see below). It simply isn't needed for navigational purposes. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep until the image is moved to the Commons. - Since there is only one article in this category it serves no purpose once the Wikipedia image is moved to the Commons. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:OCAT#SMALL. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you going to move the image first? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

No; it's linked in the article so there's no real need. But anyone could do it at any time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Not if no one knows about it. Almost any image in a Wikipedia category is either fair use or needs to be moved to the commons. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, that's great, because now you've just notified some users about it! Alternatively, instead of asking others to do tasks that you realise need to be completed, you could just do it youself. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That's not my point. I regularly put images in categories. There is not enough time in the world for me to upload them all to the Commons. But I at least let others know about the image. I did not create this category, and I do not create categories with just one article. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, I guess I'm not at all clear on what your point is, then. You have let users know about it here .... so, why should action or inaction have any effect on the outcome of this discussion? Are you saying the category should remain solely to act as a notification to others that there is an image that needs to be moved to Commons? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge both occupants including the pesky image to Category:Massacres in Vietnam and the other 2 parents. Occuli ( talk) 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yes, of course. Sorry to have left that out, I included it in both of the other related noms. Cgingold ( talk) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge - Deleting the category is not a reflection on the importance of the subject. Categories are a navigation tool, but subjects such as this are better covered by measn of a navbox. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and per arguments below. Robofish ( talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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/upmerge. Kbdank71 15:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Malmedy massacre ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Much like Category:Rainiai massacre (see below), this is a very small category that simply isn't needed for navigational purposes. The 2 ancillary articles (one of which I just added) are prominently linked throught the main article, and should be upmerged to the relevant parent cats. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 18:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep - People should be able to find all the relevant articles quickly. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (Note:Timeshifter is the category's creator.) reply

• I understand your desire, Timeshifter, but let me ask you then, where do we draw the line on small categories? Should every single massacre with one or two related articles have its own category? Do you think we should set aside the general guidance and practice vis-a-vis very small categories purely because we're talking about massacres? Cgingold ( talk) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• What guideline are you referring to? If such a guideline exists, then it needs to be changed. If it is a guideline, then it can be ignored if common sense says otherwise. Wikipedia is not paper, and a directory takes up an unbelievably infinitesimal number of bytes to maintain. This category is obviously serving a purpose. This type of deletion attempt is too much typical Wikipedia bureaucracy at work. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Ouch, I am wounded to the quick! ("typical Wikipedia bureaucracy") But seriously, are you not aware of WP:OC#SMALL? This is generally observed across the board, irrespective of the topic (or the importance of the topic). I really would like to know your thoughts on the questions I posed above with respect to categories for (in essence) all massacres and where we should draw the line on very small categories as a general rule. Cgingold ( talk) 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a total waste of everybody's time. Those are my thoughts. This is a waste of time to draw this kind of ridiculous line. Wikipedia is not paper. And it is a guideline. removed guideline tag as this is causing this page to be categorized as an editing guideline. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:OCAT#SMALL. Unnecessary—everything is interlinked; small—unlikely to expand. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - small category, unlikely to expand. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge - per nom (which is an upmerge when read in full). Occuli ( talk) 01:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge - Deleting the category is not a reflection on the importance of the subject. Categories are a navigation tool, but subjects such as this are better covered by measn of a navbox. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - this event has not justified its own category. Robofish ( talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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/upmerge. Kbdank71 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Rainiai massacre ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - There's just no need for this category. Aside from the main article, it contains 2 very short stub articles about individuals implicated in the massacre (one of whom may not even pass Notability) -- and both of them are linked from the main article. They should of course be upmerged to the relevant parent cats. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 08:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. No reason to obstruct articles dealing with the massacre. Jrun33 ( talk) 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Note: Jrun33 is the category's creator. reply

• I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "obstruct articles", Jrun33. The only question is whether the Category is warranted for navigational purposes. With such a small number of articles, it really isn't needed. Very few massacres have sufficient related content to justify a category (viz. Category:Katyn Massacre, Category:My Lai Massacre, Category:Nanking Massacre). Also, please note that I have just nominated Category:Malmedy massacre for deletion (see above) for the very same reason as this category. Cgingold ( talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep - People should be able to find all the relevant articles quickly. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Please see my response above. Cgingold ( talk) 20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:OCAT#SMALL. Unnecessary—everything is interlinked; small—unlikely to expand. Judging by the articles, it may even contract in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Massacres are not decreasing. More people involved in massacres or trials or media coverage are getting articles written about them. Judges, witnesses, reporters, victims, etc.. Darfur, the Congo, Rwanda, and so on. See my replies in the previous talk section. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The frequency of other massacres is irrelevant. The point is that this category is small and unlikely to expand, and it's entirely possible that some of the contents could be deleted and/or merged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

[Edit conflict] I'm sure we both [G/O & myself] applaud that trend. Please don't assume that you're the only one who cares about this subject. But a general upward trend in such articles doesn't necessarily translate to a need for any specific category. That's all this is about. Cgingold ( talk) 22:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Who said anything about whether you cared about the subject? My point is that this is a total waste of time. Categories are text, and take up almost no space on the servers. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Others disagree with you. If you feel it is a waste of your time you do not have to participate, though you're of course welcome to. But simply arguing that the entire CfD process is a waste of time is not productive. It exists—users can participate or not, but it exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Who said anything about the entire CfD process being a waste of time? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You said "this is a total waste of time". A plain reading of the statement would suggest that "this" refers to "this discussion", or "this nomination". If it doesn't, you should clarify that statement. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge - per nom. Occuli ( talk) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge - Deleting the category is not a reflection on the importance of the subject. Categories are a navigation tool, but subjects such as this are better covered by measn of a navbox. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per nom - a tragic event, yes, but I'm not convinced it needs its own category at this time. Robofish ( talk) 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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: do not remame. A separate nomination would be necessary to more fully consider whether to merge the England and Wales categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:English law to Category:Law in England

Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish law to Category:Law in Northern Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Scots law to Category:Law in Scotland

Propose renaming Category:Welsh law to Category:Law in Wales

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match their parent Category:Law in the United Kingdom renamed recently here Tim! ( talk) 17:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose renaming. Law in these jurisdictions is a difft matter to law of these jurisdcitions due to the asymmetric quasi-federal structure of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (yes, I know that sounds like a prize piece of, gobbledygook worthy of Private Eye's Pseuds Corner, but bear with me).
  The issue is that so far I understand it, England and Wales share a common jurisdiction, but Scotland has a separate legal system. The Parliament of the United Kingdom may legislate on anything relating to England (and, for now, Wales), but only a limited number of reserved areas in Scotland. So in Scotland, what applies is Scots law, which may be legislated (depending on the issue) by either Westminster or Holyrood. The main article is at Scots law, and by convention we should follow that in naming the category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep all per English law, Scots law, Welsh Law, Northern Irish law. The point is that there is a single legal system in England but not in the UK so there is no parallel. Occuli ( talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, but the law in Wales is the same as in England. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. . -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose renaming Category:Scots law as it reflects standard terminology for a distinct legal system. See for example the article LLB Degree in Scots Law. AllyD ( talk) 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep all per above. See also recent CfD People convicted of murder by England and Wales.- choster ( talk) 23:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Scots and Northern Irish -- The UK has three separate jurisdictions, with completely independent legal systems. However, the distinction between English and (modern) Welsh law is minimal, as the Welsh assembly only has pwoer to pass subordinate legislation. Accordingly, Merge Category:English law and Category:Welsh law to Category:Law in England and Wales. The exiting two categories might possibly be retained to deal with such areas of law as are devolved to the Welsh assembly; apart from this and "Medieval Welsh Law" (abolished in 1536), there is no such thing as Welsh law, as distinct from the law of England and Wales as a whole. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep all, per the arguments above. It's worth noting that as a result of devolution, even Wales does now have its own law, according to some definitions - see Contemporary Welsh Law. Robofish ( talk) 03:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:United States Congress committees templates to Category:United States congressional committees templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Congress" is capitalized noun; "congressional" is lower-case adjective. — Markles 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC). reply

• Compare, for example, Category:United States congressional delegation navigational boxes.— Markles 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom - makes sense to me. Robofish (Note that the article, for example, is at United States congressional committee.) ( talk) 03:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Christians of Orthodox denominations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Lists of Christians of Orthodox denominations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete The categories appear to be OCAT by shared name, as I do not believe there is a theological or institutional basis for lumping the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches together by themselves. FWIW, they were created by a suspected Pastorwayne puppet.- choster ( talk) 09:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I would have said upmerge the first to Category:Christians by denomination but as the hapless PW is involved there is no need (as the subcats of the parent have been left in the grand-parent). Category:Lists of Christians of Orthodox denominations might need upmerging - confusion sets in when one enters these categories. (PW is a United Methodist pastor in Ohio ... no reason to defer to his expertise on Oriental Orthodoxy.) Occuli ( talk) 12:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• The constituent categories are already parented under Category:Christians by denomination and Category:Lists of Christians. - choster ( talk) 23:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom - no need for this category, which raises questions of original research. Robofish ( talk) 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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: wtf happened here? Theosony, you really shouldn't jump all over people like you did, even if warranted, which it wasn't in this case. Regardless, I don't know what was in this category, but there is nothing in it now, so delete as empty. Kbdank71 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Irish Sinn Féin MEPs serving 2004-2009 to Category:GUE–NGL MEPs serving 2004-2009 and Category:Members of the European Parliament from Ireland

or

Suggest renaming Category:Irish Sinn Féin MEPs serving 2004-2009 to Category:Sinn Féin MEPs serving 2004-2009

Nominator's rationale: This excessively narrow category can only ever contain the two MEPs which it currently includes.

It has apparently been created as part of a sub-categorisation of Category:GUE–NGL MEPs serving 2004-2009, which in turn appears to be part a wider sub-division of MEP categories. That broader structure looks badly designed to me (too many intersections), but regardless of the fate of the other MEP categories, this one is a subdivision too far.

Alternatively, if it's not deleted, rename it to remove the word "Irish" from the start. Sinn Féin does not run candidates in elections outside Ireland, so the adjective is superfluous. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment – hands up anyone who can expand (without cheating) more than one of the 8 acronyms on the grand-parent Category:Members of current European Parliament party groups. Moreover I spot 'current'; before 2004 is not current. (It's the groups that are current, which is perhaps OK.) Occuli ( talk) 09:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment 1 – Maybe we could remove the category if removing them all and putting the Irish, French and German into the one category (the current parent category). The only reason I created the Sinn Féin category was to stay in keeping with the previous structure, but I agree, they are very narrow.-- Theosony ( talk) 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment 2 – I also think that changing the name to the equivalent minute the word 'Irish' would be pointless, as Sinn Féin's officials are indeed Irish. It also helps people browsing the categories view the MEP they would like to find information on by nationality, which is good for usibility. If maybe a list could be created rather than a category in which they can be listed by constituency served?-- Theosony ( talk) 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Category:Members of the European Parliament from Ireland does this, and links to good lists. These is a temptation to subcat every people category by nationality but it should be resisted. Occuli ( talk) 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• For those who might be wondering, the categories being particularly unhelpful, GUE–NGL is European United Left–Nordic Green Left, of course. With a name as snappy as this it's a surprise that the other parties bother to stand. Occuli ( talk) 13:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oh, dear, god. There is no need to get political about it... that should be resisted. Try maturity and discussion first, maybe before having a go. I didn't say anything that offended anyone, just shared an idea and as usual Wikipedia super-regulars attempt to blast me. What have I done to offend you? Fás aníos, as they might say in GUE-NGL. Oh, and the category for GUE-NGL MEPs are helpful to those wanting to learn more about the politics of a party they are about to vote for in May... just maybe?? -- Theosony ( talk) 15:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• By unhelpful I meant there is no link to, or explanation of, GUE-NGL anywhere on the category pages (the acronym being far from self-explanatory). No blast was intended. Occuli ( talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Can someone propose the category for deletion? I think a list would be better maybe, see my comments before the last and let me know what you think.-- Theosony ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • • A list of what? Two names do not a list make. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Without you getting frustrated, I am talking about the obvious wider GUE-NGL members all being moved into one category. If you had checked the two MEP pages, you will have noticed that they were changed to the GUE-NGL category, as opposed to the party/nationality category, that all other sub-categories have used. Before flaming someone, realise that those that are not established on Wikipedia try to follow common trends/patterns that have been carried out by other editors, such as categorising GUE-NGL MEPs by nationality and party. Try reading the previous and following questions and statements, they do play a part. B****ing doesn't help!-- Theosony ( talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Calm down, dear. I didn't flame you, I asked a question. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Once a category is listed for discussion, all options including deletion are available. No separate proposal is needed. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh right, thank you! I would like to propose a deletion of this category. I will move the other category-MEPs into the parent section and discuss the other categories (French & German) on those MEPs talk pages.-- Theosony ( talk) 20:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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. Kbdank71 15:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming

• Category:Orthodox cathedrals to Category:Eastern Orthodox cathedrals
• Category:Orthodox Christian seminaries to Category:Eastern Orthodox seminaries
• Category:Orthodox monasteries to Category:Eastern Orthodox monasteries
• Category:Orthodoxy by country to Category:Eastern Orthodoxy by country
• Category:Eastern liturgy to Category:Eastern Christian liturgy

Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid any confusion over "Orthodox" or "Eastern" and for consistency with siblings and the umbrella categories of Category:Eastern Orthodoxy and Category:Eastern Christianity. Expanded from original nomination of the cathedrals category.- choster ( talk) 06:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename all per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment Those things that are owned by a specific Church (for example a cathedral or a monestary) are okay to rename for clarity. However, you can't own a liturgy, it's like owning an idea. Eastern Catholics use that liturgy too. Same thing with Eastern Orthodox church architecture which isn't really owned by the Orthodox chruch but shared with other Byzantine Rite churches. So rename the rest but change the liturgy one to Category:Byzantine Rite liturgy. -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Category:Eastern liturgy is not exclusively about the Byzantine Rite, and thus the proposed proposal rename is to Eastern Christian, not Eastern Orthodox. The category includes articles applicable to Antiochene, Armenian, and Old Believers. A separate category for Byzantine Rite topics can be created down the line, but the ambiguous "Eastern liturgy" remains to be dealt with.- choster ( talk) 03:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Winners of 7 Munster medals (hurling) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Winners of 2 National League medals (hurling) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Per WP:OCAT#Award_recipients, categorisation by award is problematic. It causes category clutter and in instances like this it tends to adopt arbitrary thresholds.

If the info in these unparented categories of hurlers is worth capturing, it can be better done by a list. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ---- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note. I have just found Category:Winners of All-Ireland medals by count (hurling) and its sub-categories, which are better-organised and better populated. Whatever the case for keeping the All-Ireland categories, the most significant hurling competition is the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship, and categories nominated here are for less significant competitions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - similar to previously deleted categories for multiple Academy Award winners. Not to get all waxy but if winning more than one Oscar is not considered a defining characteristic than winning multiple hurling medals certainly isn't. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - these both seem specific to one person John Fenton and are not part of any larger scheme for numbers other than 7 or 2, resp. Frivolous categories. (An opportunity was missed for Category:Texaco Hurlers of the Year, regrettably.) Occuli ( talk) 17:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete incomplete with only 2 categories and no need at the moment Gnevin ( talk) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete definitely delete per nom & Occuli. ww2censor ( talk) 16:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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 all and upmerge Category:Police-community relations in Cincinnati to Category:People shot dead by police in the United States and Category:People from Cincinnati, Ohio. Kbdank71 15:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Government of Baltimore to Category:Government of Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Government of Baltimore County to Category:Government of Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Government of Chicago to Category:Government of Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Government of Cleveland to Category:Government of Cleveland, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Government of Louisville to Category:Government of Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Government of Minneapolis to Category:Government of Minneapolis, Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:Government of Omaha to Category:Government of Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Government of Philadelphia to Category:Government of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Government of San Diego to Category:Government of San Diego, California

Propose renaming Category:Law and government of Dallas, Texas to Category:Government of Dallas, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Government and politics of Seattle to Category:Government of Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Government and politics of Tampa, Florida to Category:Government of Tampa, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Politics of Cincinnati to Category:Politics of Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Police-community relations in Cincinnati to Category:Police-community relations in Cincinnati, Ohio

Nominator's rationale: Following a series of precedents involving applying the state to the city name. The Dallas, Seattle, and Tampa categories are entirely or almost entirely about government, so de-coupling the concepts seems smart.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete or Rename Category:Police-community relations in Cincinnati to something else. This is a collection of articles that involved police. Not sure that this is correctly classified as community relations. If there is no consensus on this point then the rename as proposed is needed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • On further review, it's actually all article about people shot by the Cincinnati police, and the riots thereafter. We have Category:People shot dead by police in the United States, so maybe it's Category:People shot dead by police in Cincinnati, Ohio?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Since the parent only has 17 articles, maybe upmerge? One wonders if this category was created for WP:POINT or if there are issues with WP:NPOV. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I think that's more an AfD argument than a CfD one. But I also have no problems with upmerging to Category:People shot dead by police in the United States and maybe Category:People from Cincinnati, Ohio.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge Category:Police-community relations in Cincinnati to Category:People shot dead by police in the United States and Category:People from Cincinnati, Ohio. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Companies Formed at New York University ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unnecessary category. Enigma ^msg 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - small category, unlikely to expand. How many other companies have been formed while all founding members were at NYU? If retained, rename to correct capitalization of "formed". Otto4711 ( talk) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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