From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 8

Category:The Atlantic (magazine)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:The Atlantic (magazine) to Category:The Atlantic
Nominator's rationale: Per main article — Justin (koavf)TCM23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Note If the result is "keep", then I will nominate the article at WP:RM. — Justin (koavf)TCM00:12, 9 January 2011 (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.

Academic journals by publisher

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 per nom. Consistency in naming wins here. Ruslik_ Zero 15:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Reason: Consistency within Category:Academic journals by publisher. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

  • The italics in "publishing" was to indicate the difference with the original proposal, since corrected. Adding "academic" will make these categories consistent with the vast majority of other categories dealing with academic journals. It will also remove any ambiguity: these categories are for academic journals, the Wall Street Journal is not intended to be part of this... In addition, the proposal is about more than just adding "academic": it also intends to correct the names of the involved publishers. :-) -- Crusio ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • (unindent) Comment A while ago I started to include "academic" in all new categories that I created for journal articles. The reason is that, even though it may seem redundant to academics like us, it is not to most other editors. I've had lots of discussion with people protesting that I categorized a certain article in a "magazine" cat, because the periodical had the word "journal" in the title. Many newspapers do, too (Wall Street Journal, for example). There are publishers that have newspapers, magazines and academic journals in their portfolio (Elsevier and the owners of Nature Publishing Group -Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group- for example). Naming these categories more clearly would help making things clearer to editors not familiar with this project, IMHO. -- Crusio ( talk) 08:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, and remove "academic" from the other categories. Crusio, I understand what you were thinking, but I think adding "academic" to newly created categories in an established category tree was a mistake. A better tack might have been nominating the established categories to add "academic."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
...but the category tree is already established with the "academic" in it!? I fucked up and created the new ones without the academic. If you remove the 6 I created by mistake on January 4, there were 46 categories. Of these, 40 had "academic journals", 3 had "journals", and 3 had "publications [as they are slightly larger than simply academic journals]". Post fuck-up, the count changed to 42/9/3. If I didn't fuck up, it would have been 46/3/3, and we'd be renaming the three weirdos. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Ah, I see. OK, revising my comment to Rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Lists of United States populated places by ethnic group. I chose a title that I like the most to break this stalemate. If someone has better ideas they can start a new CFD. Ruslik_ Zero 14:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Previous CfD closed with consensus for renaming but with no consensus as to the new name. Relisting as suggested. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Possible Rename (Requires article moves): Category: Lists of U.S. locations by ethnic majority would desribe most but not all of the articles in the current cat. But this would require some articles not about majorities like this one or this one to be moved to Category:Ethnic enclaves in the United States (or subcats) so maybe there's a better rename out there. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The current title is a widely-used form of nonsense: everyone has an ethnicity, so 100% of every area has an ethnic population. (Just noticed that Peterkingiron made that point above, but it's worth repeating). I think that what is intended is to refer to communities which are numerically dominated by an ethnic group which is in a minority in the US as a whole.
    None of the proposed renames solves the problem so far: RevelationDirect's suggestion of "ethnic majority" is much better than the current usage, though it could be read as assuming that "ethnic" applies only to non-majority groups, and raising that perspective highlight the wider problem that as a collection these lists are racially-biased to select non-white groups (where's the list of WASP cities?). The fact that the non-list categories are called "ethnic enclaves" suggests to me that there is a much wider problem of terminology in this area of wikipedia: describing an area where one group is in a majority as an "enclave" seems to me to be highly prejudicial terminology. I expect that categorising Beverly Hills as a "white enclave" would generate a furore ... so why is this language being used for non-white areas? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: In American English, "ethnic" often refers to the national origin of white people (Italian, Irish, German Americans) but I've never heard it applied to white people generally. I don't know if that helps or hurts my suggestion of going with majorities but I'm not even sure it's the best solution, just better than what's there now. RevelationDirect ( talk) 06:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless a robust definition and a more appropriate name can be provided. So far no one has. "Large" is subjective and cannot be allowed in a category. If the object is to identify places with a majority of Blacks or a majority of Hispanics, we might have the basis of two categories, but a place with 30% blacks and 30% Hispanics has two substantial ethnic minorities, not an ethnic majority. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • comment when I created this category I took the articles from Category:Demographics of the United States where they will all go back to if this category is deleted--which already had too many disparate articles. I took the list articles that were about populated places having this or that ethnic majority. I did not write those articles and did not define what was considered 'ethnic'--I just took what I found. Other articles were about 'large' populations of certain ethnic groups in populated places. Some articles use 10,000 as the cutoff; some use 100,000; some use other cutoffs. Again, I took whatever list articles there were and put them into this category. No one seems to be complaining about the articles being named with 'large': the contentns of the article define what 'large' is in each case. The lists had and have the common thread of ethnicity in American demographics. Perhaps a better name would be Category:Lists of U.S. populated places by ethnic group or Category:Lists of U.S. populated places with minority majorities (here one must remove the 'large' lists from this group) Hmains ( talk) 04:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Lists of populated places in the United States by demographics. I think this covers the intent of the categories without making a claim about who exactly is covered in each article.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 07:01, 17 January 2011 (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.

New category Category:Poets by time period

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: procedural close. There's no reason raised against this, but CfD doesn't really approve things like this out of the gate. It's better discussed on a WikiProject page. If you do this, use "movement" rather than "movement." -- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposal: In the Category:Poets category create a new category Category:Poets by time period (similar to Category:Writers by time period) and move some categories from the Category:Poets category - Category:Ancient Greek poets, Category:Roman era poets, Category:Medieval poets. -- Averaver ( talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

New category Category:Poets by movements

Proposal: In the Category:Poets category create a new category Category:Poets by movements and move some categories - Category:Beat Generation poets, Category:Symbolist poets, Category:Objectivist poets, Category:Slam poets, Category:Spoken word poets, Category:Surrealist poets, Category:War poets, Category:Formalist poets, Category:Imagists, Category:Modernist poets, Category:Oral poets, Category:Romantic poets. Add a new category into the Category:Poetry movements category. -- Averaver ( talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I added message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry Page. -- Averaver ( talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
It's not a case of "leaving a message" there - the wholee debate should be there. Categories aren't created through CfD! Grutness... wha? 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
New category Category:Writers by movements

Proposal: In the Category:Writers category create a new category Category:Writers by movements and move some categories - Category:Beat Generation writers, Category:Cyberpunk writers, Category:Imagists, Category:Minimalist writers, Category:Symbolist writers, Category:Renaissance writers, Category:Surrealist writers. Add a new category into the Category:Literary movements category. -- Averaver ( talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I added message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature Page. -- Averaver ( talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (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:Native inhibitants of Tamil Nadu

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) 22:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Native inhibitants of Tamil Nadu ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Misspellt name. Furthermore, it seems to be a pov category. Soman ( talk) 12:45, 8 January 2011 (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:Clan Macaulay of Lewis

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. No objection raised.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Clan Macaulay of Lewis to Category:Macaulay family of Lewis
Nominator's rationale: To match the article Macaulay family of Lewis, and to differentiate it further from Clan MacAulay (which is a recognised Scottish clan). As far as I know, the Lewis family never had a chief who bore a coat of arms that showed his rank among his peers, like the others listed at List of Scottish clans. The chiefs of Clan MacAulay did though, that's why they're listed as a clan in books on the subject, but funnily enough I think the Lewis Macaulays have been written about more. So I think the cat should be renamed and it should go into Category:Scottish families rather than Category:Scottish clans.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 08:56, 8 January 2011 (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:Wikipedia expand-section box with explanation text

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per G1: empty category. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Wikipedia expand-section box with explanation text ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category tracks certain uses of the {{ expand-section}} template. The category page states "We will probably remove this logging from the template and delete this category some weeks from now, when we have studied the existing cases out there." That was in March 2009. I don't think this category is really helping anyone anymore. This is the sort of list I would expect to be generated by a bot, and placed on someone's user subpage. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: temporary category to inform discussion on modification of a maintenance template, discussion long since concluded, so category redundant (unless somebody suddenly thinks up some new reason why we desperately need it). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Agree with that-- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 10:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The code has been removed, so the category should evaporate of its own accord. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:23, 8 January 2011 (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:Dermatology journals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Dermatology journals to Category:Dermatologic journals
Nominator's rationale: I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the Category:Dermatology subcategories use the term "Dermatologic"; therefore, I am proposing this rename to maintain this convention. At this time, almost all the dermatology subcategories already use the term "Dermatologic". --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 04:40, 8 January 2011 (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:YouTube video producers

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:YouTube video producers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am not convinced that category belongs. YouTube does not have producers, does it? I agree that for some individuals, this could be defining. But based on the current contents which includes a lot more then individuals, we have a good example of how this subjective criteria for inclusion will make the current form unmaintainable. If deleted, recreation could be allowed with better inclusion criteria. If kept it needs a new name. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:55, 8 January 2011 (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.

Welfare by nation and Public welfare in Puerto Rico

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Welfare by nation to Category:Welfare by country and Category:Public welfare in Puerto Rico to Category:Welfare in Puerto Rico
Nominator's rationale: Rename main category in line with the usual naming conventions ie "by country" (which I overlooked when adding subcategories by country). And rename subcategory for Puerto Rico to conform to main category. Note that there is no article called Public welfare in Puerto Rico; it is a redirect. Hugo999 ( talk) 01:29, 8 January 2011 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 8

Category:The Atlantic (magazine)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:The Atlantic (magazine) to Category:The Atlantic
Nominator's rationale: Per main article — Justin (koavf)TCM23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Note If the result is "keep", then I will nominate the article at WP:RM. — Justin (koavf)TCM00:12, 9 January 2011 (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.

Academic journals by publisher

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 per nom. Consistency in naming wins here. Ruslik_ Zero 15:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Reason: Consistency within Category:Academic journals by publisher. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

  • The italics in "publishing" was to indicate the difference with the original proposal, since corrected. Adding "academic" will make these categories consistent with the vast majority of other categories dealing with academic journals. It will also remove any ambiguity: these categories are for academic journals, the Wall Street Journal is not intended to be part of this... In addition, the proposal is about more than just adding "academic": it also intends to correct the names of the involved publishers. :-) -- Crusio ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • (unindent) Comment A while ago I started to include "academic" in all new categories that I created for journal articles. The reason is that, even though it may seem redundant to academics like us, it is not to most other editors. I've had lots of discussion with people protesting that I categorized a certain article in a "magazine" cat, because the periodical had the word "journal" in the title. Many newspapers do, too (Wall Street Journal, for example). There are publishers that have newspapers, magazines and academic journals in their portfolio (Elsevier and the owners of Nature Publishing Group -Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group- for example). Naming these categories more clearly would help making things clearer to editors not familiar with this project, IMHO. -- Crusio ( talk) 08:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, and remove "academic" from the other categories. Crusio, I understand what you were thinking, but I think adding "academic" to newly created categories in an established category tree was a mistake. A better tack might have been nominating the established categories to add "academic."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
...but the category tree is already established with the "academic" in it!? I fucked up and created the new ones without the academic. If you remove the 6 I created by mistake on January 4, there were 46 categories. Of these, 40 had "academic journals", 3 had "journals", and 3 had "publications [as they are slightly larger than simply academic journals]". Post fuck-up, the count changed to 42/9/3. If I didn't fuck up, it would have been 46/3/3, and we'd be renaming the three weirdos. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Ah, I see. OK, revising my comment to Rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Lists of United States populated places by ethnic group. I chose a title that I like the most to break this stalemate. If someone has better ideas they can start a new CFD. Ruslik_ Zero 14:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Previous CfD closed with consensus for renaming but with no consensus as to the new name. Relisting as suggested. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Possible Rename (Requires article moves): Category: Lists of U.S. locations by ethnic majority would desribe most but not all of the articles in the current cat. But this would require some articles not about majorities like this one or this one to be moved to Category:Ethnic enclaves in the United States (or subcats) so maybe there's a better rename out there. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer ( talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The current title is a widely-used form of nonsense: everyone has an ethnicity, so 100% of every area has an ethnic population. (Just noticed that Peterkingiron made that point above, but it's worth repeating). I think that what is intended is to refer to communities which are numerically dominated by an ethnic group which is in a minority in the US as a whole.
    None of the proposed renames solves the problem so far: RevelationDirect's suggestion of "ethnic majority" is much better than the current usage, though it could be read as assuming that "ethnic" applies only to non-majority groups, and raising that perspective highlight the wider problem that as a collection these lists are racially-biased to select non-white groups (where's the list of WASP cities?). The fact that the non-list categories are called "ethnic enclaves" suggests to me that there is a much wider problem of terminology in this area of wikipedia: describing an area where one group is in a majority as an "enclave" seems to me to be highly prejudicial terminology. I expect that categorising Beverly Hills as a "white enclave" would generate a furore ... so why is this language being used for non-white areas? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: In American English, "ethnic" often refers to the national origin of white people (Italian, Irish, German Americans) but I've never heard it applied to white people generally. I don't know if that helps or hurts my suggestion of going with majorities but I'm not even sure it's the best solution, just better than what's there now. RevelationDirect ( talk) 06:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless a robust definition and a more appropriate name can be provided. So far no one has. "Large" is subjective and cannot be allowed in a category. If the object is to identify places with a majority of Blacks or a majority of Hispanics, we might have the basis of two categories, but a place with 30% blacks and 30% Hispanics has two substantial ethnic minorities, not an ethnic majority. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • comment when I created this category I took the articles from Category:Demographics of the United States where they will all go back to if this category is deleted--which already had too many disparate articles. I took the list articles that were about populated places having this or that ethnic majority. I did not write those articles and did not define what was considered 'ethnic'--I just took what I found. Other articles were about 'large' populations of certain ethnic groups in populated places. Some articles use 10,000 as the cutoff; some use 100,000; some use other cutoffs. Again, I took whatever list articles there were and put them into this category. No one seems to be complaining about the articles being named with 'large': the contentns of the article define what 'large' is in each case. The lists had and have the common thread of ethnicity in American demographics. Perhaps a better name would be Category:Lists of U.S. populated places by ethnic group or Category:Lists of U.S. populated places with minority majorities (here one must remove the 'large' lists from this group) Hmains ( talk) 04:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Lists of populated places in the United States by demographics. I think this covers the intent of the categories without making a claim about who exactly is covered in each article.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 07:01, 17 January 2011 (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.

New category Category:Poets by time period

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: procedural close. There's no reason raised against this, but CfD doesn't really approve things like this out of the gate. It's better discussed on a WikiProject page. If you do this, use "movement" rather than "movement." -- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposal: In the Category:Poets category create a new category Category:Poets by time period (similar to Category:Writers by time period) and move some categories from the Category:Poets category - Category:Ancient Greek poets, Category:Roman era poets, Category:Medieval poets. -- Averaver ( talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

New category Category:Poets by movements

Proposal: In the Category:Poets category create a new category Category:Poets by movements and move some categories - Category:Beat Generation poets, Category:Symbolist poets, Category:Objectivist poets, Category:Slam poets, Category:Spoken word poets, Category:Surrealist poets, Category:War poets, Category:Formalist poets, Category:Imagists, Category:Modernist poets, Category:Oral poets, Category:Romantic poets. Add a new category into the Category:Poetry movements category. -- Averaver ( talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I added message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry Page. -- Averaver ( talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
It's not a case of "leaving a message" there - the wholee debate should be there. Categories aren't created through CfD! Grutness... wha? 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
New category Category:Writers by movements

Proposal: In the Category:Writers category create a new category Category:Writers by movements and move some categories - Category:Beat Generation writers, Category:Cyberpunk writers, Category:Imagists, Category:Minimalist writers, Category:Symbolist writers, Category:Renaissance writers, Category:Surrealist writers. Add a new category into the Category:Literary movements category. -- Averaver ( talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I added message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature Page. -- Averaver ( talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (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:Native inhibitants of Tamil Nadu

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) 22:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Native inhibitants of Tamil Nadu ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Misspellt name. Furthermore, it seems to be a pov category. Soman ( talk) 12:45, 8 January 2011 (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:Clan Macaulay of Lewis

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. No objection raised.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Clan Macaulay of Lewis to Category:Macaulay family of Lewis
Nominator's rationale: To match the article Macaulay family of Lewis, and to differentiate it further from Clan MacAulay (which is a recognised Scottish clan). As far as I know, the Lewis family never had a chief who bore a coat of arms that showed his rank among his peers, like the others listed at List of Scottish clans. The chiefs of Clan MacAulay did though, that's why they're listed as a clan in books on the subject, but funnily enough I think the Lewis Macaulays have been written about more. So I think the cat should be renamed and it should go into Category:Scottish families rather than Category:Scottish clans.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 08:56, 8 January 2011 (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:Wikipedia expand-section box with explanation text

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per G1: empty category. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Wikipedia expand-section box with explanation text ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category tracks certain uses of the {{ expand-section}} template. The category page states "We will probably remove this logging from the template and delete this category some weeks from now, when we have studied the existing cases out there." That was in March 2009. I don't think this category is really helping anyone anymore. This is the sort of list I would expect to be generated by a bot, and placed on someone's user subpage. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: temporary category to inform discussion on modification of a maintenance template, discussion long since concluded, so category redundant (unless somebody suddenly thinks up some new reason why we desperately need it). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Agree with that-- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 10:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The code has been removed, so the category should evaporate of its own accord. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:23, 8 January 2011 (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:Dermatology journals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Dermatology journals to Category:Dermatologic journals
Nominator's rationale: I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the Category:Dermatology subcategories use the term "Dermatologic"; therefore, I am proposing this rename to maintain this convention. At this time, almost all the dermatology subcategories already use the term "Dermatologic". --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 04:40, 8 January 2011 (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:YouTube video producers

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:YouTube video producers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am not convinced that category belongs. YouTube does not have producers, does it? I agree that for some individuals, this could be defining. But based on the current contents which includes a lot more then individuals, we have a good example of how this subjective criteria for inclusion will make the current form unmaintainable. If deleted, recreation could be allowed with better inclusion criteria. If kept it needs a new name. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:55, 8 January 2011 (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.

Welfare by nation and Public welfare in Puerto Rico

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Welfare by nation to Category:Welfare by country and Category:Public welfare in Puerto Rico to Category:Welfare in Puerto Rico
Nominator's rationale: Rename main category in line with the usual naming conventions ie "by country" (which I overlooked when adding subcategories by country). And rename subcategory for Puerto Rico to conform to main category. Note that there is no article called Public welfare in Puerto Rico; it is a redirect. Hugo999 ( talk) 01:29, 8 January 2011 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook