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) 02:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Survivors of the 1918 flu pandemic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: In article after article, I'm seeing this category applied to bios where there is no mention of having contracted the flu. (It almost seems as if the criterion of the category creator is that the individual was alive in 1918?) At any rate, the category needs to be pruned so that it only is applied to people who are referenced as 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic survivors, or deleted entirely. From what I can see at this point, delete. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete As it includes anyone who was alive from 1918 and didn't die immediately.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 23:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nomination. I saw this added to Mary Pickford and, having worked on the article, I know there's no mention of her even having had that particular strain of flu much less her having survived it. I clicked on a few other articles that this was added to and there's no mention of the subjects having been ill. Further, I see no usefulness to this category. Pinkadelica ^♣ 23:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete category covers an unreasonably large amount of people which means that it is not a notable piece of information. Victims of the pandemic yes - survivors no. I saw the sourced information and the category added to Walter Benjamin who did indeed get the flu and survive, but honestly I don't see how this is notable information. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This category is daft. My grandfathers survived the pandemic, as did my grandmothers, three or four aunts and several uncles. It's completely non-notable. There were millions of people who survived the pandemic – many, many more, by a factor of 100s, than those that died from the infection. Graham Colm ( talk) 00:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have added all of the necessary citations for all of the articles that did not have them, and this does not and should not cover those who didn't die immediately but those who were sickened during the pandemic and survived the flu altogether, which is the case of everyone in the category. And it is notable because these people, unlike Graham Colm's grandparents, aunt, and uncles, are notable and the pandemic was a major event in the 20th century. User:And we drown· User talk:And we drown 00:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

What makes you think my grandparents, aunts and uncles were not notable:-) What evidence is there that any of the subjects of the biographies went down the infection? Every person on the planet didn't catch it. It's like adding a category of survivors of the flood. Graham Colm ( talk) 00:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

They did all have it and survive, and it is documented now. As I said before, I have added all of the necessary citations for all of the articles that did not already have them. User:And we drown· User talk:And we drown 01:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

They did not "all have it" the overall mortality rates "were <1%, and case-fatality rates were <3%". Shanks GD, Brundage JF (February 2012). "Pathogenic responses among young adults during the 1918 influenza pandemic". Emerging Infect. Dis. 18 (2): 201–7. doi: 10.3201/eid1802.102042. PMC  3310443. PMID  22306191.. Graham Colm ( talk) 01:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep— This is a "defining characteristic" of those who have it. The categorization guideline says that "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". If someone survived the pandemic in the sense that they caught the flu and didn't die, it will be mentioned in their biographies, so there's no reason we shouldn't have a category for it. Furthermore, books about the pandemic commonly list notable survivors, which suggests that the cross-indexing provided by this category would be useful.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 00:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

It is most certainly not a defining characteristic to have survived an epidemic with a mortality between 10-20%. Especially not for people who didn't even contract the virus. IN the same sense it would haircolor or having a moustache would be defininf characteristics. I know biographies of hundreds of persons who lived through 1918 that do not mention the flu epidemic even once. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

That's the thing though, they ALL contracted it. And they ALL have mentions of it in their biographies that are documented. User:And we drown· User talk:And we drown 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The source you added for Walter Benjamin was not a biography of him but memoirs of his friend who mentioned it in passing. It is in no way a "defining" characteristic of Walter Benjamin that he was a 1918 flu survivor, except in the trivial sense that he didn't die and therefore went on to do the work that made him notable. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

It's still a reliable source, and I think it is a defining characteristic, at least as much as, if not more than people who survived cancer, strokes, smallpox, or 9/11. User:And we drown· User talk:And we drown 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I thought we were talking only about people who contracted the virus. That's the characteristic I'm defending as defining.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 01:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

What evidence is there that this is mentioned in any biographies, and what books about the pandemic "list notable survivors"? I have copies of several books, and none mention survivors. These include:

Barry, John M. (2005). The great influenza: the epic story of the deadliest plague in history. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN  0-14-303649-1.

Quinn, Tom (2008). Flu: A Social History of Influenza. New Holland Publishers (UK) LTD. ISBN  1-84537-941-1.

Garrett, Laurie (1994). The coming plague: newly emerging diseases in a world out of balance. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN  0-14-025091-3.

Karlen, Arno (1996). Man and microbes: disease and plagues in history and modern times. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN  0-684-82270-9.

Viruses, Plagues, and History: Past, Present and Future. Oxford University Press, USA. 2009. ISBN  0-19-532731-4.

Crawford, Dorothy H. (2000). The invisible enemy: a natural history of viruses. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN  0-19-856481-3.

And many more

This category was recently added to Franz Kafka, but there is no evidence at all that he caught the infection. Neither did Aldous Huxley, George Bernard Shaw, George Orwell, Alexander Fleming, James Joyce and so on and so on. We could add this category to 99.9% of notable persons born before 1918. A category of "victims" might be more useful. Graham Colm ( talk)

There's these, which I found when I was looking for a source for Mary Pickford:

• Kirsty Duncan (19 August 2006). Hunting the 1918 Flu: One Scientist's Search for a Killer Virus. University of Toronto Press. pp. 16–. ISBN  978-0-8020-9456-8. Retrieved 12 January 2013.
• Miriam Segall (30 June 2007). Pandemics: Epidemics in a Shrinking World. The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 25–. ISBN  978-1-4042-0975-6. Retrieved 12 January 2013.

— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 01:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks, these are useful sources, which I will add to my collection. But, as I said above "victims" might be a more meaningful category. And we would need concrete proof that they contracted the infection. Graham Colm ( talk) 01:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

In Walt Disney, I simply saw Collier, 1974. Were you planning on adding the book to the bibliography? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Shawn, the only book I have in my library by a Collier is "Sussman, Max; Topley, W. W. C.; Wilson, Graham K.; Collier, L. H.; Balows, Albert (1998). Topley & Wilson's microbiology and microbial infections. London: Arnold. ISBN  0-340-61470-6.", unfortunately Walt Disney is not mentioned. I used to have a copy of "The Plague of the Spanish Lady – The Influenza Pandemic of 1918–19" by another Collier, which I gave to an Oxfam shop many years ago, but I can't recall if Disney was mentioned in it. Graham Colm ( talk) 02:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you. And I see you have removed the reference in question. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Do not see the point. Arguments above do not convince me. Open to speculation. -- Marco ( talk) 16:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete – In reviewing the [[Category:1908 births]] through [[Category:1918 births]] I see 4,000+ entries per year. Each of these people, who have achieved notability and a WP article, were around during the pandemic. The numbers drop to 3,000+ entries per year for [[Category:1900s births]]. With this data in mind, the flu survivor category has a population of over 100,000 articles!-- S. Rich ( talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • In fairness, that very question, raised by me in my nom, has been answered by the category creator. He did not intend to add it to everyone who was simply "around during the pandemic." Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Quite true and quite fair. But a slippery slope is there because the category is created. Who's going to monitor which category additions are made for people who actually caught the flu and survived -- verified with RS -- and those who were merely around in 1918? As 200 million people caught it, and 20-50 million died, out of a world population estimate of 1.8 billion, I hazard to say that everyone was exposed (more or less) to the flu and therefore everyone is a "survivor" of the pandemic. (The 1–3% overall mortality is not helpful in narrowing the category because the category is for survivors.) -- S. Rich ( talk) 20:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Having nominated it for deletion, I certainly don't want to make the case for retaining. But monitoring categories for unreferenced inclusions is a project-wide issue, and a category description could be written to make it clear that only people who are referenced as having contracted the flu and survived should be added. In fact, anyone is welcome to write that decription there, now. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Even if the criterion for inclusion was having caught the disease and survived it, I think that the subject would be too common to warrant a category. The converse "victims of the pandemic" might be permissible, in that a limited number of the 20-50 million victims will be WP notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete the way this category is named, such as using the term "pandemic", this is essentially an invitation to categorize everyone born before 1918 and alive after 1919 in it. This is a bad idea. Even if we could limit it to people like Ernest L. Wilkinson who actually got the flu, it would be very large and include many people for whom this was at best a minor event (it is actually mentioned in biographies of Wilkinson, I am not sure if it shows up in the article), but will normally be entirely trivial. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete anyone whose lifespan traversed 1918 fits; not meaningful or defining. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As pointed out above, there are simply too many problems with establishing this as a defining characteristic for anyone. Also, I don't believe that anyone discussed the issue of including everyone born in 1918 into this category. Bottom line there are simply too many problems. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:National Football League 75th Anniversity All-Time Team to Category:National Football League 75th Anniversary All-Time Team

Nominator's rationale: Typo GrapedApe ( talk) 20:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:OC#PERF and/or WP:OC#AWARD (or rename if not deleted). DexDor ( talk) 07:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. -- Marco ( talk) 16:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete this is categorization by award, which we avoid in almost all cases. Considering how many categories football players end up in anyway, this is clearly not needed. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete OCAT by award. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep but repurpose to exclude biographies of Native American people which should be moved where necessary into the "X people" categories. Rename two from the word "from" to "in", namely Category:Native Americans in California and Category:Native Americans in Pennsylvania. The state sub-cats of Category:Native American tribes by state should serve as a useful intermediate level. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Native Americans in Maryland to Category:Native American history of Maryland
• Propose renaming Category:Native Americans in Nebraska to Category:Native American history of Nebraska
• Propose merging Category:Native Americans in Virginia to Category:Native American history of Virginia
• Propose renaming Category:Native Americans in Washington, D.C. to Category:Native American history of Washington, D.C.

Conditional merge on moving the biographies to the appropriate "(tribe) people)" categories:

• Propose merging Category:Native Americans from California to Category:Native American history of California
• Propose merging Category:Native Americans in Indiana to Category:Native American history of Indiana

Conditional deletion on moving the biographies to the appropriate "(tribe) people)" categories:

• Propose deleting Category:Native Americans from Pennsylvania
• Propose deleting Category:Native Americans by state

Nominator's rationale: The top set of categories doesn't contain people. Instead, they contain elements that would normally be found in the history categories, and very few of them at that. The bottom set contains people, which, as the commenters below note, should move to the appropriate "(X) people" categories.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge and rename per nom. Their current names strongly suggest that we put biographies or everything Native American for each state into them; the first option would leave them empty, and the second would simply make them parents for the "Native American history of _____" categories. Empty categories get deleted, and a pointless additional layer in the category tree won't help, so let's get rid of them now by merging/renaming. Nyttend ( talk) 18:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Actually biographies of Native American people should be categorized according to ethnic goup, such as Cherokee, Choctaw etc. Thus Larry Echohawk should be in Category:Pawnee people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Good points. Okay, I've modified the nomination to account for the remaining state categories, on the condition that the bios get recategorized to the equivalents of Category:Pawnee people.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It's not an either/or position though. These catagorizations can happen in addition to their place-based catagorizations. It's not coincidence that tribes are where they are currently, and WP should reflect that. • Freechild talk 05:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Strongly Oppose. "History" is the past, and some these people in the categories are alive today, e.g. Larry Echohawk. Just because someone is Native American doesn't automatically make them "history." I spent a long period of time clearing non-historical entries out of the history categories. For instance, a tribe, such as Pawnee people, that is still around today shouldn't be categorized as history. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 22:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi reply
  • History is still happening.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

"History ... is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about these events." - Uyvsdi ( talk) 23:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi reply

One thing to consider: Other than the African-American tree, the rest of the "ethnic American" categories use "culture" rather than "history." Might be worth looking at.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 00:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Strongly Oppose. People are not simply a history nor anthropological "culture" simply because they're accounted for. They're existent now, currently, in the place they are, in addition to the places they've been. WP should reflect that reality. • Freechild talk 05:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename to all ... culture , as in the African-American tree. Mayumashu ( talk) 09:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The categories in question contain lists of individual people. Native American cultures do not, in any way, conform to state boundaries. There are cultural subcats; however, these are defined by cultural regions, i.e. Category:Indigenous culture of the Great Basin, Category:Great Plains tribal culture, Category:Great Lakes tribal culture, Category:Indigenous culture of Aridoamerica, etc. There's also "topics" subcats, such as Category:Indigenous topics of the Southeastern Woodlands, Category:Indigenous topics of the Great Plains, etc. Keep or delete the individual Native American people by state categories, but please do not create a host of new, utterly useless categories. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 18:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi reply

Incidentally, California is a cultural region, e.g. indigenous peoples of California, which is why there are more articles and categories pertaining to California, the cultural region, than there would be other other individual US states (with the exception of Alaska). - Uyvsdi ( talk) 18:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi reply

• Comment we have never agreed to subdivide the contents of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin by state. With Native Americans it is an especially bad idea. Just look at the contents of Category:Pawnee people. This will either involved retroactively imposing a state on people who did not live in one, and did not acknowledge US power over them, or you have Larry Echohawk who was born in Wyoming, raised in New Mexico, held political office in Idaho and was a law professor in Utah. Do we really want him in Category:Native Americans in New Mexico, Category:Native Americans in Utah and Category:Native Americans in Idaho. Also there is the fact that generally we try to seperate bio and non-bio articles. I think we are best off treating these as categories for non-biographical articles. There might be justification for grouping bio articles by state, but I think if we do that we should be explicit. I might consider supporting Category:Native American people from Pennsylvania or Category:Native American people in Pennsylvania and Category:Native American people from Utah or Category:Native American people in Utah, to hold such people as Kanosh and Sagowitz. However I think if we go that route we should make it clear the categories are for biographical articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Keep or delete, just please don't create a new class of categories. However, as I pointed about above, Category:Native Americans from California has more relevance than state categories since California is a cultural region. It would be on par with Category:Alaska Native people. California has both more tribes and a larger Native American population than Alaska. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 23:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi reply

• Actually, the idea of making the California category like the Alaska Native category is a bad idea. A large percentage of Native Americans in California come from groups from the Iroquois to the Cherokee to the Navajo who have not traditionally lived in California. While there are also large number of people from groups like the Chumash who have traditionally lived there, California got lots and lots of Native Americans from elsewhere, especially as a result of mid-20th century BIA programs to move Native Americans off reservations. It is a bad idea to think of this category as a ethnic designation, since there are literally thousands of Native Americans in California from tribes that did not live there historically. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment some of the people put in these categories, such as Anthony Deydier, are not Native American at all. This makes things really confusing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename categories like Category:Native Americans from Pennsylvania to Category:Native American people from Pennsylvania to make their biographical content more explicit. Rename Category:Native Americans in Maryland to Category:Native American culture in Maryland, to use the word "history" disconts the presents of the Wesorts/Naticoke, and takes a stand in the debate about how Native American they really are. I would also suggest we should avoid cateogization by place for people who lived in the place before Euro-American government established the place. For example we should not put anyone killed in the Civil War in Category:Native American people from Oklahoma. Ely S. Parker might fit in a Kansas category, but Sacagawea should not go in an Idaho or Dakota category. On the other hand, Pocahontas/Rebecca Rolfe should go in Category:Virginia colonial people and Category:Native American people from Virginia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Request of closer Could this possibly be relisted to see if anyone thinks my new porposal has any merit? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Notice I just put a notice on this discussion at the Native American tribes wikipedia page. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Strongly Oppose. History is past, some of these are BLPs. There is no need to rename this category. GregJackP  Boomer! 05:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The problem is that most of these categories are not meant to hold biographical articles at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Sure they are. Look at the California category as an example. GregJackP  Boomer! 01:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Summiters of all 14 eight-thousanders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly specific criterion, totally trivial, not really relevant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 11:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • Questions: As someone who nominates substantial numbers of categories for deletion and participates quite often at CfD, it's not clear how you came to the conclusion that this category should be deleted. There is a parent article for eight-thousander that addresses the inclusion criteia. Why is this "overly specific"? Do you have any experience climbing mountains or knowledge about the subject that would demonstrate that climbing all 14 of the world's mountains in excess of 8,000 metres (26,000 ft) would be "totally trivial"? Given that all of the articles included in the category feature the accomplishment of climbing all 14 of these mountains in the lead section of the article as the primary claim of notability for these individuals, why is this defining characteristic "not really relevant"? Did you do any research (such as reading the corresponding articles) that led you to these conclusions or do you just select from a small set of arbitrary terms when you decided that this category was to be deleted? Alansohn ( talk) 17:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- This is a natable achievement for a mountaineer. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete It is categorization by an arbitrary number. Also we do not generally categorize people by having climbed mountains, but the heighth of the mountains here is totally arbitrary, so the whole things fails the rule againt creating arbitrary top x categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article eight-thousanders demonstrates that this is a well-defined grouping. The articles for these mountaineers not only mentions the remarkable feat of climbing all 14 mountains in this category, but almost exclusively mentions it as the person's primary defining characteristic. Alansohn ( talk) 01:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:DEFINING states "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining", but all the people in this cat mention this in their articles and is the reason for their notability. Eight-thousander is also clearly defined too, so it's not trivial. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Although the number may be relatively arbitrary, the inclusion rationale is well-defined, and a significant achievement in mountaineering. IgnorantArmies 13:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• KEEP, OF COURSE: This is a very famous challenge. As it happens, the Earth has 14 and only 14 mountains over 8.000 meters, and they became a category on its own. To climb all those is the equivalent of winning the "Grand Slam" in tennis, and for that you have Category:Grand_Slam_(tennis)_champions_in_men's_singles. You can check how well-known this feat is by looking at books such as this, this, this, three different books written by three different climbers who achieved that. -- Jbaranao ( talk) 02:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)---- reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:University Challenge contestants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:University Challenge contestants - spin-off shows ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Having appeared on a quiz show isn't defining for most of these entrants. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Listfy and then Delete -- These are performace by performer categories. Furthemore the perhformers are probably all NN, as yet, and so should not have articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Comment Your second sentence isn't correct (or I'm misunderstanding you), because Richard Baker (Scottish politician) and Allan Chapman (historian) are definitely notable and should have articles. Nyttend ( talk) 18:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete this is a performer by performance category, with the added problem that most of those involved are not notable for performing at all but other totally unrelated things. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Even though Marco was on it once. First round. We lost! -- Marco ( talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:A cappella albums. The two delete votes just expressed concern about whether A capella jazz is really a thing, presumably they don't have that concern about a capella in general. If Category:A cappella albums gets full subcategories can be created. delldot ∇. 07:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:A cappella jazz albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced that a cappella jazz is itself a genre. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete not a clear genre. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep As creator, I believe this is a valid category. I'm open to debate, but this is certainly how one would categorise albums by The Hi-Lo's, Manhattan Transfer, The Mel-Tones, Take 6 and others. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 20:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep or repurpose as Category:A cappella albums, which surprisingly does not exist yet. It seems to me to be a reasonable addition to a still underdeveloped (imo) Category:A cappella branch. We do have Vocal jazz and it seems to me that A cappella jazz could be an extension of that. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I have not done any research, but my gut instinct is that "A cappella albums" might be more suitable than "A cappella jazz albums". If this category become too populated then perhaps subcategories would be more appropriate. -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:A cappella albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 22:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep or rename per reasons articulated by Shawn in Montreal. - Mr X 14:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Notice of this discussion was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies here. This notice was not neutrally worded and therefore inappropriate per the behavioural guideline on Canvassing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT scientists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Deleted via CfD once before. I don't see that any of the previous concerns that caused it to be deleted has been dealt with. Still fails WP:OC#EGRS. Being LGBT and a scientist is not a "cultural topic in its own right". Nymf _{talk to me} 09:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete, a trivial intersection of categories. We need to be careful with its parent Category:Sexual orientation and science to ensure that it doesn't include biographies simply because they're scientists who identify as LGBT. Nyttend ( talk) 14:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- I do not see what relevance sexual orientation has to the discipline of science. It would be different for writers. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Trivial intersection. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 17:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep as part of Category:LGBT people by occupation category tree. Mayumashu ( talk) 09:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Not every combination is noteworthy. Nymf _{talk to me} 09:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Absolutely trivial. IgnorantArmies 13:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete just because there is a tree does not justify the intersect. The intersection itself has to be more than trivial, and in science such an intersection is trivial. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• delete If this were a notable intersection, that would be bad. But it isn't. Mangoe ( talk) 21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete there is no LGBT science, just as there is no Jewish science, etc. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Then why is there a Category:Jewish scientists? - htonl ( talk) 12:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Overcategorization. - Darwinek ( talk) 21:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This category provides utility in that it links a significant attribute to an occupation. I can't help but notice that categories like Category:Roman Catholic cleric–scientists‎ and Category:Jewish scientists‎ were not nominated with the same zeal. More importantly, the nominator's premise that this category fails WP:OC#EGRS, fails in that a substantial article could be written on the subject of the intersection (LGBT scientists) as evidenced by these sources: Gay scientists and engineers recognized at AAAS, Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Scientists, Shattering the Glass Closet and A non-profit organization that educates and advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students and professionals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Closeted Discoverers: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Scientists, Engineering and Social Justice, Homosexuality and the Law and Gay And Lesbian Scientists Seek Workplace Equality. It's obvious that many scientists view their sexual identity as relevant to their career choice, and given the struggle of LGBT people in western society, this topic and this category are very notable, and should be kept. - Mr X 14:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep If the policy is that something has to be a "notable topic in it's own right", then let's get rid of that policy. Otherwise, keep, per MrX. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per MrX.-- В и к и T 15:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per MrX. The nomination rationale doesn't make much sense, and deletion would be a disservice to readers, some of whom (wonder of wonders) actually benefit from categories like this one. Rivertorch ( talk) 17:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Mr. X. A companion list may also be warranted but we don't have to choose one or the other, we can have both. Insomesia ( talk) 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)---- reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Perennial candidates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Deleted once before Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_13#Category:Perennial_candidates. Unclear inclusion criteria because how many times does one fail to get elected to be deemed a perennial candidate. Tim! ( talk) 09:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Recreation of deleted content. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Only a single person participated in the 2008 discussion. One person voting to delete five years ago. Neither a consensus, nor a reason for speedy p b p 15:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete because of unclear inclusion criteria, but not speedily; this was independently created, and it's not the same code, so it doesn't qualify for G4. Nyttend ( talk) 14:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Strongest Possible Keep: We have an article related to perennial candidates, it makes perfectly good sense to have a category for them as well. The concept is defined on that page, and that concept applies to the category. Also note that nominator failed to notify relevant parties, and furthermore, only one person participated in the cited discussion. It would've been closed as NC under today's standards. p b p 15:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • — Note to closing admin: User:Purplebackpack89 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Hardly a clear name - if kept should be "Perennial unsuccessful candidates for political office", adding "in the United States" if it stays as parochial as it is now. Inclusion criteria are wholly subjective. There are only seven of them, & really a list section at the article will do. Johnbod ( talk) 16:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No clear yes/no criteria for inclusion.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete has horrible inclusion criteria. The definition "people who have run for office a number of times but have never won" has lots and lots of problems. To begin with it is a bad definition. The way it is defined people can stop being perrenial candidates by actually winning an election. Thus Merrill Cook does not fit the definition because he was elected to congress in 1996, although in 1995 he would have with 5 or more straight defeats for offices from congressman to governor to county commissioner been seen as the general perennial candidate. On the other hand, we can have someone who early in their cateer won a local election, and then went on the run over and over again for much higher positions, and never won those, so it does not really make sense there either. The other problem is "a number" is not at all telling us how many times the person ran. 1 is a number. Even if we fixed a number of times they had to run it would still be arbitrary. The category is just arbitrary and not definable and should be deleted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete – not objective, as some who satisfy the vague criteria are known as Perennial candidates and others are not. (Eg Ross Perot (twice). Ken Clark (ran a number of times - 3 - for leadership of conservative party).) Oculi ( talk) 19:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete, vague inclusion criteria. -- Soman ( talk) 10:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The inclusion criteria isn't necessarily vague—a reliable source describing a person as a perennial candidate would suffice—but the concept is better served by an article/list. IgnorantArmies 13:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- I would prefer some more robust criteria for inclusion, but Screaming Lord Sutch, who repeatedly stood in British general and byelections would clearly fit. I would suggest that the criterion should be at least 5 elections to a national or regional parliament/assembly. In USA, running State legislature, governor, or congress would be needed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Is there an empirical definition for how many times you have to run to be considered? No. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 06:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete there are no clear objective criteria for whether some is a "perennial candidate" or not - and a perennial candidate for what, in any case? Local / sub-national / national / party office? We have various referenced (and unreferenced) names at Perennial candidate; it is not the case that every list has to be matched by a category. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete The category has vague inclusion criteria and does not seem to be very informative. - Mr X 15:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Notice of this discussion was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies here. This notice was not neutrally worded and therefore inappropriate per the behavioural guideline on Canvassing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT historians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Already deleted via CfD once before. Essentially a duplicate of Category:Historians of LGBT topics, unless there is some kind of stigma associated with being a historian and LGBT, that I am not aware of. Nymf _{talk to me} 09:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep. No it isn't a duplicate, Category:Historians of LGBT topics is historian who specialise in LGBT studies, (they themselves might be heterosexual) LGBT historians is literally gay or bi historians. Personally I'm not bothered if we have any LGBT categories but we have plenty of ones like LGBT writer, not sure why this is any different.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

In what way is an LGBT historian different than a non-LGBT historian? WP:OC#EGRS states "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career" and "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". Since you are the creator of this category, how is this an unique, cultural topic in its own right? Nymf _{talk to me} 14:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Look, in all honesty I'm not bothered about such categories, I agree they're pretty trivial, but if you're gonna delete this delete every LGBT category on wikipedia categorizing people by sexuality. I think you'll have a hard time doing so, so I think there is some consensus to have them. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

No, LGBT categories can exist when the combination is deemed a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" (LGBT writers is such a case). There are other LGBT categories that should be deleted, correct, but for now the focus is on this one. It is all there in the guidelines. Nymf _{talk to me} 11:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

You;re confusing writers LGBT writers with writers on LGBT topics. Category:LGBT writers is writers who themselves are LGBT, not heterosexual writers of LGBT topics. No different to LGBT historians, we don;t have Historians of LGBT issues.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I am not confusing anything. Category:LGBT writers is the example used in the guidelines. I did not write the guidelines. Can you demonstrate that it is a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" with proper sources? Other stuff exists is not a valid argument to keep anything. Nymf _{talk to me} 15:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- If LGBT historians are being objective, their sexual orientation should not matter. Or is it that they will bring their own bias to the subject? Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Generally I agree, I've said this recently at another CFD, either we have them or we don't. But we have many categories like Category:Gay writers. There seems to be a convention to categorize LGBT people, I see no reason why historians should be excluded from what seems to be a consensus.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The question is how far sexual orientation affects performance. I have a suspicion that Marxist historians present hisotry from a marxist perspective. Is it alleged that LGBT Hisotrians are presenting it with a gay perspective? If so, perhaps I should be voting to keep. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep: per Blofeld. While I agree with Pete's assertion about objectivity, objectivity isn't of particular relevance when categorizing p b p 16:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep It perfectly reasonable to have a category that defines the people and one to define their specialty. If these are merged, then we need to merge Category:Egyptian historians, Category:Egyptologists, and Category:Egyptian Egyptologists and combine Category:Jewish historians and Category:Historians of Jews and Judaism and numerous other examples Illia Connell ( talk) 16:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  The point is that being LGBT and a historian is trivial ( WP:OC#EGRS is clear about this), and if it by any chance influenced their work (having them focus on LGBT history), we already have a category covering that. Egyptian is a nationality, LGBT is not. Nymf _{talk to me} 09:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete this is a trivial intersect category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Who's to say what's trivial and what ain't? Just because you think it's trivial doesn't mean it's trivial. The above vote is just an I-don't-like-it vote p b p 14:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep as part of Category:LGBT people by occupation tree. Mayumashu ( talk) 09:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Not every combination is noteworthy. Nymf _{talk to me} 09:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Trivial intersection. IgnorantArmies 13:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• delete Intersection of sexuality and occupation is not notable. Mangoe ( talk) 22:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per OCAT. We already have a category for historians who study this topic. We don't need another. If this is intended as category for the sexuality of the historians, than this is a trivial triple intersection and should be deleted. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 06:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Overcategorization. - Darwinek ( talk) 21:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment If we could prove that all LGBT historians take an LGBT perspective in their studies, than this might be worthwhile. However the fact of the matter is that in general this will be a trivial intersect with sexuality having no effect on the historians work. As Benkenobi has pointed out we already have a category for historians who study this topic, so we don't need this category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This category is informative in that it links a significant attribute to an occupation. There is substantial evidence that the subject is notable enough justify a dedicated article, as evidenced by a simple Google search. For example, Early Gay Historians, Allan Berube: Gay historian and gay history scholar, dies at age 61 and Not a Simple Matter: Gay History and Gay Historians. This category is not the same as Category:Historians of LGBT topics, although there is some overlap. - Mr X 14:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep and repeal any policy that prevents this kind of categorisation. Identity categories should be allowed even if sexuality has "no effect" on someone's work. We have articles about people generally, not just about historians. People read biographies in order to understand people, not just the work aspects of their life but about their whole identity. Throwing that kind of information away makes Wikipedia less useful. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Religion is an equally large part of someone's identity, and we don't go around combining that with every possible career choice. I don't see how omitting this category makes Wikipedia less useful. There is still Category:LGBT people from the United States and its likes, is there not? Nymf _{talk to me} 15:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  I'd be fine with 'Christian historians'. And 'LGBT Christian historians' and maybe even 'LGBT Christian historians from Nebrasksa'. Alternatively, we could get demand radical reform of our category system at the MediaWiki level so we could do custom intersection and union categories. — Tom Morris ( talk) 17:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep per MrX.-- В и к и T 15:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment cue the influx of votestackers from WikiProject LGBT studies#Categories. Nymf _{talk to me} 15:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

That comment is uncalled for, uncivil and unhelpful. Perhaps you would consider retracting it? - Mr X 16:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Not sure why I would want to retract it. 5 people from the LGBT project has already showed up to say keep here and in the discussion above. Nymf _{talk to me} 17:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

A good reason to retract it would be because it's entirely appropriate that editors whose interests intersect with this discussion show up to participate in it, because the presence of members of the WikiProject in question are frequently subjected to insinuations that their opinions are less valuable when they do participate in such discussions, and because we'd all find Wikipedia a more congenial place to spend time if such insinuations were left unsaid. Sorry, I guess that's three reasons. Rivertorch ( talk) (not a member of any WikiProject, but is starting to be seriously tempted to join one out of solidarity with the scorned) 21:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per MrX and Tom Morris. Rivertorch ( talk) 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per MrX's references and WP:GNG - the criterion to define notability for a cross-categorization is not that the will affect the person's work, but that reliable sources are covering the combined properties, which is exactly what happens here. Diego ( talk) 17:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Mr. X and Tom Morris. Insomesia ( talk) 23:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)---- reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge (incidentally, indexes is an acceptable plural for this meaning of index, at least according to the OED. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Indexes of mathematics topics to Category:Mathematics-related lists

Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant. The suggested replacement category also includes lists, indexes and outlines Illia Connell ( talk) 07:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Do something with it; if we keep this category, it should be moved to "Indicies..." because "Indexes" isn't the proper plural. Nyttend ( talk) 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. And the point about "indices" is cool. Indexes is a non-word. -- Marco ( talk) 16:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge lists is just a better name and both things are lists. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. delldot ∇. 07:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Articles with Statistical mechanics topics template ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to [1]. Unusual for nav boxes to have this type of associated category. Illia Connell ( talk) 05:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• DElete -- seems a strange category to me. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. delldot ∇. 07:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Statistics articles with navigational template ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to [2]. Unusual for nav boxes to have this type of associated category. Illia Connell ( talk) 05:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (Nom withdrawn). delldot ∇. 07:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Akhil Bharatiya Sena politicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Unlikely to have more than one addition. Lovy Singhal ( talk) 05:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep, and populate: ABS has more than one prominent politician, this article just needs to get populated properly. -- Soman ( talk) 08:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Sorry but where. The three only possible pages on en.wiki which I could find were Arun Gawli, Asha Gawli and Sachin Ahir. But on the page Arun Gawli, the category was replaced by Category:Maharashtra politicians by User:Shyamsunder. For Asha Gawli, there is no explicit mention about her political affiliations and Sachin Ahir is no more an ABS politician. He switched sides. Who else? -- Lovy Singhal ( talk) 08:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

First of all, categories are not only for current members of a political party, but also former members. 'Maharashtra politicians' is not a good substitute for the party category, and ABS is not a strictly Maharashtra party. And don't let the current state of en.wiki limit you, try to create articles instead to populate the category. -- Soman ( talk) 21:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep it has 3 entries, and since the party exists at present it can grow. Categorization by political party makes sense for politicians, so we should allow it even if the category is small. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Okay, I'm taking back the nomination and removing the tag from the cat page. Cheers, Lovy Singhal ( talk) 05:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. While this seems harmless, there are dozens of "(X) architecture" categories that might get renamed if this goes through. So let's have the larger discussion first.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:I-house architecture to Category:I-houses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article is I-house, not I-house architecture. I submitted this for speedy renaming, but that caused me to find a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 21, so speedying it wouldn't be right. Even if we forget the article's name, it should be renamed because "I-houses" is much more common; nobody that I've read uses "I-house architecture" except for this category. "[Style] architecture" is appropriate when the style itself has the name; you say "Italianate architecture" because you don't typically say "This house is an Italianate" — "Italianate" is an adjective. However, because "I-house" is a noun and not the name of an architectural style, we should treat it that way and call such buildings "I-houses" rather than "examples of I-house architecture". It's like Category:Hall and parlor houses, or like log cabins; you say "Abraham Lincoln lived in a few log cabins", not "Abraham Lincoln lived in a few houses that were examples of log cabin architecture". Note that there are three subcategories; I'm nominating all of them for renaming at the same time. Nyttend ( talk) 03:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• oppose pending larger discussion On the one hand, the nominator's argument makes sense: "I-house architecture" is rather contrived speech, and these are all instances of a style rather than articles about a style. On the other hand, this convention is rigorously followed across all the "buildings of style X" hierarchy, and there are some cases very similar to this (e.g. dog trot houses and log houses) where the same argument could be made, and others (e.g. shingle style) where there is a mix of different residential and commercial and ecclesiastical building types which would make it impossible to use the proposed new convention without splitting by building type as well as style and location (given that these are almost all split by state). At this point it seems to me that sticking with the current convention, even if it's slightly awkward, avoids a lot of other problems which we may not want to step up to dealing with. I am however open to further discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 22:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom to match article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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