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 rename/merge per C2C convention of Category:Vale of Glamorgan. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations in Vale of Glamorgan to Category:Disused railway stations in the Vale of Glamorgan

Propose renaming Category:Railway stations in Vale of Glamorgan to Category:Railway stations in the Vale of Glamorgan

Propose merging Category:Transport in Vale of Glamorgan to Category:Transport in the Vale of Glamorgan

Nominator's rationale: rename x 2 / merge per the convention of Category:Vale of Glamorgan to use "the". Bencherlite ^Talk 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support. Seems like one of those that should be speedied. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 08:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support Bencherlite doesn't link to the relevant convention guideline, but "... in Vale of ..." has always seemed clunky to me. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom and per convention of Category:Vale of Glamorgan ... but please make sure that there are {{ Category redirect}}s from the old versions of the name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:13, 31 March 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.

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. Can someone with AWB help with detagging the categories? Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:British MPs 1707–1708 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale:

Delete. These categories all violate WP:OC#OVERLAPPING which states "If two or more categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many athletes participate in multiple all-star games, and religious leadership does not radically change from year to year), it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category, and create lists to detail the multiple instances."

Parlimentarians sit for multiple terms and in some cases in multiple parliaments. Examples of overcategorisation are :

• William Ewart Gladstone who is categorised in 15 UK MP categories: UK MPs 1832–1835, 1835–1837, 1837–1841, 1841–1847, 1847–1852, 1852–1857, 1857–1859, 1859–1865, 1865–1868, 1868–1874, 1874–1880, 1880–1885, 1885–1886, 1886–1892 and 1892–1895 in addition to other standard MP categories. This is a lot of clutter.
• John Prescott is categorised in 10 UK MP categories and one MEP category: UK MPs 1970–1974, 1974, 1974–1979, 1979–1983, 1983–1987, 1987–1992, 1992–1997, 1997–2001, 2001–2005, 2005–2010 and MEPs for the United Kingdom 1973–1979. Again, a lot of clutter.
• Gerry Adams is categorised in 5 Northern Ireland MPAs , 6 UK MPs and one Dáil members category: Northern Ireland MPAs 1982–1986, 1998–2003, 2003–2007, 2007–, UK MPs 1983–1987, 1987–1992, 1997–2001, 2001–2005, 2005–2010, 2010– and Members of the 31st Dáil. This example shows not only do the categories overlap by time period, but also by parliament.

As the overcategorisation guideline states, lists detailing the multiple instances would be better. Tim! ( talk) 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Listify all and upmerge to the appropriate parent category (e.g., Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain). Overcategorization is one issue, which the examples in the nomination illustrate clearly, and another is that the categories do not categorize by a defining characteristic. Being a Member of Parliament undoubtedly is defining; being a memebr of a particular parliament ... not so much. Surely no one would argue that each of Gladstone's 14 "terms" as an MP was individually defining.
  If there is consensus for this, it should be implemented slowly and gradually so that we do not end up with lists of bare links or duplicate existing lists. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 20:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I quite agree that there would be no rush to delete the categories following any decision. Replacement lists would take a long time to be compiled. Tim! ( talk) 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep. The nominator picks three people who have had exceptionally long Parliamentary careers and therefore qualify for a lot of categories, but the median is for an MP to have been a member of three Parliaments or Assembly terms, and there are many who were only in one. On that basis the argument of overlapping is much weaker. Even had I accepted the nominator's rationale I would say that it is not appropriate in this situation. The point of the categories is to aid editors who are using the biographies as a prosopography of Parliament, which is a valuable part of Wikipedia as its size grows. Finally, the individual Parliament categories make it very easy to be certain that each MP is there and has precisely one article about them. I also think the nominator has erred in nominating so many categories for deletion rather than opening a centralised discussion on the topic of categorisation of MPs by Parliament. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Other large category systems have been deleted purely at CFD for example Category:Actors by series without any need for a centralised discussion. As for you comments about being an "aid editors who are using the biographies as a prosopography of Parliament", can you explain why replacement lists would not serve this purpose? Also explain further how these categories "make it very easy to be certain that each MP is there and has precisely one article about them.", and again why a list would not serve this purpose? Tim! ( talk) 20:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't know if the other example you give was the subject of multiple previous deletion discussions, as the MPs by Parliament categories have been. There are already lists, eg List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1931, but they have a different purpose. Each Parliament inevitably contains a mix of the new boys and girls, the rising stars, the one-term wonders, the perennial backbenchers, the high rank Ministers, the senior Parliamentarians and even the corrupted. The lists show the reader who everyone was in the relevant term. The categories show the reader the completed political life. It does not hurt, and in fact helps, to have both. (Michael Stenton makes essentially this point in the preface to "A Who's Who of British Members of Parliament" vol I.) Sam Blacketer ( talk) 20:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep particularly in the Spain case. There is an exceptionally high turnover of members of the Spanish legislature relative to other Western Euopean countries so it's rare for anyone to have been in more than 3 parliaments. For example 98 members out of a total of 350 have been substituted so far this term and there's still a year to go. In the last UK legislature there were only 14 out of 650 members replaced in a five year term. Having cats for all these allows people to see at a glance if they wish which legislatures a member has served in. A list wouldn't do that and therefore I don't believe overlap applies. Upmerging them would be a disaster as it would create huge unwieldy categories. All the Spanish ones were in one such big ugly mess until I went through and broke them down a couple of years back. Valenciano ( talk) 20:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

7 out of 16 categories on José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero are Members of the nth Congress of Deputies (Spain). Tim! ( talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Zapatero is a Prime Minister and therefore an exception - there have only been four Prime Ministers in Spain in the 34 years since democracy was restored. Valenciano ( talk) 07:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Listify and upmerge per Black Falcon as overcategorisation and non-defining. The information would be much better presented in lists. – anemone projectors– 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. What Wikipedia:Overcategorization says is "If two or more categories have a large overlap... it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category" (my emphasis). That implies that there are some areas in which it is better not to do so, and for the reasons others have given above I think this is one of those areas. I am commenting here because I prefer to keep the categories relating to the GB and UK parliaments. I do note that for United States politicians a list approach has been found to work, so that is an option. If this cfd succeeds, to convert the British categories (I am focussing on those) to lists would mean a huge amount of work. I wonder, is the nominator volunteering to do it? Moonraker2 ( talk) 01:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

See Category:Lists of MPs elected in United Kingdom general elections - maybe not as much work as you think. Tim! ( talk) 06:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, a lot more work than you might think. There are good sources available for most of the 20th century, with a complete list readily available, but putting together an accurate and well-sourced list from the 19th century is a gruelling job. You may have noticed that there are few lists from early in the 19th century; that's because it's hard work. It took me over 100 hours work to create List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832, using a pile of reference books and huge trawls through the London Gazette archives. The latter look easy, but because the OCRing breaks down on the poor print quality of the old volumes, it was achievable only by checking the PDFs of every single page of the gazette for two months after the first poll. The reference books are insufficient; Stooks Smith often identifies people only by initials, and Craig always uses only initials. Stooks Smiths can be bought cheaply s/h, but has many errors; Craig's volumes are only available in libraries, or through rare s/h sources at about £100 each, if you can get them. Alternatively you could buy the works of the History of Parliament Trust; cheapest on CD-ROM, at only £550 ... and they only go up to 1832.

We are missing lists for 14 of the 19th-century British elections, and some of the other lists are incomplete or unsourced. So, Tim, are you willing to spend a few hundred quid on the reference books and commit yourself to 1500 hours of work just to create more of the lists of MPs elected at general elections? If so, please get to it, and come back to CFD when you have finished the job ... but until you've demonstrated that you can do the job to a high level of accuracy, please refrain from glib comments about it not looking hard.

Don't forget that in the 19th century, many dozens of seats changed hands at by-elections, so to get a full list of MPs for each parliament, we also need a list of those elected at the by-elections in each Parliament. You'll probably want to budget another few hundred hours for that job. Have fun! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep – this overlapping rule seems 'arbitrary and subjective' (what is 'large'? 99%? 50%? 30%?). In any case has the nom worked out a typical 'degree of overlap' between consecutive fooian parliaments? (Doesn't the US elect politicians in a more incremental fashion, rather than all at once?) Occuli ( talk) 09:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the terms for which a parliamentarian serves are generally defining. Overlap between sessions varies, but is not high in many cases. Lists already exist for many of these, but they do not serve the same purpose. For many bodies, upmerging would produce very large categories in which it would be harder to locate an individual (just how many people have served in the UK Parliament, for example)? Warofdreams talk 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep all, as a defining characteristic of Parliamentarians. As Sam Blacketer notes, categories and lists can co-exist, because they serve different purposes. The categories are exceptionally useful both for maintenance and for research, particularly since they can be used with catscan to check intersects. Want a list of UK MPs from the 1979-1983 Parliament who are in the 2010- Parliament? Here it is, auto-generated. MPs for Welsh constituencies in the landmark 1945-1950 parliament? Hey presto, here they are.This makes them a very powerful research tool, which we would very foolish to discard (and it would take an awful lot of work to re-create it).
  As Warofdreams point out, long-standing parliaments have had a lot of MPs over the years. For example Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies
  The UK categories were designed to have the shortest possible names, to minimise clutter; the Parliament of Ireland Irish categories are also terse. It may be worth looking some of the other categories to see whether the category names could be more succinct. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately you seem to have completely missed the point of what clutter means, and it is not really to with the length of the name of the category. You assert that the term is defining charateristic, but have not said why; and neither you nor Sam has really explained what purpose the categories are serving that lists do not. The fact that you have to go to an external catscan on toolserver, not a standard part of Wikipedia, is quite telling. Such scans could conceivably be generated for the examples stated in WP:OC#OVERLAPPING - I am pretty sure there would be as many enthusiastic sports fans wishing to know who was in the the 1971 National League All-Stars and the 1980 National League All-Stars, and others interested who was a religious leader in 1852, and again in 1864. The category system cannot be used to service all possible user queries. To quote from the closure of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Subcategories_of_Category:National_League_All-Stars "categories become less effective the more there are on any given article". Tim! ( talk) 20:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point of what clutter means: it is about how much text is added to the category list, because that defines how much intrusion any category makes as the reader scans for the categories which interest them. At least that's my definition, and since both yours and mine are just our opinions, both are equally valid. You mischieviously used some extreme examples to illustrate you nomination, taking two unusually long-serving MPs and one person who served simultaneously in two different parliaments, his term therein overlapping with his election to a third parliament. A more typical example would be an MP like Stephen Byers, where the UK MPs categories take up less than one line.

The fact that the intersection has to be generated by an external tool is because category intersection has yet to be implemented on wikipedia. There is general agreement that it is a Good Thing, and periodically there are promises that it will be introduced soon. The code is ready, the desirability agreed; only concerns about server load keep it from being implemented. It seems to me to be a bizarre bit of not-invented-here logic to say that because Wikipedia has not yet installed a valuable tool, that we should removed the painstakingly create data which such a tool would use, and which can already be used by a third-party tool. (Don't talk about "recreating it afterwards if need": if fully populated, these categories will contain about 100,000 category entries, of which about 75,000 are already in place. Recreating that would be a mammoth job).

You say that "category system cannot be used to service all possible user queries". True, but that's as irrelevant as saying that categories can't make tea and are useless in bed. What matters is that this particular set of categories can and does service a very large range of queries where are particularly valuable to anyone interested in the history of a parliament. You may not find those useful, but I can assure you that they are invaluable to a historian of Parliament, who I presume is one of classes of reader we are trying to serve (if it doesn't intrude too much on all the sports biographies).

As to what purpose the categories are serving which lists do not, please see WP:CLS; the two serve complementary purposes. In addition to the intersection purposes outlined above, these categories are invaluable for maintenance and other tasks related to building Wikipedia: they can be used to track related changes in a way that lists can't, because lists have so many items other than the group being tracked. The categories also allow easy tracking of what content we actually have; lists tells us what we should have, and may be a misleading guide to completeness, because a blue link may point to a redirect to a family, or to another person of the same name. Editors may also find categories easier to navigate, and not least because unlike lists they are directly linked from each article.

As to why the term is defining, it's quite simple: what defines an MP elected for the first time in 2010 is that he served in that Parliament and not in one where his colleagues were Lloyd George or Gladstone or fox or Bright. An MP pursues their career in a particular parliament(s), and the category of MPs in particular Parliament defines who worked who and who opposed who. These are the people with whom an MP sits on committees, plots in the corridor, and regards as his opponents, colleagues, or enemies; the ones with and against whom he shapes legislation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

True. Also Tim uses the analogy of the deleted subcategories of Category:National_League_All-Stars. I don't think that holds up. It's clear from reading that that the sports categories were annual ones and therefore for sportsmen with careers of 20 years or more, that's a lot of potential categories. That doesn't apply to parliamentarians. Parliaments aren't renewed annually, instead typically they'll last four or five years so the potential clutter is much less. Tim has also, as you said, chosen some extreme examples to illustrate his point. I'm sure if we went through the national league all stars categories we could do the same. In fact we don't even have to go very far. The very first name on the category National League All-Stars is Hank Aaron who was selected for 25 separate All stars season and therefore presumably would have been in 25 corresponding categories. It's easy to imagine where the clutter came in there. In contrast, it's hard to imagine any parliamentarian anywhere who served in 25 consecutive parliaments. I'll also stress that in the Spanish case, potential for clutter is less due to the high turnover of members. There have been 1613 Spanish MPs elected in the nine elections since 1978. That's an average of 179 new MPs each parliament in a parliament which only has 350 members, so on average the turnover rate at each election is around 50%. Valenciano ( talk) 09:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I personally find the MPs by Parliament categories quite useful, but I've not read the guidelines on what categories are supposed to be for. I was wondering, though, what would be the point of a thousands-strong alphabetised super-category such as "Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom". How would such a category aid a reader in, well, anything, other than what other MPs' surnames began with the same letter as that of the subject of the article he was just reading? Opera hat ( talk) 21:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

  Categories exist to assist navigation. If they fulfilling that purpose, they are doing their job. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Suggestion So far there is no consensus for the nominator's argument that these valuable categories create clutter, but if that changes, then there is no need to also deprive editors of the valuable maintenance tool which these categories represent. They can instead simply be made hidden, using {{ hidden category}}; that will allow readers to ignore them if they want to, and they will be hidden from readers who have not logged in. I think it's vastly preferable to allow all readers to use these categories for navigation; but deletion is not the only alternative. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The MPs present in a given parliament is important historically, and putting them in a category is an essential basic indexing function. This is one of the relatively few examples where a list cannot carry out the function adequately, at least not the way lists are presently constructed. I can imagine a suitable table, but it would probably exceed a reasonable size and manageability. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I've often thought the "List of MPs elected..." articles would be more useful if in a table format sortable by surname and constituency - but as you say, with 600-odd MPs, this starts to get a bit unwieldy. That's why I prefer the categories for navigation, as I said above. Opera hat ( talk) 23:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832 is in a sortable table format ... but a) creating it was a huge job, as discussed above; and b) it has a narrower scope than Category:UK MPs 1832–1835 because it does not include those elected in by-elections. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose (keep). From the several I have looked through, this seems to be a very good category system, a useful navigation system, and each is well defined with a notable parent article (although some are redlinks). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep all - There is no reason to be forced to choose between lists or categories when we can have both. As has already been pointed out, both serve slightly different but complimentary purposes. Snappy ( talk) 17:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep - as per above comment, and that by BrownHairedGirl - these seem useful, unintrusive, and Lists and Categories both add value (I find the Category aspect more useful but recognise the other also). And the example cases given in the call to delete are extreme, and not a valid basis for anything. 195.96.72.22 ( talk) 11:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - useful categories for students of historyc, no reason to delete. PamD ( talk) 23:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's not overcategorisation when categories serve a useful purpose, as these clearly do. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Listify all and upmerge to the appropriate parent category. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

  Why? This is not a vote. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:01, 4 April 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.

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:Afghan politicians by province. This is used by sister categories in both parent categories. Revisit if there's a wider convention set on the form to use. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Politicians of Afghanistan by province to Category:Afghan politicians by province or Category:Politicians by province in Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: The category ought to be renamed, following either Category:Afghan politicians or Category:Politicians by first-level administrative country subdivision, where Foo politicians by province is a nationality-occupation intersection subdivided by location and Politicians by province in Foo is an occupation category subdivided by location. I realize that there is significant overlap between the two possible scopes, but we must choose one. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:25, 29 March 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.

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:Songs about aircraft, revisit if a better definition ca be found. There's several different proposals flying about but the convention of Category:Aircraft seems the best tie-breaker for now. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Songs about aeroplanes to Category:Songs about aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Aircraft.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Songs about flight? None of these songs is about any specific aircraft (even " Lindbergh (The Eagle of the U.S.A.)" and " Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" are at best about flying), and even by a stretch only " Come Josephine in My Flying Machine" and " The U.S. Air Force" are about aircraft in general. I think that there will be relatively few such songs, as opposed for example to ships or cars. Perhaps the category can be reworked into songs about flying, or songs about powered flight, but currently it is nothing but "Songs that mention aircraft."- choster ( talk) 20:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename for now but I don't understand the idea behind the category. The link between two songs that mention airplanes at best tenuous and in most cases completely non-existent. Pichpich ( talk) 19:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment prefer "songs about flying" as wider coverage of theme (and category is part of a wider group of "songs about .." categories) Hugo999 ( talk) 11:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Songs about aviation. Neutrality ^talk 04:55, 4 April 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all, Category:Board games gameplay and terms to Category:Board game gameplay and terminology, revisit that if necessary. With limited comment it's best to go for a minimalist renaming now and revisit the question of splitting that one later. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Chess terms to Category:Chess terminology

Propose renaming Category:Role-playing game terms to Category:Role-playing game terminology

Propose renaming Category:D20 System terms to Category:D20 System terminology

Propose renaming Category:Board games gameplay and terms to Category:Board game terminology or Category:Board game gameplay and terminology or split between Category:Board game terminology and Category:Board game gameplay

Nominator's rationale: Matching the parent Category:Game terminology. It's not clear to me that the board game category needs a separate gameplay category in the manner of Category:Video game gameplay, since pretty much everything there seems to be about defining a term.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:10, 29 March 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.

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. The article title has been stable for over four years. Revisit if there's consensus to move it. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Max Planck Institute for Informatics to Category:Max Planck Institute for Computer Science

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. — Ruud 15:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment It seems that people disagree on the English name of the institute. One reason for the disagreement is that the Institute doesn't seem to really know its own English name. Google the two possibilities and you'll find plenty of instances of each name that emanate straight from the institute. Frankly, I don't care what the article or the category are called. I just want the same name used at each. Pichpich ( talk) 19:56, 30 March 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.

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. Already replaced by Category:High schools in Chino Hills, California. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:High Schools in Chino Hills, California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Renamed with lower case 's'. Colonies Chris ( talk) 13:34, 29 March 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.

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. This either silliness or an attack category, neither of which belongs here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Wikipedians who want to destroy the Earth ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Kind of hard to argue that this user category is helpful for collaboration. Pichpich ( talk) 13:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedians who want to destroy the Earth is merely a joke. Unless it interferes with normal Wikipedia affairs, I don't see why it should be destroyed.-- Pinguinus ( talk) 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

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:Motorway service areas (United Kingdom). I note the list article is at List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom and although there's consensus to use "area" over "station", there isn't yet on removing "United Kingdom". Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Motorway service stations in the United Kingdom to Category:Motorway service areas

Nominator's rationale: First, the primary article is currently located at Motorway service area, not "station". Secondly, they are ONLY found in the UK, so it is currently pointless to have the phrase "in the United Kingdom" for disambiguation/subcat purposes. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 07:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comments - an ancestor category (via Category:Rest areas, which says it is specifically US) is Category:Toilets: seems a bit harsh. Rename but to Category:Motorway service areas (United Kingdom) (as there are other countries with motorways - eg there is Category:Service stations in the Republic of Ireland and the only one listed therein is on a motorway) and take it out of Category:Rest areas (which should also be renamed as it is far too vague). Occuli ( talk) 09:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment This category is useful for identifying articles in need of deletion, because I don't see how any of these places pass WP:GNG. It is incorrect to say that they are only found in the UK - there are several in Auckland, New Zealand, only I'd never dream of creating articles about them. dramatic ( talk) 07:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. As to Dramatics' comment, this has been discussed before in AfDs and consensus has been to keep them since they are important features of the British road network. If there are "several in Auckland, New Zealand" then they are clearly not the same thing, as motorway services in the UK are large installations which are never found in cities. The problem here is, I think, that people outside the UK assume motorway services are the same as truckstops or similar in their own countries - they aren't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:50, 2 April 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.

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 the following:

• Category:Deaf postal officials to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf architects to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf bookbinders to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf businesspeople to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf printmakers to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf sculptors to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf animators to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf social scientists to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf astronomers to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf scientists to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf bookbinders to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf publishers (people) to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf models to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf inventors to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf humanitarians to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf engineers to Category:Deaf people
• Category:Deaf youth workers to Category:Deaf people

The rest have been objected to and are best handled on a case by case basis. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose upmerging per WP:OCTrivial. A staggering amount of over-categorization here, imo. Upmerge (and listify, if desired). I may have missed a few, and indeed there are a few categories I have not tagged where I believe deafness may be relevant, but you get the idea. I see from a note on my talk page that creator User:Egberts noted this mass nom before I had a chance to notify him. He apparently regards this proliferation as a "work in progress." I believe it is one that should be nipped in the bud, unfortunately. Sorry.

Category:Deaf postal officials

Category:Deaf architects

Category:Deaf bookbinders

Category:Deaf businesspeople

Category:Deaf printmakers

Category:Deaf sculptors

Category:Deaf animators

Category:Deaf social scientists

Category:Deaf astronomers

Category:Deaf scientists

Category:Deaf bookbinders

Category:Deaf publishers (people)

Category:Deaf models

Category:Deaf inventors

Category:Deaf humanitarians

Category:Deaf engineers

Category:Deaf youth workers

Category:Deaf writers

Category:Deaf poets

Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Work suspended pending wiki community feedback. -- Egberts ( talk) 02:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Perhaps, I had been encouraged by other wiki members, prematurely. -- Egberts ( talk) 02:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Indeed, I was a little surprised to see one experienced editor encouraging you on something like Category:Deaf astronomers. Then again, unless one is active in category discussions and familiar with WP:OC the problem might not be obvious. As you say, let's see what the community thinks about this group nomination. best, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, and I had stated WP:OC#TRIVIA when what I meant was WP:OCTrivial. Always get those two shortcuts mixed up. I changed the nom.
• Upmerge back to Category:Deaf people. Have to agree with nom: we do not automatically form 'by occupation' sub-trees for every 'people' category (eg many such as Category:Jewish mathematicians have been deleted at cfd). 'By nationality' would be standard and beyond reproach. Occuli ( talk) 09:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Any guidelines on what is considered as too many within one list? That can be confusing too, given many other examples outside of nationalities. --12:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.55.140 ( talk)

(With an eye toward the non-discriminatory blanket rollback bot), what makes ' Category:American deaf actors' and ' Category:Deaf educators' a non-target and seemingly viable categorization -- Egberts ( talk) 12:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:American deaf actors should be listed (upmerge to Category:American actors and Category:Deaf people). Category:Deaf educators should be renamed to Category:Educators of the deaf and the educators who are deaf moved back to 'Deaf people' - it is not satisfactory to have 'Educators who are deaf and educators for the deaf' together as the parent cats are then wrong (these are not all deaf people). (There would be no objection to 'American deaf people' IMO.) Occuli ( talk) 14:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

So, we're back to an overloaded Category:Deaf people again? -- Egberts ( talk) 14:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

See my suggestion below for deaf-people-by-nationality categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Or my suggestion above. " 'By nationality' would be standard and beyond reproach." Occuli ( talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the concise pointers. I've learned the finer nuances of categorization from such incredibly-seasoned Wikipedians. -- Egberts ( talk) 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep 1. Is Deaf people a ethnocentric enough to warrant a category, notably in the handicapped category? I think so. 2) this category fills out a hierarchy of Deaf by occupation similar to other groups of nationality (ethnics) vs. religions/affliation (there's alot in both) and 3) the connection between Deaf and occupation is often significant (overcoming their handicaps), yes; 4) There are instance of keeping Category:Deaf actors, Category:Deaf sportspeople and Category:Educators of the deaf/ Category:Deaf educators (BTW, we're striving toward Educators FOR the deaf, not OF.). Hope we're consistent enough because we got alot of clean up, either way at the moment. -- Egberts ( talk) 14:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I left actors out of purpose, it's a pre-existing category and in such an appearance-based profession I feel that deafness may be defining. As for your first point above, I'm moderately to severely hearing impaired myself -- it runs in my family -- and I do not feel I am part of a national group because of it. But that's just my opinion and again I'm not profoundly deaf. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The explanation at WP:OCTrivial is worth noting: "Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits. For example, celebrities are usually notable for reasons other than being gamers." So while Marlee Matlin really is notable for being a deaf actress, people in occupations like astronomy or book binding, to choose two of the more extreme cases above, are not, I'd argue. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge all to Category:Deaf people, except for Category:Deaf actors, which is arguably a defining intersection. The rest are trivial intersections, per WP:OCTrivial.
  Note that there appears to be enough articles on deaf people to justify creating some deaf-people-by-nationality categories, as has been done with Category:Amputees by nationality. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I agree. If this upmerge passes, perhaps Egberts can create deaf people by nationality categories that would address his concern about this master category being "overloaded." Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Changed to upmerge, providing that nationality categories may address our overloading Category:Deaf people categories.... although, I suspect, Category:Deaf American will probably remain to be the largest segment. -- Egberts ( talk) 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

We may also want to re-review another large Category:Deaf sportspeople as well for its notable feat of performing in sports requiring some form of hearing -- Egberts ( talk) 19:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• whatever else keep Category:Deaf writers and Category:Deaf poets. These are actually populated with enough articles to justify their existence. Also, there are probably represent unique challenges to deaf people to be notable in these occupations. Hmains ( talk) 02:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Exactly as Hmains above Not only do those two categories represent unique challenges, but they also connect with the topic of deaf culture. Dahn ( talk) 15:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge all to Category:Deaf people. Overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge all where deafness is clearly not relevant to the occupation. I can live with Category:Deaf poets and Category:Deaf musicians. Moonraker2 ( talk) 18:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge so, the running tallies of notable occupations (based on their degree of difficulty in overcoming their loss of hearings) are:
  • Category:Deaf writers
  • Category:Deaf poets
  • Category:Deaf musicians
  • Category:Deaf actors
  • Category:Deaf sportspeople

If there is no further objection, the rest of the Deaf overcategorization will be upmerged. -- Egberts ( talk) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• • I can live the exceptions Egbert lists above. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:45, 4 April 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.

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Heritage rock radio stations to Category:Mainstream rock radio stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: This category contains "Heritage rock" (or "Mainstream rock") radio stations in the United States only. Three similar categories containing U.S. only rock radio stations end with the phrase "in the United States": Category:Active rock radio stations in the United States; Category:Classic rock radio stations in the United States; and Category:Modern rock radio stations in the United States (they are also the only other subcategories for Category:Rock radio stations in the United States). Clearly this "Heritage rock" category is intended for U.S. radio stations only, and its name should reflect that. Secondly, each of the other three subcategories has a matching format article ( Active rock, Classic rock and Modern rock). For this "Heritage rock" category, however, the corresponding format article is Mainstream rock ("Heritage rock" is listed as an alternate/secondary name, and Heritage rock serves as a redirect). I propose the name change here to remain consistent with the other three categories (each ends with "in the United States", each matches the format article name); and to allow for greater clarity (like the other three categories, having a name which matches the format article would facilitate readers navigating through Wikipedia radio content).
-- Levdr1 ( talk) 01:06, 29 March 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.