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: listify and delete. I will ask the nominator to create the list. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:American Inaugural poets ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be over-categorisation of 'performers by performance' ( WP:OC#PERF). Our general practice is to delete such categories, as they're non-defining: true, reading at a presidential inauguration is a rare honour, but it's still not really a defining characteristic of any of these people. This is the kind of content that's better expressed with a list than a category. Robofish ( talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete this is a performer by performance category, which we do not do. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Over-categorization. However, this would probably make for a great article. Blueboar ( talk) 04:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I would second the notion that this could make an article, and probably more than just a list. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Listify if neceessary then delete -- it is a performance by performer category. Lists do the job much better, because they can be placed in order. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:23, 26 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 all, and do not listify. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category:Hindi loanwords
• Delete Category:Afrikaans loanwords
• Delete Category:Arabic loanwords
• Delete Category:Breton loanwords
• Delete Category:Bulgarian loanwords
• Delete Category:Czech loanwords
• Delete Category:Mongolian loanwords
• Nominator's rationale This is an encyclopedia. Thus the articles are on things. The article Cotton, which is in one of these categories, is on the thing called cotton, not on the word cotton. Thus we categoriez things by what they are, not what they are named. We do not categorize things by having a shared name, but that is exactly what we are doing here. This is a bad idea. It is also much better covered by lists. Categories should group things by having like traits, but this category has nothing to do with what the thing is, but what it is called. The categories garbanzo bean and chick pea are in should be exactly the same because they are the same thing, but having categories like this would lead the article to be categoriezed differently by what name we chose to give it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Upmerge. 'we categoriez things by what they are, not what they are named. We do not categorize things by having a shared name'? Er, I beg to differ. Category:Words and phrases by language is a long-established category tree, and a perfectly reasonable one. However, as I said on the similar CFD for 'Greek loanwords', I think 'loanwords' is an unnecessary subcategory - how do we determine whether a foreign word has passed into English or not? These should probably be merged into Category:Hindi words and phrases, Category:Arabic words and phrases, etc. Robofish ( talk) 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

However the articles are not on words and phrases, they are on things. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and previous CFDs ( example). It's not necessary to listify in WP as the Wiktionary categories contain such a list. DexDor ( talk) 07:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete categorization of titles, rather than articles, is not proper (see WP:OCAT, and we have recent precedents on this. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the two previous discussions. Greek loanwords and the parent category. This should also happen for the remaining subcategories of Category:Loanwords. If there aren't appropriate list articles for the various languages, such as List of Greek words with English derivatives, I would have no objection to listifying before deltion. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 00:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Wow, I had forgotten about the Loanwords cat discussion (and I even was invovled in it), so I guess we have a precedent to delete. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep (at worst listify before deletion)-- These are all relatively unusual etymological sources. Greek, Latin, German, and French would be too common to make wothwhile categories. Some of the categories need purging of things like surnames. We might also make it a requirement that the article should include a discussion of the etymology. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Such a requirement would just encorage people to turn encyclopedia articles into dictionary articles. The articles are on the things, not the words. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete a complete mess. Some of these contain loanwords from that language in English, others contain loanwords in that language from other languages, others contain loanwords from that language in other languages. Clearly these names are extremely ambiguous, and useless, since they are being used in a multitude of ways. -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Listify all then delete. List of English words of Hindi or Urdu origin and its siblings are the proper places to collate this information. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

There's no need to listify in Wikipedia when Wiktionary is the proper place to collate this information (e.g. in Wiktionary:Category:English terms derived from Hindi). DexDor ( talk) 20:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have come up with the best description of why this category is a downright horrible idea. We have an article Looting, which we then say is exactly the same as sacking, plundering, despoiling, despoliation, and pillaging. The article should still be in the same categories no matter which of those names we place it in. However if we moved it to being at plundering, whicb is a redirect to this article, we could not put it in Category:Hindi loanwords because plundering comes from German. However since plundering and looing are the same thing, they should be in the same categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Another example is Cheetah. If for some reason we decided to rename all animal articles to their scientific names and thus renamed this article Acinonyx jubatus, it should still be in the same categories. It would still fit in Category:Mammals of Asia and even Category:Animals described in 1776 but it would not longer fit in this category. That shows that we are here categorizing by other than what the thing is, and that is just plain a bad idea. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Wouldn't this also mean that we also need to delete Category:Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin and other catgeories that have essentially the same purpose? Mark Marathon ( talk) 01:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes. Articles should have appropriate categorization based on what the title means (i.e. the subject of the article), not the title itself. Most articles (even those with titles like Yara-ma-yha-who) also have subject-based categories. Articles like Doryanthes excelsa don't even have a title that's of Aboriginal origin. Having a pale imitation of Wiktionary:Category:Australian Aboriginal languages just clutters up Wikipedia. DexDor ( talk) 06:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete all Categorization by etymology is a bad idea. Mangoe ( talk) 13:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, after a selective upmerge per Fayenatic london's proposal.
.The difficulty with this category is that persistence is not a binary characteristic (where compounds either persist or don't); it is a scale, in which compounds may have a half-life ranging from seconds to years. Without a threshold, a category of persistent organic pollutants is meaningless (or at least WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, but attempts to apply a threshold fall foul of WP:OC#ARBITRARY. So the consensus is to retain the Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention, which does have clear inclusion criteria, and delete this one. Editors may wish to consider creating a list of other persistent organic pollutants. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Persistent organic pollutants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The definition of this category is ambiguous. We have Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention that is clearly defined. Leyo 16:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic L ondon 21:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment by relisting admin: The category contains 3 conventions/organisations working on POPs as well as alleged POPs, so may be worth saving in some form. I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I see no problem with a fuzzy category. As currently structured, Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention is a subcategory within this one; that seems appropriate to me. A logical analogy would be restricting the categorization of hazardous substances to only those substances covered under the European RoHS Directive; this overly restrictive approach would not make sense. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 22:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Fayenatic london and DASonnenfeld. Not all articles relating to persistent organic pollutants can be Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention. As it currently stands it is a good hierarchy. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 03:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I did not mean my words to be taken as a vote to keep. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- The complaint is that the boundaries of the category are vague, but presumably the criterion is that the substances are not naturally degraded in the envirnoment. Surely that is a robust boundary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, there is a sufficiently robust boundary. Some chemicals are defined as persistent organic pollutants by reputable sources and that is what should be in the category (or subcat). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 19:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Peterkingiron is wrong. Even Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Stockholm Convention are in fact naturally degraded in the environment, just slow. Thresholds in half-lives are two months for water and six months for soil and sediment.

The problem with Category:Persistent organic pollutants is that whether a compound or articles like Brominated flame retardant (substance properties differ a lot among this group) is put into this category or not, is normally purely original research. -- Leyo 13:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. We have an empirical standard already. We should be using said empirical standard. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep This a strong defining characteristic of the compounds in question, of which Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention would be a subcategory. Alansohn ( talk) 21:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

What kind of strong defining characteristic is there for compounds that are not regulated under the Stockholm convention? None that is not OR. -- Leyo 22:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. So if the category is deleted what do we do with Category:Organochloride insecticides, Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants, International POPs Elimination Network, Organotin chemistry, PCB congener list, etc? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Category:Organochloride insecticides and Organotin chemistry are examples, where Category:Persistent organic pollutants is inappropriate. Not all organochlorine insecticides (e.g. chlordimeform or 1,2-dichlorobenzene) have been shown to be persistent organic pollutants. Do we really want to allow OR categorization?

  Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants would fit e.g. to Category:Environment treaties. -- Leyo 09:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete, with very selective upmerge. Despite three !votes to "keep", I am not seeing any policy reason to do so, and in particular those opinions have not addressed the objection from the guideline WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Many of the compounds in the category are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances but if they do not meet a threshold definitin of POP then they should not be so categorised. DA Sonnenfeld refers above to categorization of hazardous substances, but that gives no precedent at all, since category:Hazardous materials is restricted to general articles about handling of haz.mat. Similarly, the head category Category:Pollutants does not contain all polluting substances, and should perhaps be pruned likewise.

On further examination I find that the three non-substance pages which I mentioned are already linked under "see also" in the main article, which suffices for navigation. Just upmerge the main article and the sub-cat Category:Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention to the parents of the nominated cat (for the record, I only placed that sub-cat within this one after the nomination); also selectively categorise the convention, protocol & network into the parent Category:Biodegradable waste management. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:40, 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: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Joe Arroyo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete to small to meet the rules for eponymous categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- Another option would be to merge all sub-cats here and then delete them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:41, 28 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Grupo Niche ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete too small to be worth having. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- Another option would be to merge all sub-cats here and then delete them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • That would disrupt the Category:Albums by artist tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 31 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: speedy keep. The consensus was that the current name fits with the existing naming convention, so the nominator withdrew the nomination. An RFC is underway at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC - Alumni, which may lead to changes in the convention. If there is a consensus there to change the convention in a way that affects this category, feel free to nominate this category again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Eastman School of Music alumni to Category:Alumni of the Eastman School of Music

Nominator's rationale: Standardise with other Alumni categories Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep – subcat of Category:University of Rochester alumni; the US standard is 'Foo alumni'. Oculi ( talk) 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • We now have separate US & [other] standards? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Indeed so. US editors seem content with a long string of words followed by 'alumni' (eg Category:School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston alumni) whereas UK editors find 'Alumni of' to be more comprehensible. Other countries choose one or the other. (ENGVAR perhaps.) Oculi ( talk) 22:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Thank you for taking the time to comment. I wonder who considers the interests of our readers; especially on articles about people who have degrees from institutions on each side of the Atlantic? Clearly, there will be no consensus for this change; I now propose a speedy close Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• keep per Oculi. Mangoe ( talk) 20:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is the standard for American, Canadian and some other alumni cats. It is not just a US standard since we have Category:University of Toronto alumni and Category:University of Paris alumni and Category:University of Heidelberg alumni, none of which are in the US. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment/lament. Why—no seriously—WHY? are there two different standards that are used amongst the various countries? It's things like this that make WP categories frustrating. It's not an ENGVAR issue at all. If anything, it's this WikiProject-inspired "change what you want but don't mess with my country's content or the things I'm interested in"-attitude that constantly works to the detriment of the whole project. This is an issue that we should be able to agree on one form or the other to be implemented universally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • You are probably right. I would probably support the rename of all x alumni to alumni of x categories, but I see no reason to support the rename of just this one. It seems that people in England are more into using formal names and formal phrasing, but I am not sure that reflects anything more than the foibles of usage in wikipedia. At some level I have suspicions that it might be the other way around. In the US we know it is the University of Michigan, not Michigan Univeristy, however in Britain Oxford University is about as used as the University of Oxford. This is not an English usage thing, this is a "we want to show that our area is different" thing. It makes no sense really. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • GPWM. I've started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC - Alumni. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Great idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 28 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: upmerge to Category:The Hobbit film series – Fayenatic L ondon 19:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Films in The Hobbit film series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#SMALL. The category will never have more than three articles in it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - It might have more if you include the LotR movies, and other Hobbit and LotR films (not made by Jackson). ReformedArsenal ( talk) 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:The Hobbit film series, which contains some list articles and media files too. There is one film so far and two more expected, but that is not enough for a category. Previous films properly belong in Category:Middle-earth films. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per Peterkingiron above. No need for this subcategory, unless there end up being rather more films in this series than have so far been announced... Robofish ( talk) 00:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename/Repurpose to Category:Films based on works by J.R.R. Tolkien, since there are at least 7 such and two more planned, this seems it would be a reasonably large category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment most, if not all, of those films are Category:Middle-earth films. -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • The Hobit: An Unexpected Journey is not, which is why I did not realize that category existed. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • The parent to this category is in "Middle-earth films]], if you followed the tree up. -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 01:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete—The sub-category is not required because articles should not be in both a sub-category and its parent, and it would be very strange not to have the films in Category:The Hobbit film series, but relegated to a sub-category. The purpose of categories is to aid navigation, which this sub-category does not. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 01:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• UpMerge to Category:Middle-earth films. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:The Hobbit film series -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 01:57, 25 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. delldot ∇. 00:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Sportswomen from Newcastle, New South Wales to Category:Sportspeople from Newcastle, New South Wales

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. Sportspeople aren't divided by gender. ...William 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep Useful. The majority of sports still divide men's and women's competitions. Wouldn't it have been easier to wait until the earlier nominations were closed to see which way the rest of the community wants to go with this? -- 99of9 ( talk) 12:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment. There are categories like this [1] for female athletes. As I pointed out previously, the categorization by gender and city/territory location isn't done by city. Except it seems in Australia. The debate doesn't have to wait either ...William 14:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm not talking about past practice on Wiki (although Jayvdb has shown you some counterexamples on that), I'm talking about real life. Sports people are very used to constantly being divided by gender, in competition and out, it is one of the ways that humans categorize sportspeople when we talk about them and write about them. Thus it is a useful category to put encyclopedia articles in. Per WP:USEFUL. -- 99of9 ( talk) 11:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge per nom. No need for this level of breakdown. Being " useful" isn't a valid reason to keep it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Why don't people read the links they cite anymore? The last sentence of WP:USEFUL explicitly states: "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument.". -- 99of9 ( talk) 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

This nomination and the one below are not a collegian way to have a discussion. William started two discussions about the same thing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_22#Category:Sportswomen_from_Sydney. Discussion should continue in one place. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 20:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Newcastle is not Sydney, so this is not the same thing. With city categories larger cities often have some specific type of people categories that smaller cities lack. So even if the Sydney ones were kepts it would not force a keep on the Newcastle ones. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Is anyone going to make a Newcastle-specific argument for deletion then? I'd really rather not have to copy both my keep votes and my rebuttal of false-policy into many more carbon copy CfDs. -- 99of9 ( talk) 23:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep I was originally going to argue on the particular merits of Newcastle to upmerge, but I decided that actually the particular merits of Newcastle suggest to keep. The Newcaslte category has over 100 entries overall, and it makes sense to split sportspeople by gender since almsot all sports competitions are so divided, so this works. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The nominator's basic premise is false: sportspeople are routinely divided by gender, per WP:Cat gender, because sport itself is routinely divided by gender. The nominator also fails to note that any upmerger should be to two categories: Category:Sportswomen from New South Wales to Category:Sportspeople from Newcastle, New South Wales. Both of those target categories are well-populated, so sub-categorising them by gender is a good way of managing the categories, and follows the defining characteristics of sportpeople. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. delldot ∇. 00:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Sportswomen from New South Wales to Category:Sportspeople from New South Wales

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. Sportspeople aren't divided by gender. ...William 12:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep Useful. The majority of sports still divide men's and women's competitions. Wouldn't it have been easier to wait until the earlier nominations were closed to see which way the rest of the community wants to go with this? -- 99of9 ( talk) 12:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment. There are categories like this [2] for female athletes. As I pointed out previously, the categorization by gender and city/territory location isn't done by city. Except it seems in Australia. The debate doesn't have to wait either ...William 14:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

As I pointed out to you in yesterday's discussion, it is done elsewhere. see Category:Footballers from Greater London. As we are talking about states here, see also Category:American players of American football by state. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 06:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge per nom. No need for this level of breakdown. Being " useful" isn't a valid reason to keep it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:USEFUL is about removing non-encyclopedic content so I don't think it's relevant here - if anything the last paragraph of it applies. DexDor ( talk) 07:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep per actually reading WP:USEFUL and WP:Cat/gender. Nom has offered no real reason for deletion. Sportspeople are indeed commonly divided by gender, so 'we don't do cities' is not much help without an actual reason why they shouldn't be done that couldn't be taken as 'we haven't gotten around to it yet'. As others have pointed out, there exist by region splits in some male-only categories, so this is simply a more overt version of something already done, and I would suggest being more overt in categorisation is very much 'useful' to readers. -- Qetuth ( talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the reasons offered by Qetuth. Dimadick ( talk) 09:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep splitting sportspeople by gneder at the state level is entriely reasonable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The nominator's basic premise is false: sportspeople are routinely divided by gender, per WP:Cat gender, because sport itself is routinely divided by gender. It's disappointing to see a CFD nomination made on the basis of such an easily-falsifiable proposition; a {{ minnow}}ing is in order.
  This particular category is well-populated, and is an appropriate subdivisoon of the well-populated parent Category:Sportspeople from New South Wales. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Merging of duplicate categories. WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:User Pages to Category:Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: User pages are in the tiered "Wikipedians" category. This is an outlier created last month, with only eight users in it. McGeddon ( talk) 09:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom - I guess this was created by mistake and the creator didn't realise that the 'Wikipedians' category includes all user pages already. Robofish ( talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:45, 24 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 all. In future similar cases it would be appreciated if nominators would check that an artists' songs and albums categories are mutually linked using {{ related category}}, and of course linked to the artist's page. The category only becomes unnecessary once those links are provided. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting the following categories:
  • Category:Bülent Ersoy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    
  • Category:Crazy Frog ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    
  • Category:Dima Bilan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    
  • Category:Kalomira ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    
  • Category:Naëla (singer) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per numerous precedent and WP:OC#Eponymous, these categories have minimal content to justify them. None of these have anything more than songs and albums for the artist as child categories, and maybe a template. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 08:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete the first one (1 subcat). I am not bothered either way about the others (2 subcats). Oculi ( talk) 09:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete all none of these meet the existing requirements for starting an eponymous category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:45, 24 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Webcomic authors to Category:Webcomic creators
• Propose renaming Category:Webcomic authors by nationality to Category:Webcomic creators by nationality
• Propose renaming Category:American webcomic authors to Category:American webcomic creators
• Propose renaming Category:Australian webcomic authors to Category:Australian webcomic creators
• Propose renaming Category:British webcomic authors to Category:British webcomic creators
• Propose renaming Category:Canadian webcomic authors to Category:Canadian webcomic creators
• Propose renaming Category:English webcomic authors to Category:English webcomic creators
• Propose renaming Category:Japanese webcomic authors to Category:Japanese webcomic creators
• Propose renaming Category:South Korean webcomic authors to Category:South Korean webcomic creators
• Propose renaming Category:Webcomic author stubs to Category:Webcomic creator stubs

Nominator's rationale: "Authors" is terribly ambiguous. With webcomics, nearly all the creators are both author and artist, so splitting doesn't make much sense. As very few creatives take over someone else's webcomic, "creators" seems the best renaming possibility, similar to Category:Comics creators.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 08:02, 23 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 both to Category:American Calvinist and Reformed clergy. From the discussion, both category names are correct but not expansive enough, yet both overlap. So putting them together seems the smartest thing.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:American Reformed clergy to Category:American Calvinist clergy

Nominator's rationale: All Reformed are Calvinists, but all Calvinists are not Reformed... for the purposes of Wikipedia these two terms are interchangeable and having two categories is redundant. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 04:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment—If not all Calvinists are "Reformed", then shouldn't the Reformed category be a subcategory of the Calvinist category? At the moment it's the other way round. Additionally, if not all Calvinists are Reformed, then Reformed is a subset of Calvinists and leaving the categories unmerged is probably correct. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 09:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Response - Some people use the term interchangeably in academic literature, others do not. There is no general concensus, but on Wikipedia the terms are used interchangeably. Everywhere except here. See Reformed for evidence of that. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 12:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I think the reason they are arranged as they are now is because some people see Reformed as a more general term for the tradition (which includes mainline Presbyterians and United Reformeds who dislike association with Calvin and traditional Calvinist teachings) and reserve Calvinist for those holding a specific soteriological/predestinarian perspective. I can't know for sure, because there is no description given at Category:Reformed Christians. -- JFH ( talk) 16:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Actually no. "People" don't see it this way. The only reason that "Reformed" is a redirect to "Calvinism" is that Jfhutson changed the redirect from Reformed churches as part of what appears to be a campaign to force the two to be equivalent here on WP. Jfhutson's argument immediately above is specious. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Please share with us your preferred definitions for the terms. I just tried to answer your question based on how I have heard some people use the terms. I said some people differentiate the terms this way, and these are just mainline Presbies I know who don't like to be called Calvinists. As for my redirect and move of Continental Reformed church, why is CfD being used to oppose a usage which is being accepted in the mainspace? -- JFH ( talk) 17:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Reformed and Calvinism have been synonymous on Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 19:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • The rationale does not seem rational, as the comment says. The same thing seems to be going on at a higher level: There is Category:Reformed clergy and Category:Calvinist clergy, and there is the same strange reversal where Calvinist is in the Reformed category. So this non-equivalence of Reformed and Calvinist seems to be going on other places besides here. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 22:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge this as well as Category:Reformed Christians and it's subcats, as your argument applies equally there. See the discussion here. I actually think Category:Reformed Christians would be the better destination, but I'll take either one. I'd be interested to hear what you mean by Calvinist and Reformed when you say "All Reformed are Calvinists, but all Calvinists are not Reformed." Regardless, the terms are obviously confusing and ambiguous, and it would be better to have one category tree for Calvinists or Reformed Christians as broadly construed to mean everyone following the Reformed tradition as per Calvinism. I found the last discussion on this maddening because several people asserted that there was some difference between the terms without explaining what it was, and those who did had conflicting definitions. I'd like at least for this discussion to lead to a description for Category:Reformed Christians, because for now I don't know what should go in there and what should go in Category:Calvinists. -- JFH ( talk) 15:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Using this discussion as a back-door to get the no consensus result of your previous bid for merge overturned is inappropriate. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

It would be inappropriate to have this as an outlier. Why would we keep the current setup if ReformedArsenal's logic is accepted? -- JFH ( talk) 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • Response - Being Reformed includes your ecclesiology and sacramental theology. Primarily it means that you subordinate yourself to a subordinate standard in the form of one of the Reformed confessions (Heidelberg, Belgic, or Westminster). Being a Calvinist is predominantly a soteriological perspective and has little implication for your ecclesiology (Calvinistic Baptists are an example of this). Technically speaking to be Reformed you would need to affirm infant baptism in a covenantal framework. However, as I mentioned above... different academic resources use the term interchangeably with Calvinist (particularly resources that fall in the category of non-Reformed Calvinist leanings, i.e. John Piper, John MacArthur, etc), and the precedent on Wikipedia is to use them interchangeably. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 15:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • OK, I just want to reiterate that this is just one way the terms are differentiated, and it is somewhat problematic. For example, Reformed Baptists uses "Reformed" in the primary usage for that tradition. I realize you are agreeing that they should be used interchangeably, I just want it to be crystal clear for everyone. -- JFH ( talk) 16:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Well, I don't agree that they should be used interchangeably... however that is the way they are being used, and it isn't pragmatic to go through all of Wikipedia and fix every article (And there is academic attestation to the equivocation of the terms). ReformedArsenal ( talk) 16:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Perhaps Reverse merge -- "reformed" is a denominational status. "Calvinist" can be a theological position, held by members of a number of protestant denominations. The two intersect, but they are not the same. I would draw attention to two smaller UK denominations - Wesleyan Reformed and Calvinistic Methodist, which (if American) would fit into one of the categories under discussion, at least in theory. I would prefer to see clergy being categorised more by denomination. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose merger and rename I think the denominational approach is to be preferred, and is easier to apply. The theological position can be used to then classify denominations, and I imagine some denominations will straddle positions. Seeing "American Calivinist" as a subcategory of "American Reformed", as is now the case, doesn't seem right to me. And certainly people from every denomination that puts "reformed" in its name don't all belong in the category. I meant the category to refer to denominations stemming from the Dutch Reformed and similar traditions. A note to this effect probably belongs on the category page. I think these denominations adopted the name "reformed" first, and so perhaps the category can remain with its current name, that is with no qualification as to what sort of reformed church. Other "reformed" denominations from different traditions could certainly use "reformed" in the category name, but would want to include other information to differentiate it from the unqualified category. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 17:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It sounds like the category was intended to be Category:American clergy of continental Reformed churches or something like that? See Continental Reformed church. -- JFH ( talk) 18:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • The word "Reformed" is used in two different ways. One is to describe denominations that hold to a specific set of doctrinal convictions (Dutch Reformed Church, German Reformed Church, etc). The other is to describe those theological convictions (See RC Sproul's What is Reformed Theology). Currently, Calvinist is used in the latter, and the line is getting blurred with Reformed (For example... Matt Chandler was moved to Reformed, despite the fact that he is no ta part of a Reformed denomination.) If we're going to use it in the denominational sense, then there needs to be categories for specific Reformed denominations, not just a Reformed tag. If we're using it in the theological sense, then it is used interchangeably with Calvinist on Wikipedia. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 19:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • That sounds like a situation I was trying to deal with. I would like to differentiate clergy by the congregations they serve, and/or also by authorities they represent or are certified by. I got the sense there were some American congregations that came pretty directly from this continental Reformed tradition, and had preachers that did as well, and there were other congregations that didn't come directly from this tradition, but could accept a minister coming from that tradition. In both cases, I would probably use this American Reformed clergy category for the clergy involved, but maybe in the second case I could also see giving the minister in addition a category corresponding to the congregation served. I don't think this category needs to be renamed, but it definitely should get a description, and I put a request there, since I am not prepared to put a description at this point, but what you are saying sounds close to what I was thinking. The same request is made at Category:Reformed clergy, and the necessity is probably as great there. Bob Burkhardt ( talk) 22:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose there are churches in the US that use the "reformed" name, but there have always been many congregationalist and Prysbyterian churches in the US that are clearly Calvinist but not designated as reformed, so this is clearly not the same thing as Calvinist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Sigh... Reformed describes a theological system. Presbyterians are BY DEFINITION Reformed (that is, they come out of the Reformed tradition following down through John Knox and the Scotish Reformation). Congregationalists are NOT Reformed... since being Reformed BY DEFINITION includes a presbyterian polity (that is, an ecclesiastical government that is Elder based, not congregational). ReformedArsenal ( talk) 01:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • But many congregationalist are Calvinists, so you just admitted the terms are not synonymous, which means that the argument to merge the two falls apart. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Did you even read what I've been saying?!? I explicitly said that they are not synonymous... but that they are being used that way on Wikipedia (and are used that way in other contexts as well). Therefore we have the choice to either fix all of Wikipedia (something I'm not willing to commit to) or have the categories reflect the equivocated usage that is already the precedent. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 05:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • If they are not synonymous than we should not merge them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
          • That's not how categorization is supposed to work. There are many nuanced ways to use words which would not be acceptable for categorization. ReformedArsenal's opinion that they are not synonymous is based on his own usage of the terms, which does not have much attestation in RSes in my opinion. That usage will also be very difficult to use on WP because there are a large number of people who will self-identify as Reformed and who will be called Reformed in RSes who do not meet his standard. -- JFH ( talk) 18:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
            • • Allow me to provide some WP:RS for you.

"the term "Reformed" specifically designates that branch of the Reformation of the western church originally characterized by a distinctively non-Lutheran, Augustinian sacramental theology with a high ecclesiology but little regard for ecclesiatical tradition that is not traceable to the Scriptures or the earliest church. - Johnson, Roger, "What Is Reformed Theology?", Institute for Reformed Theology, Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education, retrieved 24 January 2013

"The best English expression of the Reformed faith is arguably contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith." -Westminster Theological Seminary, What is Reformed Theology, retrieved 24 January 2013

"On the one hand, the words Reformed and Calvinist are historically and ecclesiastically rooted in confessional Reformed “theology, piety, and practice,” to employ the language of R. Scott Clark in his helpful epilogue, “Predestination Is Not Enough,” in Clark, R. Scott (October 2008), Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice, P & R Publishing Company, ISBN  978-1-59638-110-0, retrieved 24 January 2013." - Parsons, Burk, "Calvinism Isn't Enough", Ligonier Ministries, retrieved 24 January 2013

ReformedArsenal ( talk) 20:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom; the theological debate above is interesting, but we cannot categorize pastors on whether the church they preach at is called reformed or not, so ReformedArsenal has the better argument. As for JFH's argument for broadening this debate, I'd hold off for now because it's the damned if you do and damned if you don't: by nominating more than one, there's an increased likelihood of no consensus. Let consensus gel here (if it does), and if this is an outlier, then nominate the sister categories for harmony, then the parent to match. Baby steps, which is part of the bureaucracy of the no bureaucracy... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom, etc. A reverse merge would also be better than no action, but the cat-tree makes more use of the term "Calvinist", so that seems the better way to go. tahc ^chat 22:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose merge. Support merge, but only to an amalgam, such as Category:American Calvinist and Reformed clergy Not all Reformed are Calvinist - at least, according to some definitions of "Reformed" and "Calvinist". It is better to restrict the "Reformed" category to denominationally reformed rather than theologically reformed. St Anselm ( talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Response - So what do you do about all the Reformed folks who are not a part of a denomination that is called "Reformed" (All Presbyterians, and many Anglicans...) ReformedArsenal ( talk) 23:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Possibly call them "Calvinist". St Anselm ( talk) 00:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

So we're going to call some people who are Reformed "Calvinists" and other people who are Reformed "Reformed? That sure clears things up. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 02:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

One way around this is to rename Category:Reformed Christians to Category:Members of Reformed Christian churches, just as we already have Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches (and also analogous to, for example, Category:Members of the Churches of Christ. St Anselm ( talk) 02:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The other option is to perform a merge, but amalgamate the titles: e.g. Category:American Calvinist and Reformed clergy. St Anselm ( talk) 02:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I would be amicable to identifying with something like Category: Members of Reformed Christian Denominations and then having a sub category for each denomination (Category: Member of the Dutch Reformed Denomination). I just think to call out people as Reformed while ignoring other people who are also Reformed is an error and presents something that is inaccurate. If we keep it denominationally based (and made clear by including the word denomination in the Category) I'd be fine with it. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 12:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I have changed my !vote above. If some people are saying "merge", and others are saying "reverse merge", it looks like we should have an amalgamation. St Anselm ( talk) 21:34, 27 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: selective merge to Category:Road interchanges, with a few articles going to other categories such as Category:Rail junctions or Category:Viaducts. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. While we have an article on an overpass, it is not clear how defining this is in classifying these structures. If you look at the articles, some are about overpasses and others are about much more then this one feature in an interchange. Based on looking at the contents, I thought that a rename to Category:Interchanges might be an option, but that was deleted here as empty. Proposing delete, but unsure if there is a better option which would include keeping. If I understand this correctly, an overpass is a bridge that crosses a road or a rail line. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment aren't they a form of Category:Viaducts ? (underpasses, overpasses, interchanges, etc) -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 06:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't believe they are. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Road interchanges which is where all those deleted categories on interchanges finally ended up. I don't think that making a sharp distinction between overpasses as individual components of interchanges and the interchange as a whole is justified considering that most of these articles are either plainly about the whole interchange or at least blur the difference. Mangoe ( talk) 15:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Road interchanges then purge out the few that do not (or may not) have an interchange into Category:Viaducts. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• There are also a few rail examples which probably go into Category:Rail junctions (e.g. Sandgate Flyover). Mangoe ( talk) 19:34, 23 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. Deleting the Cold War weapons categories en masse might be possible, but this corner case should not be where that effort starts.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Cold War intercontinental ballistic missiles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose merging Category:Cold War intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union to Category:Intercontinental ballistic missiles
• Propose deleting Category:Cold War ballistic missiles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose merging Category:Cold War submarine-launched ballistic missiles to Category:Submarine-launched ballistic missiles
• Propose merging Category:Cold War submarine-launched ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union to Category:Submarine-launched ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union
• Propose merging Category:Cold War submarine-launched ballistic missiles of the United States to Category:Submarine-launched ballistic missiles of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Some of this group has been nominated before, as part of the clean-up of User:Target for Today's category-creating enthusiasms. The situation hasn't changed: there's no such thing as a Soviet weapon that isn't a Cold War weapon, more or less by definition; and it turns out that the American SSBNs all date from the same period. Therefore all of these categories overlap with other categories or only contain categories in this structure which I propose to be rid of. Mangoe ( talk) 02:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Support -- "Cold War" is redundant and overcategorisation. There were virtually none pre-Cold War, and I suspect no (or few) new ones developed post-Cold War. The USA/USSR distinction is worth having, with those of other states (FRance/Iran/North Korea) left in the parent. I think the UK ones were US types. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The proposal does not include deleting Category:Weapons of the Cold War so if these cats are deleted all the articles in them should be upmerged into two categories. E.g. the articles in Category:Cold War submarine-launched ballistic missiles of the United States would be merged to both Category:Submarine-launched ballistic missiles of the United States and Category:Cold War missiles of the United States. Therefore I don't see how deleting these cats improves WP. DexDor ( talk) 19:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I am still considering a larger-scale examination of the cold war weapons categories. There are after all hardly any non-Cold-war missiles of the US, and of course none for the Soviet Union. Mangoe ( talk) 20:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• As long as we have a Category:Weapons by period category structure then we shouldn't be taking ICBM/SLBM articles out of it. That structure is a bit of a mess so merging/renaming "Cold War" cats (e.g. into "post-1945" or "20th-century" cats) might make sense, but that isn't what this CFD is proposing. It isn't logical to say "all Soviet missiles are Cold War missiles so they should be taken out of the Cold War category". DexDor ( talk) 21:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weapons by conflict (which is what this is, more or less) needs to go as peformer-by-performance. But we don't stop demolishing the roof because we haven't blown up the foundation yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• This (unlike the Falklands War categories for example) isn't just a "weapons by conflict" category; " Weapons of the Cold War" can be interpreted as "Weapons introduced during the Cold War period" and indeed the category is in both the "Military equipment by conflict" and "Weapons by period" trees. Currently any articles in the Cold War weapons category should not also be in Category:Weapons post-1945 as that category would be redundant. Therefore we shouldn't delete Cold War categories without upmerging most/all of the articles to a post-1945 or 20th-century category (incidentally, that overlap needs sorting out as well). DexDor ( talk) 06:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Hmm. I guess I can see that point - rather like the "Napoleonic period". In that case the category needs to be taken out of "Military equipment by conflict" (which it really shouldn't have been in per se anyway). This particular set of categories though is redundant, as mentioned - and I would argue that upmerging to the post-1945 category (which should be divided from "pre-1945" in the 20th Century as the rocket/missile/jet era weapons are quite distinct from the previous ones) would be better than keeping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Upmerging Cold War categories to post-1945 categories is a step we might take in the future, but that should be done separately from this nom which only covers a few of the Cold War categories. DexDor ( talk) 19:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Delete per nom. There are not enough from other periods to make this dinstinction worth while. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge or delete per nom. Performer by performance, redundant, fails WP:COMMONSENSE, etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep all. The nominator is correct that most of these types of weapon were developed in the Cold War, and that few were developed either before or after that period. However, DexDor correctly observes that unless these categs are merged to multiple targets, they will be removed from some of their parents, which just increases category clutter and impedes maintenance.
  The Bushranger cites WP:COMMONSENSE ... but I don't see any common sense in taking a series of mostly categories containing dozens of articles, and doubling the number of categories in which each article is placed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The common sense came from the fact that "all ICBMs are Cold War period weapons" Therefore "ICBMs of the Cold War" is a bit redundant... (I would point out, though, to the nom, that Soviet weapons from 1919-1945 would not be Cold War weapons.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• An ICBM is (by definition) a missile with certain characteristics (e.g. range). Having entered service during the Cold War is not part of that definition; the next ICBM type to be fielded by any country (DPRK?) will be an ICBM, but not a Cold War ICBM. Even if we knew there would never be another type of ICBM that's no reason to remove articles (e.g. R-29 Vysota) from the "weapons by period" tree. DexDor ( talk) 19:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep All The time period that these weapons were developed and introduced is a specifically relevant and defining characteristic appropriate for categorization and an aid to navigation across these articles. Alansohn ( talk) 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. I forgot about the very recent discussion and it's clear that this nomination isn't going to go through. Mangoe ( talk) 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There appears to be a growing consensus, as expressed in several recent deletion discussions, that many if not most LGBT by occupation categories are not notable intersections. Some subcats of this have already been deleted. It seems to me hard to argue that there is some connection between sexuality and scientific inquiry in general. Mangoe ( talk) 02:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This category provides utility in that it links a significant attribute to an occupation. The nominators rationale is not really logical, since the category is not sexuality and scientific inquiry. The category is about the intersection between people who share two attributes: sexual identity and career choice. In accordance with WP:OC#EGRS, 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 02:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per MrX. Insomesia ( talk) 02:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above logic. Argos' Dad 02:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per MrX's rationale. Teammm  ^talk
  _email 03:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per whatever I said when this was nominated last week. Rivertorch ( talk) 06:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep the nomination rationale is an WP:OTHERSTUFF invalid argument. Diego ( talk) 07:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per MrX. Previous discussion was closed 2 days ago.-- В и к и T 10:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw My bad, I forgot about the most recent discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 11:09, 23 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:Passenger trains by operating speed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Passenger train by highest speed in commercial operations to Category:Passenger trains by highest speed in commercial operations

Nominator's rationale: These should be plural Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 00:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I found both of those names confusing. How about some form of Category:Passenger trains by speed or Category:Passenger trains by rated speed? Seems clearer and has the benefit of being a shorter name. I don't see a need for adding in commercial operations. While some may not be in service, is the category harmed by including the few not in service? If that is an issue, then something of the form Category:In service passenger trains by speed or Category:Operating passenger trains by speed could work. Note that these last options, as well as the current and proposed ones, exclude any trains that stop operating. Is that the intent of the category? Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Passenger train by speed or perhaps Category:Passenger train by operating speed. The fact that this is about commercial operations, not test runs to gain records, can be covered in a head note. My first reaction was that this was an attempt to use category space for a list article, but I was wrong. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure that Category:Passenger trains by operating speed is workable. While the train may be capable of a certain speed, does it actually operate at that speed? This is the maximum speed that the train can achieve. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Passenger trains by speed or perhaps Category:Passenger trains by operating speed (as Peterkingiron, but with an "s"). Perhaps we should also think about how this is organised - should a 350+ train also be in all the other cats (possibly by nesting the cats) ? or would it be better to have a category ("Passenger trains by speed in kph") where the speed is used as the index (and the cat is limited to >200kph trains) ? DexDor ( talk) 20:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Category:Skyscrapers by height is how this type of problem is handled for buildings. Keep in mind that these subcategories may well be arbitrary definitions. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete as WP:OC. Not especially defining, and often moot - most of the lines aren't the responsibility of Mussolini, and thus, despite rated speeds, they don't run on time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Reply. That argument might have some traction if we discussing the sub-categories, but the sub-cats are not part of this nomination. The nominated category is a {{ container category}}, and deleting it will isolate the sub-cats. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • ...gah, the subcats are even worse. Where's the WP:TNT when you need it. They absolutely need to go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Cart before the horse, Bushie. I would probably support a proposal to delete the subcats. However the subcats are not part of this nom, and so long as they remain, this container cat is needed. If the sub-cats are deleted, this one can be speedied as empty. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
• Neutral on renaming, but oppose deletion. A {{ container category}} should not be simply deleted unless empty; it may be upmerged if that is a better way of organising tings, but deleting it just isolates the subcats. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
• Rename and refocus. This is not the Guinness Wiki of World Records. How about Category:High-speed passenger trains? Rivertorch ( talk) 21:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • That would be classification by an arbitrary definition. So it would not work. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Arbitrary? Not on our part. Description by reliable secondary sources as high-speed could be the standard. Rivertorch ( talk) 19:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Except "high-speed" varies by country. 150 miles per hour (240 km/h) would be "high-speed" in the United States, but would produce yawns in France and downright impatience in Japan. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Absolutely right; the term "high-speed" is relative. That's why inclusion would be based on a reliable source describing a train as high-speed, not the actual speed of the train. Rivertorch ( talk) 09:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
          • But those reliable sources may well differ by country. So if country A defines it as 100 mph and country B as 250 mph, what determines in a high speed category? By your position a train from country A doing 100 mph would be in a high speed category but a train from country B doing 245 mph would not be. That seems oh so wrong. Also, can you guarantee that this recognized standard will not change in the future? If it does, we would need to review membership in the category. If you do this, a fixed number, which is arbitrary, is clean and simple. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak support for Category:Passenger trains by operating speed. While I don't agree with this, it is a move to a better name and an improvement over what we are using currently. Sometimes compromise is needed to improve things. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Passenger trains by operating speed. I am not convinced these categories can be given non-arbitrary definitions, but that is clearly a much better name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply

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