< February 8	February 10 >

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. Kbdank71 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translators to Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Translators to Mohawk language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Translators to Ojibwa-Potawatomi-Ottawa per sibling categories in Category:Translators by destination language; or upmerge to Category:Translators as there is only one article delete as the single article is now in Category:Canadian translators. (This is probably a Pastor Wayne creation, for those with long memories.) Occuli (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with the Mohawk category; same creator, same article. Occuli (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm at a loss - can someone explain how translating documents/language from one to another is a defining characteristic? Possibly if the category tree were restricted to the first who translated from one to another, although if that were the case a list article with citations might be superior. Otto4711 (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an occupation/profession like any other, which is why we have a very extensive category structure for translators -- including both Category:Translators by destination language and Category:Translators by source language, as well as Category:Translators by nationality. But somehow I suspect you already know that, so perhaps I'm not getting what you're driving at. Cgingold (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well actually, no, I didn't already know that, so thanks for the backhand. I certainly appreciate it. Otto4711 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you meant background, not backhand... Cgingold (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, as I always mean, exactly what I said. I take your comment about what I did or didn't "already know" as an insult without the balls to own up to the insult. If you meant it otherwise, then say so, but I am sick unto the point of death of "polite" comments that paper over insults so if you meant to be insulting, be a man and own up to it. Otto4711 (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, Otto -- you really need to get over your paranoia, and stop assuming the worst from me. If I wanted to insult you, I'm perfectly capable of doing so -- and I wouldn't find it necessary to disguise it.

The last time you had suspicions about a comment I made, you did the smart thing and asked me what I meant. From my talk page - Otto: "I was about to make a bitchy comment... but it occurs to me that I may be reading it wrong. Were you sincerely thanking me for my input or were you being snide?" My reply: "I meant exactly what I said. And thanks for asking... it beats the alternative."

In this case, I honestly could not divine what you knew from your remarks -- but rather than place the onus on you, I thought it better to suggest that it was I who wasn't getting what you were driving at. Oh, well - I guess no good deed goes unpunished. And really, what was I supposed to make of "...so thanks for the backhand. I certainly appreciate it." I almost went right past that. But then I went back and wondered what on earth you meant -- if anything. Believe it or not, I was betting on a harmless verbal slip. I was actually laughing about it when I showed it to my wife.

Pretty ironic that you started with, "I meant, as I always mean, exactly what I said" and even more ironic that you finished up with, "...if you meant to be insulting, be a man and own up to it." (And I thought we were making progress... ) Cgingold (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzzzzzzzz... Otto4711 (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it, you're embarassed. But if you can get over that, I will still accept an apology -- if you're interested. Cgingold (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Kittybrewster ☎ 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a translator from X to Y is usually insufficient to make one notable - the only article here is a missionary to these peoples and is fairly categorized as a missionary in Canada... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2009 (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 for now. Kbdank71 15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:4th millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Following last week's CFD for unpopulated future century categories, this should go too. It has only one member and this does not require upmerging. Fayenatic (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help noticing that somebody had the foresight to stick a TOC on this category. Perhaps we're being a little hasty? :) Cgingold (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, as the logical follow-up to deleting the one unpopulated category for a 4th-millennium century. This millennium category has existed since 2005 and still only contains the main article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually 2 article, but that is not likely to change things here. I did update the template in Category:3rd millennium to point at the article and not the category so that when this is deleted, the template will not break. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes, I see the century category here now. I would still say delete as small and unlikely to expand. 4th millennium and 31st century and inter-linked within each other. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 15 February 2009 (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. Kbdank71 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American football images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category contains only two images, both of which are non-free and should not be in a gallery at all. B (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2009 (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. Kbdank71 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category contains only media (all of which should probably be deleted, but that's a different subject) and there is no parent category that makes sense. B (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No real opinion on the merits of the categeory, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't at the least be renamed to Category:Spheres. In any event, I've replaced the, um, circular parent cat with Category:Geometric shapes, so that's no longer an issue. Cgingold (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary. The contents of Orbs appear to be based on Commons images used mainly for online status and userboxes. Since the images are all pd-authored, I'd move them to the Commons and let Commons categorize them however the like there. Category:Geometric shapes (including Category:Surfaces, the immediate parent of sphere) is of course limited to articles about the shapes, not examples of them.-choster (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's another problem - they are derivatives of an image multilicensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA ... so the uploader needs to clarify the licensing terms in order for those images to not be a copyright violation, but that's a separate issue from the category. --B (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons I thought it was useful; apparently, I am proved not. Resident Mario (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if kept, it needs to be renamed. like Category:CG orb images or something. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2009 (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:Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle people. Kbdank71 15:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan people to Category:Indonesian Democratic Party – Struggle people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to English name - this is English language Wikipedia. Davidelit (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with this in principle, but I'm wondering about the name that's been rendered in English translation, which is unorthodox, to say the least. Perhaps it's just me, but I can't really make sense of it. Why is the word "Struggle" tacked on that way? Cgingold (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - per Indonesian Democratic Party – Struggle presumably. I'm not sure we can just tack 'people' onto the end of this concatenation and retain conventional meaning. Occuli (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Precisely. Even if the name of the article has been properly rendered -- which I'm not certain is the case -- tacking the word "people" on like that leaves my head spinning. "Struggle people"?? Cgingold (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Indonesian Democratic Party – Struggle politicians (the sibling categories should also adopt the "politicians" format under separate CfD). First, the party name is not actually that unorthodox. A great many translated names—perhaps half of all communist parties— have unusual orthography, omitting spaces or containing slashes, dashes, commas, and the like. I place the possible confusion over reading "Struggle people" at roughly equal in significance to that caused by ludicrously long English language party names, or the misreading of parentheses in a party name as disambiguation, or some theoretical combination of them like "Provisional Central Committee, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) politicians" (alt. Category:PCC, CPI(ML) politicians). Secondly, most countries have categories only for politicians by party, as party membership is often both undefining and difficult to establish for non-politicians. Category:American people by political party is the exception both in format (e.g. "Whigs" not "Whig Party people") and in scope but surprisingly has not been tested in a CfD.-choster (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This party name certainly needs to be translated into English, but I wonder if the correct name might not be "Indonesian democratic struggle party" or something like that. I am not qualified to judge and not inclined to search. I think we need a speaker of the language to help on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, the BBC and The Economist use "Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle," so I think using that form is reasonable, so long as it does not set a precedent to shy away from accurate representations of party names like solidaritéS or Russian Ecological Party "The Greens" because they are "icky." -choster (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That certainly looks much better to me. I don't have any problem at all with "oddball" names -- my concern was tacking a word on to the end with a dash, of all things, when there's no hint of that in the original. I say, let's change the name of both the article and the category. Cgingold (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2009 (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:Filipina beauty pageant winners. The discussion here centered on the deletion of the "contestants" categories, which does have consensus to do (and would need to be nominated), but as Cgingold points out, all of the articles in this category are for beauty pageant winners, and there was no discussion on deleting the winners categories. Kbdank71 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino beauty pageant contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Filipina beauty pageant contestants. Feminine adjectival should be used here, as they are all female. Most of the sub-cats of Category:Filipino women by occupation use "Filipino women", as "Filipina women" would be considered redundant. However, the gender is not stated explicitly here, so Filipina is appropriate. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - is being a beauty pageant contestant a defining characteristic? God, I hope not, think of the self-esteem of these women if it is. If they won a particular title that is defining (Miss Universe, Miss South America, whatever) then categorize by the title. Do not categorize by the competition. Otto4711 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, perhaps you'd care to nominate the entire category tree? (I'm no fan of beauty pageants, but there's no reason to single out this one category.) Cgingold (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be happy to nominate the entire tree. I didn't realize there was an entire tree. Regardless of the tree, being a contestant in a beauty pageant is not a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't want your head to explode, you probably would be well advised to stay away from the categories by year for Miss America delegates, Miss USA delegates, Miss Teen USA delegates, Miss Universe delegates, and Miss World delegates! Cgingold (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tangled with the beauty pageant mob before. I ain't askeered. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If Otto's serious about following this nomination up with a full nomination of the other similar categories, by all means I agree with deletion. Winning a beauty pageant might be defining, but just being a contestant?—no. This is less defining than being a political candidate, in my opinion, and we usually delete the political candidates categories. (In the alternative and for consensus purposes, if kept, I would agree with the rename proposal.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't necessarily disagree, but singling out this one at random just is not the way to go. Cgingold (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But is it necessarily a problem if this serves as a test nomination and Otto agrees to nominate them all? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think test nominations are fine when they're dealing with stuff like settling on a better name, etc. But when it comes to outright deletion, I think it would be fundamentally unfair to proceed on the basis of a test nomination. Cgingold (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly this was not intended to be a test nomination for the entire structure. However, if consensus is that this is not a defining characteristic for Filipina people then there is no reason why this can't be seen as precedent for other similar categories. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to generalize to other countries, but having looked at a few of the articles, I have to say that this very clearly does appear to be defining for these young Filipino women, whose notability (such as it is) stems entirely from this single characteristic. However, I think possibly the name is a bit misleading, since it refers to "contestants", whereas the ones I sampled were all "queens" -- i.e. they were contest winners. So perhaps we should consider renaming to Category:Filipina beauty pageant winners. Cgingold (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all like this but first put them all up for deletion. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial, per Otto; and I think that the whole tree ought to be chopped down - starting here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be seriously contrary to the fundamental guidance for categorization to delete this rather than renaming it, when their sole claim to notability is their status as beauty pageant winners. So if you're determined to get rid of this category (and others like it) I would suggest taking the articles to AFD as a first step. Cgingold (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per Cgingold to Category:Filipina bpg. Let's not be too obsesssive with the rules, most beauty pageant contests will focus on women. We don't have to creat a 'Male(Filipino) beauty pageant'. Let us focus on what registers right away on people's mind, e.g. when we say Filipina beauty pageant.--Jondel (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2009 (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 to Category:Law enforcement in Malaysia. Kbdank71 15:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Special Defensive and Enforcement of Malaysia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category's scope is not clear; in any case, the only article in the category is Malaysian Special Operations Force, which is already categorized in Category:Counter-terrorism in Malaysia. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a real puzzler. My first thought is that there seem to be a couple of words missing -- I'm thinking it should perhaps read "Special Defensive Forces and Law Enforcement of Malaysia". (just a guess... I feel a bit like a Wheel of Fortune contestant now) I'm also wondering if the article or category should be part of Category:Law enforcement in Malaysia. Well, perhaps the category's creator can enlighten us. Cgingold (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notified him/her immediately after the nomination (diff), but s/he seems to edit on just a couple of days each month (still an active user by my definition). However, if the consensus is to not keep the category, it may still be a good idea to upmerge to Category:Law enforcement in Malaysia. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Law enforcement in Malaysia, barring any new insights from creator or someone else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:29, 14 February 2009 (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. Kbdank71 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ministry of the Malaysian Government AND Category:Organisations of the Malaysian Government to Category:Ministries and departments of the Malaysian Federal Government

Nominator's rationale: Essentially duplicate categories, but the target category is more encompassing and seems to better match the convention of Category:Ministries by country (which admittedly does include quite a bit of variation). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom as duplicates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:29, 14 February 2009 (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:Premixed alcoholic beverages. Kbdank71 15:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Premixed and RTD alcoholic beverages to Category:Premixed and ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages or Category:Premixed alcoholic beverages

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "RTD" is an abbreviation that is used mostly in Australia/New Zealand, and the meaning of the abbreviation may not be understood elsewhere. So I'm proposing an expansion of the abbreviation. Alternatively—and I think this is probably a better idea—since RTD is a bit of a localised term, we could just use the purely descriptive Premixed alcoholic beverages and avoid referring to RTD altogether. I don't think any information is lost by omitting RTD. But either approach is fine with me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the unusual abbreviation should be spelled out. Is there a parent article for this category, other than alcopops? Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Why is Category:Premixed alcoholic beverages not enough on the name? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, barkeep - that's a darn good question. Put me down for one of those, too... Cgingold (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it probably would be enough, but I'm prepared to be corrected by someone who knows more about drinks than I do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Premixed alcoholic beverages. I think that is the consensus in the comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2009 (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.