< December 31	January 2 >

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) 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Charles Mingus songs to Category:Compositions by Charles Mingus

Nominator's rationale: I think a "compositions by composer" category is more appropriate here than a "songs by artist" category. Mingus is known as a composer, and he mostly played his own compositions anyway. Mingus did write a few songs (although the vast majority of his compositions were instrumentals), but even if a song category is needed, the more appropriate place would be Category:Songs with music by Charles Mingus (see similar examples). For similar nominations, see here and here. Note that this rename includes making the category a child of Category:Compositions by composer. Jafeluv (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename as with previous Coltrane and Davis positions AllyD (talk) 09:19, 2 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.

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) 07:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aoi Nishimata work to Category:Works by Aoi Nishimata

Nominator's rationale: per convention of Category:Works by artist. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be speedily renamed (see speedy rename criterion #4). Jafeluv (talk) 23:48, 1 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Halle to Category:Halle, Saxony-Anhalt

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent article, Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, as Halle is ambiguous. — ξ ^xplicit 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if it is considered ambiguous, i propose to rename category and page into Halle (Saale). It is the official name of Halle. The simple category:Halle may be a disambiguation category... But, i really don't believe that another Halle could be considered, for category, at the same level of the Saxone one. So, if possible, my vote is to keep Halle name. --Dэя-Бøяg, 23:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to me like a proposal to break the naming conventions for places. Maybe that's a good idea in this case, but it would be best to propose it through the Requested moves process. CfD is not the place to discuss renaming articles — which may sound tediously bureaucratic, but it's just a way of ensuring that editors can find discussions in the right place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a discussion to move the title of the article to its original name. --Dэя-Бøяg, 18:47, 5 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Single-article eponymous category for (yes, you guessed) the UK's Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. I have looked for other article which could be included in this category, but can find none that looks like a sure fit. This is probably a category which should be capable of being well-populated, but maybe the articles concerned would be wasting disk space that could otherwise be used for articles on student sports. Anyway, I suggest deletion without prejudice to re-creating the category if and when there are enough articles to populate it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 3 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.

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. I considered posting a list of category members at Talk:Recluse, but decided against it after discovering that the article Recluse at one time did include a long list of recluses, which was removed after talk page discussion due to concerns about WP:BLP and original research. If anyone still would like to have the list of category members, I can easily provide it; just let me know... –Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective category which may inappropriately label people. Gilliam (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as subjective, and as a WP:BLP hazard. Just how reclusive does someone have to be to be include here? No objection to listification, since a list can be properly referenced for each individual entry, whereas a category entry cannot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Social reclusivity can no more be objectively defined than social promiscuity, so I doubt even a list is possible (as opposed to, for example, a referenced List of people with avoidant personality disorder).- choster (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, or add list to the very short main article, per Bhg. But will anyone do it? Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that if this CFD is closed as "delete", then a list of category members be plaed on the talk page of recluse, with a note that it might form the basis of a list subject to each entry being properly referenced to reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a recluse is a defining characteristic. Nothing WP:BLP that I can see. Inclusion in this category should be based on sources, of course. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is a problem of subjectivity here. Listify might answer, since it could be in a table with a column providing brief evidence in justification. E.g. Howard Hughes was reclusive as an old man, but not when younger (I think). Peterkingiron (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A strong defining characteristic of the individuals listed in the category that is appropriately navigated using this category. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a characterization, not an objective fact. No doubt it is a commonly used word and that there are people to whom it is commonly applied, but it does not describe a specific and concrete set of facts, so it will invite OR and equivocate unlike things. Per recluse, its usage could include notable figures who avoid public attention, fugitives, survivalists, or people with psychological disorders, and so could run the gamut from shunning society to live alone in the woods to merely shunning the press to maintain a private life. So in the abstract, it is meaninglessly vague. postdlf (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete; inherent subjectivity problems, which will lead to OR and BLP problems. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Some of these people are verifiable recluses- J.D. Salinger, for example. Some use the word recluse, but without a citation- Dorothy Scharf. And some (Ion Birch) don't have any text at all that indicates a reclusive lifestyle. A cited list would have some merit, but not this category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, chiefly for the reasons of subjectivity already discussed above. Being or not being a recluse is not a verifiable clear-cut distinction. No objection to a list though, as long as each entry includes a brief statement as to why the individual might be regarded a recluse, backed up with a reliable reference. --Deskford (talk) 17:32, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category populated only by the unused template ((Map of cities served by the Dutch railways night service)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See related deletion discussion for ((Map of cities served by the Dutch railways night service)) at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Template:Map_of_cities_served_by_the_Dutch_railways_night_service. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not have catgories of the type "All pages that use template such-and-such". Debresser (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Debresser- the "what links here" button on each template's page does this job better, and without needing to be manually updated. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:43, 4 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.

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 (which in this case has the same effect as "delete", because Category:Doctor Who serials set on Earth is empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Doctor Who serials set on Earth to Category:Doctor Who stories set on Earth

Nominator's rationale: Serials and stories might be different in the show's world- serials are multi-part stories, whereas stories are only one part, but that's not nearly enough to justify having two categories. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to merge. Just delete it. Fred the happy man (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. List of Doctor Who serials includes 1-episode stories as serials. Peter jackson (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorisation and trivial reason for categorisation. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the "stories" and "serials" categories; the distinction is meaningless to anybody interested in the subject from this angle. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 14:57, 3 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Equipment used in multiple sports to Category:Sports equipment

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Pointless category that should upmerge back into its parent category. Has only four entries, and (the important part) unclear inclusion criteria, because operating definition of "sport" is open to enormous interpretation. E.g. is a cue stick disqualified because it is only used in cue sports or does it qualify because it is used in Pool (cue sports) (pocket billiards), snooker and carom billiards? Or is that article just a mishmash of material that "should" really be at pool cue, snooker cue and billiard cue, since each cue type is a little different, thus making the question moot? Should baseball bat be in this category since MLB, US collegiate, Japanese, Olympic and Little League baseball have different rules and are administered differently, making them very similar yet still different sports? And so on. It's a can of worms, and the category is not intuitive anyway. No bang for our buck. All 4 items should be put back in the main category, and that itself should be cleaned up a bit (there are things there that clearly should only be in one of its subcategories). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as pointless, which is a commendably polite way of describing this category. So many things can be used in multiple sports that it's not a defining characteristic of any of them. How many sports use a wetsuit? (sailing, windsurfing, diving, kitesailing ..). And rope? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 3 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.

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. I hope somebody populates it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I found this in the list of Uncategorized categories, and I'm not sure what to do with it. It contains only the head article Mujaddid, where there is a list of possible mujadid, but I'm not sure whether it merits a category. I will ask at WikiProject Islam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add to appropriate categories. There are articles on 25 of the people in that list, and they should all be added to this category. Debresser (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. Very defining characteristic for those so listed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since others reckon it serves a useful and coherent purpose, I'm happy it for it to be kept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Category text says this is for "articles on prominent international businesspeople", but just how "prominent" do they have to be, and in whose judgment? Is it sufficient to be the biggest exporter in Ballyporeen, or do you need to be on the front page of the Wall Street Journal several times a week? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vaguely defined. The category appears to have been created in relation to the early history of NEC - and also to have been accompanied by a deleted article on International businesspeople. But other international operators do not seem to be classed by the scope of their business (e.g. Robert Fleming (financier), Thomas Sutherland (banker), Tiny Rowland). AllyD (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed create the category "International businesspeople" to support the NEC article. I did that based on NEC's significance as the first Japanese company with foreign stock holders. I did not do a search for other international business people. I figured the category was pretty obvious and would attract more entries. To date, that hasn't happened. Another note I can add is the international businesspeople article was created by me accidently while I was trying to create the category. If I'm the only one who supports the category, I can live with it being deleted. Those more familiar with International business might want to add to this discussion. Rbcwa (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague. Debresser (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "International" is not a nationality. Ultimately every overseas merchant or trader would qualify, so that we would need to disambiguate by nationality. This would make its existence pointless. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as meaninglessly vague, and overinclusive. I'd wager that most businessmen from the 20th century onward who merit an article have regularly dealt with foreign customers and companies. I've represented clients in multiple countries; I suppose I would belong in Category:International lawyers if I merited an article. (Damn, that category actually exists! I smell another CFD...) postdlf (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I was right. postdlf (talk) 17:08, 4 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.

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: Speedily deleted at request of creator. Empty category, and I was the only other editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per TfD. Tim1357 (talk) 18:22, 1 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.

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:Heavy Metal (magazine) titles. Jafeluv (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename to something more meaningful, if the category has a coherent purpose. AFAICS, this category appears to have something to do with Heavy Metal (magazine), but I'm not sure exactly what. Some articles (e.g. Little Ego) don't even mention the magazine.
The category was improperly blanked by an editor who tagged it for speedy deletion, and the editor who declined the speedy neglected to restore the parent categories (Category:Heavy Metal (magazine), Category:American comics titles, & Category:Comics titles by company). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like "Heavy Metal stories" or if you want to dismaguate for clarity "Heavy Metal (magazine) stories". I can happily add a description: "Stories that have appeared in the Heavy Metal anthology comic." It does underline a broader concern of mine - Heavy Metal is the title and is an anthology made up of a number of different stories, this also includes other comics anthologies so this also applies to Category:2000 AD titles and Category:Eagle (comic book) titles (leaving aside, for now the fact that The Eagle isn't a comic book - I haven't yet come up with a proper formulation for disambiguating that one) and I wonder if it'd be worth doing a broader renaming to bring all those categories into line. Also, just for the sake of correctness, but Little Ego does mention (and link to) Heavy Metal. (Emperor (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not sure what to do with this category. It groups articles on comics stories that were published in Heavy Metal, but only one of which (Tex Arcana) was exclusively featured in that magazine as best I can tell from the articles; the others were published in a variety of anthologies and also as stand-alone titles. It indiscriminately groups with those stand-alone titles that Heavy Metal publishes in the U.S., like Requiem Chevalier Vampire and Sha (comics), but these seem to just be english-language editions of titles published first in other languages by other companies. So I don't know that there's a strong basis for categorizing either relationship (and Tex Arcana could then just be included directly in the parent category). At a minimum, the articles on features that were published in Heavy Metal magazine should be separated from the articles on titles that were published by the company Heavy Metal. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see the problem - a lot of comics have complex publication histories and this kind of thing is part of it. Some may start at one company and finish at another, others may get greater coverage in the native language through the translation and serialisation. The categories are flexible enough to cope with that, we just need to make sure we are as clear as possible about the sequence of events in the body of the article (as categories are relatively crude tools, which can't be very fine-grained or they'd be underpopulated). This goes for any category really - the article has to help add the context for its inclusion in the category or it should be removed. (Emperor (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
WP:COMICS has been notified. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Heavy Metal (magazine) titles. Better to rename to something clearer and then discuss deletion. My rename opinion does not mean I favor keeping. So, let's rename to fix one problem and then move on. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. That proposed renaming is an improvement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:35, 22 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Gayaza to Category:Wakiso District

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category refers to Gayaza, a township in Uganda of unspecified size. There does not at present appear to be any chance of expanding the category beyond the three articles which it currently contains, so I proposed that the category be upmerged to its main parent ... without prejudice to re-creating it if there is a flurry of new articles to be included in the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG, I have no objection to merging the two categories if it makes the subsequent administration of the merged category easier in the future.Fsmatovu (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. This discussion can be closed, now that the creator of this category has agreed with the merge. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 3 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how useful a form of categorisation it is, but pages' entry into it will be largely based on original research; while many episodes may look like they are contemporary, there is no reliable arbiter of this. And what is meant by "the very near future" - 1 year ahead? 2 years ahead? ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If categories such as Category:Doctor Who historical serials and Category:Doctor Who pseudohistorical serials are not original research than neither is this. Contemporary has a plain enough meaning. Just googling the definition of the word gives us "Belonging to the same period of time" in this case belonging to the same period of time as something was filmed, in the now or the near now. Fred the happy man (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Something is either clearly historical (ie., an episode set in 1879) or not (ie., an episode set in the 42nd century). However, there is no determined date for many episodes (example, example, example), most of which appear to be set roughly in the present day, but that is original research.
See my comment below. My general source for the category is Chronology of the Doctor Who universe in which all the dates are sourced. Fred the happy man (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some are noted to be set a year or so beyond the date of broadcast; are these counted by "the very near future"? Is an episode set in 2012 contemporary? It is the very near future... This is just not a workable category. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 17:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "contemporary" does not mean precisely now. I think it's fair to say that something set around the same time is contemporary. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that a movie or tv show set a year in the future (or a year in the past) isn't contemporary. Fred the happy man (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And where do you draw the line? Are Dalek and Fear Her contemporary? Currently, one is in the category and one isn't, even though they are both set in the same year and were broadcast a year apart. Deciding what does and doesn't fit the category is original research. What about stories affected by the UNIT dating controversy? Indeed, what about stories where the date is not explicitly stated, like The End of Time? Original research everywhere - and it's not even a useful category for the general reader. Maccy69 (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also feel that this is not a workable category. For one thing only the first episode of An Unearthly Child takes place in a contemporary setting, the other three most certainly don't. Yet this cat has been applied to the whole story. Due to the time travelling nature of the show this sort of thing happens more than once. I fear that this is a case of going a category too far. MarnetteD | Talk 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've generally used this article Chronology of the Doctor Who universe as a guide - the entries in the article are sourced. If that article is not original research then neither is the category in question. As for Marnette's point, the first episode is entirely placed in the "present", obviously in a series like Doctor Who a serial may fall in more than one category which is why the category description refers to all or part of the story being in the present day. The same problem would exist with the Category:Doctor Who pseudohistorical serials if one wants to split hairs as there are several stories listed that take place partly in the past and partly in the present or future. Fred the happy man (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OF course, that article you're using as a guide is an abomination.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the other categories are useful, seeing as the show's original purpose was teaching children about history and science. This one is overkill.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. There is no reliable arbiter to make this category reliable Paul75 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. The Wikipedia chronology article can't be considered a reliable source for this category. Maccy69 (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot belive there have been enough series to require splitting by alleged historical period. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a category for historical serials, so a category for serials set around the time of their broadcast makes at least some sense. The above references "Dalek" possibly fits- the next episode, The Long Game clearly does not. What about The Parting of the Ways? Is it an episode in the year 200,100 with scenes in 2006? Would it fit? Who knows- delete. (And, yes, I could have used true "serials" from the first through seventh doctors as examples. The argument doesn't change.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:15, 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Expansion Pak to Category:Nintendo 64 games

Nominator's rationale: Merge as overcateorisation. According to Nintendo 64 accessories#Expansion_Pak, only two games actually required this Pak in order to run, and they are already listed at Nintendo 64 accessories#Expansion_Pak.
If kept, this category should be renamed to reflect its contents, e.g. to Category:Nintendo 64 games using the Expansion Pak. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG. Optionally listify. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Could be listified in article space, but this accessory doesn't even have its own article at this point, so might be cluttering up the general Accessories article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:17, 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.

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) 07:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Balance Board games to Category:Wii Balance Board games

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match head article Wii Balance Board and to conform with the convention of Category:Wii games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:05, 4 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.

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. postdlf (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category seems rather pointless, since according to the article Bhikkhu the term refers to a "fully ordained male Buddhist monastic", so at best it is a by-gender split of Buddhist monks. If we do want to keep a gender-split of this category (and per WP:CATGRS there would need to be a good reason for doing so), then Category:Buddhist monks by nationality (which presumably includes more than one gender) should not be a subcategory.
I don't know much about Buddhism, so will ask the good people at WikiProject Buddhism to help clarify the issues here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for separating male & female Buddhist monastics:

In all traditions monks outrank nuns
Only in China, Korea & Vietnam do nuns survive, though one branch of Sinhalese Buddhism has controversially restored them recently, & the Dalai Lama has authorized such restoration among his followers.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly survive in Tibet and Bhutan also. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. In fact bhikkhuni ordination was never even introduced to Tibet. There are women under vows, who are often referred to as nuns, there & in Theravada countries. Similarly, Japanese married clergy are often called monks. Confusing. Peter jackson (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The word is I think mainly used in Thailand and Sri Lanka, but not in the Tibetan world or Japan. There is every reason to use English here. I would myself expect "Buddhist monks" all to be male anyway; yes - a little research uncovers Category:Buddhist nuns. End of. Except to say that given the great lengths monks and nuns go to to "keep a gender-split", it would seem silly of WP to deny them this. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate Buddhist monks category. It currently contains one Bangladeshi article and one more stub. Both incorrectly give the honorific "Ven." (Venerable) as part of the article title, contrary to the normal guidelines. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:07, 4 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.

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. postdlf (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for what appears to be a 17th/18th century Prussian military family. So far there are only two substantive articles and one disambiguation page, though the articles contain red links to two more. The two existing articles are interlinked only through the disambiguation page Buddenbrock. I would not be opposed to keeping this category if there was significant scope for expanding it or if an encyclopdic head article could be written on the family, but so far it seems that there will be only 4 substantive articles. I will ask the category creator for comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this category there are only two article ( the other one is not an article but a disamb. page ), I don't know if other Buddembrok are notable and the category can be expanded but i don't agree to delete a category because can't be expanded. User:Lucifero4
- Reply Lucifero4, small categories are generally a bad idea because they make navigation harder. Categories exists primarily to make navigation between related articles easier, but small ones are a nuisance for readers because they open them to find very little. That's why we generally delete small categories which don;t have scope for expansion, unless they are part of a wider series, as set out at WP:OC#SMALL. Sorry for being lazy and not linking to WP:OC#SMALL in the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Much depends on the notability of this family. We do have categories for noble houses e.g. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A dab page (i.e. a list) does the job much better. We do not categorise people by the British peerage they held, and should not do so for Prussian nobility. Instead we have a list article naming all holder of the title (and sometimes related ones). Peterkingiron (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom if there are no others to be added at this time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:33, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation per WP:OC#SMALL. This is an eponymous category for the British Accreditation Council, and I don't see any way in which it could ever be expanded beyond the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can't grow either with articles we have, or foreseeable articles, so no reason to keep it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:22, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. This category currently contains just one item, a redirect from one town name to another, and we don't usually categorise redirects. I find it hard to see how this category could ever be populated, because while I can see that there might possibly be scope for an article on how the Ottomans approached the naming of cities within the empire, I can't see much scope for enough articles to require a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; redirects may be created and added to Category:Redirects from historic names, and perhaps a list created and added to Category:Alternative place names, but I don't think we should start creating categories for redirects themselves in this way; they wouldn't appear on the destination articles, limiting their use for navigation, and the other schemes I referenced should be adequate for anyone who prefers to browse by the alternative name.- choster (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 3 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.

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:Central Group. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CentralPlazas in Thailand to Category:Central department stores

Nominator's rationale: The current category name is absurd, as it attempts to use a proper name as a common noun, and the Thailand part is redundant. Proposing to rename to Category:Central department stores instead of "CentralPlaza branches" so that other non-"Plaza" stores may also be included. Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From looking at the articles, this should probably deleted as a duplicate of Category:Shopping malls in Thailand. It appears to be for the centers from one company. If the intent is to have a company categroy, then Category:Shopping malls in Thailand should be the parent and the articles removed from the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; I was hoping that once renamed, the category would be re-categorised under the parent category, and the articles removed from it. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Shopping malls in Thailand as these are shopping malls in Thailand (not department stores). There is no need for a subcat as all the articles are gathered together alphabetically anyway. Occuli (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Central Group and add to Category:Shopping malls by management company. This is a collection of shopping centers owned by the Central Group, and it looks like all of them are already listed in the Thailand shopping malls cat.- choster (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Central Group per choster and adjust parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:45, 2 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.

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 category, LISTIFY contents at Francis Fox of St Germans. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We do not categorize people by ancestor. There's no article about Francis Fox of St. Germans; I expect that this maybe could be turned into an article about him, though I'm not sure how notable he is. List of similar categories that were deleted is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Francis Fox of St. Germans, and listify the membership. This page is quite a reasonable contribution for the newcomer HaWe (talk · contribs), just in the wrong namespace. To stop this form happen again, I suggest that categories should have a named parent article before creation of the category, and that category creation be made slightly more difficult than page creation (perhaps requiring an extra click at then end of some prose). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not quite that simple as just being in the wrong namespace. It's not an article just written in category space, since many articles were actually added to the category. It's a combination category–article, really. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any notions that the content articlified would not be good enough for mainspace should be debated at a future AfD, not here. This is not AfD. But if it were, I would say that the number of incoming links justifies a standalone article even if the person doesn't meet WP:BIO, and I'd also say that WP:N and its subguidelines were not intended to be used to exclude historical sourced content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move per SmokeyJoe. I agree that category creation should be made more difficult than page creation (at present it takes less than a minute to create and populate a category - one would be hard-pressed to create an article or even write a sentence in cfd in under a minute). Occuli (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree strongly with SmokeyJoe. The current category creation process allows for such rapid-fire creation of categories that they can be done with insufficient thought, and there is not even a reminder that categories should have appropriate parent categories. There is a huge disparity between the amount of work required to delete an ill-considered category and the ease of creating it, and this makes it difficult to maintain the structure. May I suggest that we discuss this somewhere centralised, such as WT:CAT? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The suggestion has now been made a few times without opposition. I think it should be boldly proceeded with as per a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks to me like one of those categories that is interesting, useful to some, but unfortunately doesn't meet our current criteria. I would support articleifying at the title Francis Fox of St Germans (the full-stop is not current usage in British English). I have informed the good-faith creator of the category about this discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify The text seems pretty clearly a copyvio from some old work, & there is no evidence that Mr Fox is notable, unlike many of his descendents. But a list would be ok, with a brief, non-copyvio introduction. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, a copyvio of what? If you arte going to allege copyright violoation, you need to say of what, "some old work" is not enough to support such an allegation. DuncanHill (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must I, in fact? You quite often see chunks of professional prose added by editors who can't string together an English sentence. I don't feel inhibited in pointing this out. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The archaic language strongly suggests to me that an old document has been copied. Would any contemporary writer actually begin a sentence with "It is likewise handed down that"??? Mind you, it's so old-fashioned that the original may well be out-of-copyright. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

That's true - but then it didn't come up on an internet search, which almost all PD stuff does. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text starts with a quotation from John Burke (genealogist), who died considerably more than 70 years ago, and so is PD. It continues with text from a privately published work from 1872, which is also likely to be PD. DuncanHill (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all. I thought it was a good idea to categorize a group af people already present in wikipedia this way. The text is from 1872. There is an overlap with category Fox Family of Falmouth as you will have noted. I am sure I will find some more well known descendants of Francis, mentioned in wikipedia. A non-copyvio introduction would be a good idea. Can anyone help? I am quite new to this and I am dutch

Regards, HaWe (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or listify. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly convert to article. The source Burke's Commoners (if that is what it is) is long out of copyright, becing published in 1840s. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope the information in the category description and the listing of descendants with WP articles can be retained in some format. The article "Fox family of Falmouth" benefits greatly from this background material, which also provides information much better than the footnotes in the perceptive and witty Journals of Caroline and Barclay Fox, describing the 1830s,'40s and '50s and published in the 1970s, Barclay's journal having a new edition in 2008.

The "Fox family of Falmouth" article received an average of 383 hits per month on 2009. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:32, 11 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.

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. (Not exactly the Rothschilds, is it? Horace Everett Hooper is turning in his grave.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a meaningless category. All of the persons listed are part of a single family whose names are mentioned in the other articles and has no use beyond those pages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Intention was apparently a category of notable people related to Britney Spears. Categorising by relationships would overwhelm the system. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Smokeyjoe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Articles are sufficiently linked. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 3 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.

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: speedily deleted as recreated material; previously deleted here, here, here, here, here, and here, amongst others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, because we don't split biographical categories between living people and dead people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 1 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.

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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 21#Category:People descendant from Northern Ireland. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this category should be named something like Category:People with Northern Ireland ancestry if kept. How defining is in for someone if their parents are from Northern Ireland, or their grandparents or there great grandparents? While a rename is possible I really question if this category is defining. On top of that, we have, I think, 7 categories for 16 people. Clearly not a great way to categorize these people. I'm not convinced that an up merge to Category:People from Northern Ireland to keep these people in that category tree is justified. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be better defined if allowed to continue. What is the membership criteria. Perhaps "non-Northern Irish" with three grandparents born in Northern Ireland. I suspect that this category was not intended to cover people in Ireland or the United Kingdom.
More likely this is overcategorisation, or overly-Northern Ireland-centric for a global encyclopaedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The same thought applies to all similar categories. Category:People of English descent seems to really be Category:Non-English people of English descent, and as loosely defined as they are, they are hopelessly incomplete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - we have Category:People of English descent, Category:People of Welsh descent, Category:People of Scottish descent, so there should be Category:People of Northern Irish descent (except 'Northern Irish' has been disallowed in earlier cfds: see last discussion on this page). Occuli (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People of Irish descent 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People of Northern Irish descent. I don't think "Northern Irish" as an adjectival phrase for "descent" is objectionable in the same way as it is when applied to people, though of course I might be wrong... I suppose many "descents" had cut off before Northern Ireland began to exist. Don't we have a category for Ulster Scots people etc? Or did that get merged into here. Oh, we do Category:Ulster Scots people, hidden away in Category:Northern Irish of Scottish descent, which is surely wrong anyway, as most are in Canada etc. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnbod, I think using "Northern Irish" as an adjectival phrase is likely to cause a lot of upset even when applied only indirectly to people, but if you do want to open that can of worms then I'll notify the Irish wikiprojects and let those interested make their own comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no thanks. Is that a threat or a promise? But what to call it then? "Ulster descent" would fit the Ulster Scots better anyway. Category:People of Northern Ireland descent, avoiding the dread "ish"? Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended as a promise. If the idea of reopening a delicate compromise was on the table, then interested parties would need to know, and there are strong opinions on both sides.
"Ulster descent" is problematic because Ulster != Northern Ireland. But why change at all? In this sort of area, a phrase which avoids being the subject to allegations of partisanship is a valuable thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People of Northern Irish descent per Occuli. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or rename very slightly) -- there is a lot of political sensitivity here: you are rushing into a very sensitive area: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread". Ulster Scots is an American/Canadian ethnicity, not in British use. Accusing a Catholic resident of Northern Ireland (probably Republican) of being an Ulsterman would probably be inflamatory, since it has a Unionist context. I would suggest we use "Northern Ireland" as an adjective or "Northern Irish" as a grammatically better adjective. I suspect that the degree of intermarriage between Ulstermen of English and Scottish ancestry is too great for that split to be useful. "Adams" (Sinn Fein leader) appears to have a Welsh surname, while some of the Unionist leaders have Irish surnames. This suggests to me a good deal of past intermarriage between Protestant (settler) and Irish (native) communities. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But, I'd rather merge to Category:People of Irish descent. England, Wales, and Scotland are well-defined, historic entities. "Northern Ireland" in this context didn't exist until 1921. What is clear to me, though, is that putting "Northern Irish" into categories is a can of worms I'd rather not have opened. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge to Category:People of Irish descent opens its own can of worms, since many of those in N. Irl don't regard themselves as Irish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ignore me, then. If keeping the status quo is the route of least controversy, then so be it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - On this rare occasion, I would prefer to ignore you. There are so many cans of worms here that an army could live on a diet of worms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please rename to something. "People descendant from Northern Ireland"? It sounds like they were dug out of the ground, like a potato. Category:People with Northern Ireland ancestry is the best I can do so long as we're avoiding "Northern Irish". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GO, are you from down under? In Ireland, when something is dug of the ground it ascends, on account of some geospatial anomaly having placed the ground beneath our feet rather than over our heads ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a point here, though. The title as it stands certainly doesn't look like idiomatic English to me, if even grammatically correct. Peter jackson (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Canadian, living in New Zealand. So yes, since I'm at your antipode my meaning evidently was the opposite of what was intended. No, what I meant was that it sounds like they are descended from the place called "Northern Ireland", as if the ground is their mother, as you might say a potato came from the earth. People are biologically descendant from other people, not places. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:18, 9 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.

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, without prejudice to a new nomination where deletion is proposed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Centrism to Category:Centrist political parties

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Because the articles are all about political parties. Note that while the category may sound hopelessly vague, I think it works because the definition at centrism is a relative one: "In politics, centrism is the ideal or the practice of promoting moderate policies which lie between different political extremes". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly vague and extremely conflicting, since what is centrist in one region is not in another. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. All these parties share a common defining attribute, viz. that they seek to position themselves midway between two large political blocs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply in some countries, the centrist bloc is one of the big political blocs, with one side or the other (or both) a weak bloc. But the position of the bloc could be considered a wing position to political commentators of another region (like how American political commentators describe just about everyone in Europe as left wing nuts) 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. I find there is nothing vague about this category, as long as inclusion in it relies on sources. Debresser (talk) 14:38, 3 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.

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 for now. If the article name changes, it can be renamed back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Northern and Shell Network to Category:Northern & Shell

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match head article Northern & Shell. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually the correct name of the group holding company (with Ltd on the end), which is what we seem to use for other UK news groups. Renaming the article might be better. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at their website, and the company's name includes the word "Network", so I agree that renaming the article would be better. Whether to use "&" or "and" is another issue. I generally dislike special characters in article and category names, but sometimes it is correct. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The correct form of the name will be what appears on the registry at Companies House. The article and category should conform to that (without exapnding & to and). Peterkingiron (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 4 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.

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 as a container category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category appears to refer to the language Marathi, but contains only one article, which does not even mention Marathi, and therefore should be removed. I parented it under Category:Marathi language, and maybe it should be upmerged, or maybe it should be populated. I am not sure what it is intended to be for (maybe for people who speak the Marathi language), but will ask the folks at WP:INDIA for help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the nom. Marathi refers to the Marathi language and any articles in it should be upmerged. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulated article, placing the lone article in Category:Marathi people. Redirect to language category. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but repopulate Marathi does not refer to the language alone, and can refer to the people, culture, history etc. So make it a super-category containing categories Category:Marathi language, Category:Marathi people, Category:Marathi literature, Category:Marathi cinema, Category:Marathi terms etc (compare from Category:Tamil). Abecedare (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that idea of using it as a container category. However, I have no idea what the parent categories of Category:Marathi should be. If someone can add appropriate parent categories, then I think I will probably just withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  - Some possibility: Category:Ethnic groups in India, or Category:Indian society. Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have added the categories using Category:Tamil as an example. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repopulate -- Marathi is an ethnicity as well as a language. Marrathi should thus be a parent to language, rulers, people, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:32, 4 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: SPEEDY DELETE as empty, and/or as a test/maintenance deletion; this was a category that was misused as an article. All information it contained is already in the article noted below. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. All information in this Category:Media in Burlington, Iowa is in the Burlington, Iowa article. DThomsen8 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I found this text in the category, and moved it here. Here is the category before it was blanked, an article in category space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 1 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.

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. Category may be re-created as a redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Media in Uganda to Category:Ugandan media

Nominator's rationale: Merge as obvious duplicate. After merger, suggest re-creating Category:Media in Uganda as a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and create redirect. Logical solution. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer REverse merge but no strong view. Oppose creation of a cat-redirect, as they give some one a lot a trouble patrolling them to keep them empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The convention of Category:Media by country is "Fooish media", so I thought it best to retain consistency. I don't like these adjectival formats, but sadly they are the norm in many category trees. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And, I believe cat redirects are handled by bots? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, they are. Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 9 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.

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) 07:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nisio Isin to Category:Works by Nisio Isin

Nominator's rationale: Rename., because it is a category of works (novels and manga). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 3 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.

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. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Models from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish models

Nominator's rationale: To meet category naming patterns in Category:Models by nationality. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. I know it's the convention of the category, but it's not the convention of Category:People from Northern Ireland. that category was renamed from Category:northern Irish people at CfD 2009 January 7, and the subcategories were all renamed at Cfd 2009 July 13. Adjectives are very sensitive issues in Northern Ireland, and the current convention is a compromise between different worldviews. It's the least bad of any of the available solutions, so please don't reopen that whole can of worms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Northern Ireland models. I've always preferred this solution, since it avoids "Northern Irish" but also keeps the consistent format of the "FOOian BOOers" standard. Or keep as is, but don't change back to "Northern Irish". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Northern Ireland models" is "FOO BOOers" rather than "FOOian BOOers", so it would fit the convention of neither parent category.
Personally, I have always disliked the "FOOian BOOers" convention, because it involves the use of adjectives for nationality, and those adjectives are often contentious. "Northern Irish" is contentious, as is "British" when used for the United Kingdom rather than for Great Britain, and so is Afghan (many ppl in Afghanistan are not Afghan); and so on for many nation-states which are not ethnically homogeneous or include disputed territories. So many categories used this convention that it would be hard work changing it now, but the convention of "FOOian BOOers" is based on the false assumption that a nation-state will have a single adjective which may be applied neutrally to people within its boundaries. The world is not that neat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's FOO BOOers, but at least it keep the FOO and the BOO where they are in almost every other category, whether we currently like the system or not. The parent has Category:Dominican Republic models, Category:Trinidad and Tobago models, and others—which are essentially the same sort of modified "FOOian BOOers" categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the model for GO's suggestion is Category:New Zealand models, a widespread convention. However, the formulation 'from NI' was reached after much acrimony so let us tiptoe around the matter. Occuli (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment New Zealand is not the model for this, since the correct adjectival demonym for New Zealand in English is New Zealand. "Northern Ireland" is not the correct adjectival demonym for Northern Ireland in English - but the adjectival demonym which does exist (Northern Irish) is not acceptable to all people in the six counties for political reasons. This is the reason why the "X of/from/in N.I." version is used. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not NZ—the model (yuk yuk) is Category:Trinidad and Tobago people, Category:Dominican Republic people, Category:Dominica people, Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people, Category:Republic of the Congo people, Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines people, Category:Antigua and Barbuda people, ... shall I go on? Renaming them to "Northern Ireland people" would bring some consistency. Let's try to think a bit wider beyond the scope of just this one "nationality". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good Ol’factory, that may not be a bad idea ... but this is the wrong way to propose it. There are very strong sensitivities surrounding terminology in Ireland. For example, at WP:IECOLL we've spent most of the last year trying to agree a title for the article on the 26-county state described in law (but not in the constitution) as the Republic of Ireland, and we have had to develop a specific naming convention for Stroke City.
      If you really think that the benefits of a renaming outweigh the disruption of re-opening a contentious subject, then you should start with Category:People from Northern Ireland, and make sure that the discussions widely advertised (at WP:IECOLL, WP:NI, WP:IE, etc). But renaming one sub-category without that wider discussion would probably be perceived in some quarters as sneaky, and and although I am sure that's not your intention, I can see no useful purpose in following a path which will inevitably lead to an angry meta-discussion about process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I propose it every chance I get, because I think it's a superior solution, and no one usually pays it much heed. Call it my personal quest, if you will. As for only one subcategory being renamed out of sync with the others—well, there are still a ton of "Northern Irish FOO" categories out there, and consider the last 4 discussions regarding this naming issue: 1 change back to "Northern Irish", 1 no consensus to change "Northern Irish", another no consensus to change "Northern Irish", and 1 change to "Northern Ireland FOO"! There is no current consistency, and "Northern Ireland FOO" is now not unprecedented. I'm sympathetic to the fact that it's a sensitive issue, but those who support "FOOs from Northern Ireland" just haven't done a good job at implementing their choice universally. They renamed the parent category and a few prominent subcategories, but left a great bulk undone, leaving us with a dog's breakfast, frankly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that the inconsistency is unsatisfactory, so I suggest a wider (and suitably advertised) group CFD which either proposes either renaming all the "BOOers from Northern Ireland" to "Northern Irish BOOers", or renaming all the "Northern Irish BOOers" to "BOOers from Northern Ireland". If editors are offered a clear choice between two ways of achieving a consistent out, then the chances are that we will get a consistent outcome. Piecemeal nominations will not achieve that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's just that seemingly no one wants to invite the strife of dealing with it in that way. I may have a personal quest, but I'm not crazy! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BHG & Occuli. Also "Northern Ireland models" might mean some other type of model, though heaven knows what. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blueprints/templates for political solutions, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 02:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe models for unecessary public works to keep the b*****s quiet. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the present form is better, sicne we do not seem to like the demonym "Northern Irish", but conform to the outcome of a wider discussion above. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed If we want to re-examine this- and I feel no need to do so, personally- this CfD shouldn't be the test case to establish a consensus. For this case, respect the hard-fought consensus, and if anyone wants to try an RfC go right ahead. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:28, 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.

January 1

Category:Charles Mingus songs

Category:Aoi Nishimata work

Category:Halle

Category:Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

Category:Recluses

Category:Pages with an EasyTimeline map

Category:Doctor Who serials set on Earth

Category:Equipment used in multiple sports

Category:Mujadid

Category:International businesspeople

Category:Infoboxes in need of more info

Category:Heavy Metal titles

Category:Gayaza

Category:Doctor Who contemporary serials

Category:Expansion Pak

Category:Balance Board games

Category:Bhikkhu

Category:Buddenbrock family

Category:British Accreditation Council

Category:City names in Ottoman Empire

Category:CentralPlazas in Thailand

Category:Descendants of Francis Fox of St. Germans

Category:Spears family

Category:Deceased professional wrestlers

Category:People descendant from Northern Ireland

Category:Centrism

Category:Northern and Shell Network

Category:Marathi

Category:Media in Burlington, Iowa

Category:Media in Uganda

Category:Nisio Isin

Category:Models from Northern Ireland