< March 5 March 7 >

March 6

Modernians and Academicals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all - jc37 04:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.
  • Old Bedford Modernians to (Bedford Modern School) makes sense if the reader is familiar with the "old Fooian" format for alumni categories, and guesses that the word "Modernian" refers to a school name rathrer than to a Modernist. Otherwise it will be gobbledygook to the reader.
  • Old Academicals (Dollar Academy) could refer to aged or historical people who are academics, or to anything old related to academia. Even if the reader guesses that these are "old Fooians" and must therefore be alumni of a school, there is little clue about which school is involved. There are mnay dozens of schools in the UK alone called "Foo Academy".
  • Edinburgh Academicals (Edinburgh Academy) is a slightly more helpful term the "old Academicals", because it does at least have some geographical context, but unless the reader is already familiar with the schools and it's terminology, the two are not readily associated.
In each case, the purpose of the category is more clearly conveyed by the descriptive format. No information will be lost to the reader, because the school's own terminology is explained in a hatnote in each of the three categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Conservation-restoration

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:Conservation and restoration; move everything art-related from the new category to Category:Art conservation and restoration; open up a requested move on Conservation-restoration to Conservation and restoration. GOF and others frequently say that categories should match article names wherever possible. Well, in this case the category does match the article name, but the article name is not backed up by Google or any other method I could determine. RichardMcCoy is right that people in the field sometimes refer to themselves as "conservator-restorers" but the hyphenated "conservation-restoration" is far less common. So the proper course of action is to attempt to change the article name. If RichardMcCoy crosses his arms and stands in the way of that, because he says he knows so much more about this subject than anyone else, then that will be apparent to the closing admin. (It is certainly apparent to me.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Conservation-restoration to something
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have a feeling that this is result of an out of process emptying of Category:Art conservation. The new name is completely ambiguous. So one could argue that a return to the old name is justified. However, what is the most common name here. Is adding 'Art' to the current category names all that is needed? If it looks like a consensus forms here, the subcategories will need to be added to the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's time for you to back away from trying to own this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What else is at work here, then? Seeing what turns up in Google simply is not a any kind of attempt to understand terminology. Come on now, "Mango," you're not really suggesting that as actual research, are you? "Mango," and "Good Ol' Factory" please don't leave your opinions about what's going on here as just sly suggestions; verify them, will ya? I don't appreciate your line of accusations. Unless you have anything productive to say based on something other than Google results, please close this discussion, and delete the two art conservation categories. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you owned up to to your veiled insults. It may feel like I'm dominating this discussion to you, but think about it: I am absolutely correct and justified to dismiss an argument like yours and "Mango" because what you presented as research is only (and this is really important) what you typed into Google. No one should have much respect for that in creating an encyclopedia! That kind of effort is "absurd," "wrong headed," and "contrary to common sense." I'm totally willing to stand behind that, and you should too. I'm also willing to seek consensus, but there is no "community" seriously interested in this topic. It's disappointing that this has gone on this long without any actual research or action, and that I've been put on the hook for it. Again, I appeal to Mango or any other adminstrator to close this discussion and delete the categories Category:Art conservation and Category:Art conservators! --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that you have renamed a category out-of-process. I have not advocated for one particular name as being correct based on google or on anything else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you have decided what the outcome of this discussion is. However even your own comments in this discussion make it very clear that restorers and conservators are two related but different occupations. That alone is a justification for a split. In addition, you seem to have blinders on about how these terms are used. They are not specific to art and hence if the categories are art related, the category name needs to reflect that. I suspect that you are so focused on your view that you are not able to comprehend the arguments and logic offered by others. You really need to read WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:ILIKEIT and probably a few other policies, guidelines and essays. This discussion will be closed when it is time. It will be closed based on the facts presented and their relative strength. Likewise it will not be closed based on who insists on having the last word. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're going to hold this thing up because I didn't follow the process? That's chasing good energy with bad. I suggested this topic be closed because no one has actually done any research to prove anything against what I've done based on the knowledge of the terms used internationally among a variety of professional organizations. I don't want to own this discussion, but at the same time I don't want a couple of misguided Google searches and a few erstwhile drop in editors to decide this important topic. I think this topic would be better suited for arbitration.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the facts that have been presented other than what was typed into Google. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equally you have provided no references at all to back up your assertion that this is the appropriate name. The term is certainly not familiar to non-specialists. Your moves were clearly out of process, and you have yet to set out the case for them properly. The onus for that is on you. It may not be too late to do that instead of huffing and puffing. I have to say that, based in the UK, your argument that "art conservation is a fairly U.S. specific term. Most other English speaking countries will call themselves conservator-restorer or a restorer" doesn't seem right to me - museums in my experience all use "conservation", and people call themselves "conservator" - see the British Museum Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, the National Gallery has a Conservation Department, the British Library has a Centre for Conservation], and the professional association is the Institute of Conservation. "Restorers" are more likely to be found in the commercial sector. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment 6 or so up. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've neither huffed nor puffed, "Johnbod". Please keep your personal attacks away from me. I'm not sure which line of your arguments I'm to respond to here ... In short, and I've stated this above, conservation includes the act of restoration, and as I've stated above it's absurd for me to be held hostage to prove known facts by folks that are relying only on Google to answer questions. If you all want to punish me for not following your rules to a T, fine, but don't knock yourself out doing it. My question to you was why Google searches validate your reasoning? I think, like a few here, you're more interested in winning an argument than thinking about what's being said. You've stated that the category should include conservation and restoration. Why must it include just "art" and exclude the rest of things that professionals in this area work on? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how this "process" works. I had assume that by following the process here editors would have produced facts and used logic to substantiate opinions. Does anyone care to say how you are going to deal with the part of the conservation-restoration category that you are excluding by just making it about "art"? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think buildings belong in the same category, as we all are or might be doing things to conserve or restore our houses (yes those window-frames really will get painted this year), but books, documents and archaeological objects obviously do. I probably wouldn't object to something like Category:Conservation and restoration of cultural heritage but the way Richard is refusing to make his case properly makes such a resolution unlikely now. The vast majority odf the articles in fact relate, or could relate in the case of techniques, to art, and a category note explaining the wider scope will do for now. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This debate has been going on for a fortnight withgout reaching a conclusion. Please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, some sound thinking from "Peterkingiron"! Thanks! "Conservation and restoration" works because it allows for sub categorization and might allow for specializations in the field to be nuanced (though this is really unlikely, because much of the same process is applied to an "artwork" as applied to an "artifact"). The categorization of the object does not necessarily reflect the way that it is treated by a conservation-restoration professional. I can only read "Johnbod's" lack of interest in including the conservation and restoration of historic structures as a personal aside that fails to reflect the reality of the profession and the importance of preserving the built environment. Of course it's possible for a homeowner to undertake a similar project as a historic house museum. In fact, this is why there needs to be good articles in Wikipedia about conservation-restoration, so people know the information! --RichardMcCoy (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close discussion[edit]

Uh, what? Why can "Mike Selinker" close discussion despite the fact that there was no consensus? This is absurd. If he had bothered to read the discussion, he would have noted that there was some decent discussion brewing around it and clear considerations not to do what he just did. He would have also noted that one editor asked for the discussion to be re-listed. What gives? This is a joke. Also, this action is exactly what people complained that I did .... Seems like there ought to be a policy against this kind of thing.

--RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, then why have you added "Art", Mike Selinker? This was clearly rebuffed if you had bothered to read this discussion, and no one every came up with any kind of reason why this decision should be based on your Google search.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't actually read the discussion and now you've created a huge mess. Please explain how you are going to categorize articles that are both about "art" and not about "art" but are both about conservation-restoration? Simply deleting them all out of conservation-restoration and moving them to "art conservation and restoration" doesn't get it. Sorry you didn't read that. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this logic, explain how you're going to categorized Save Outdoor Sculpture!. This project deals with "art" and not "art". But it always deals with conservation-restoration. You've changed it to now be something that only deals with "art". This is wrong. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Mike, that was an example. How are you going to decide with all of the rest of the mess you've made?--RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Treen (wooden)

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Treen (wooden) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LDS architects

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LDS architects to Category:Architects of Latter Day Saint places of worship
Nominator's rationale: Rename. User:208.81.184.4 attempted to propose that this category be renamed Category:Latter Day Saint architects using the WP:RM process. I'm moving the proposal here, but would like to suggest that it would be better as indicated above, since what is important in each case is not that the architect was a Latter Day Saint, but that the architect designed buildings to be used by Latter Day Saints for worship. It is a subcategory of Category:Ecclesiastical architects, which divides architects by the building's denomination, not by the architects' personal denomination. It is also a subcategory of Category:Latter Day Saint places of worship. (Not all Latter Day Saint places of worship are "churches", which is why I haven't selected the word "churches" as the other categories do.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Architects of Latter Day Saint buildings? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only building mentioned in the Reuben Broadbent article is Bowman-Chamberlain House. I don't see how that would be called a "Latter Day Saint building". It sounds like it was a home. If Latter Day Saints live in a home I don't think that makes that building a Latter Day Saint building—it has to be a building with some sort of religious purpose or one otherwise used by a Latter Day Saint church in some fashion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to think of a case of a building that is not a place of worship that would be worth classifying as a Latter-day Saint building. The Church Office Building and Church Administration Buildings are about all I can come up with, and I am not really convinced that in those cases such a classification is worthwhile. Categorizing architects of places of worship by religion using the place of worship makes sense because the actual design of a building is to a large extent determined by the religious beliefs and practices of those involved. This does not apply to buildings that are not used for worship. The Latter-day Saint buildings category would presumably include all buildings owned by, or at least built under the auspices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and presumably other Churches that are part of the Latter-day Saints movement. This would become problematic though. While some might see the City Creek Center in Downtown Salt Lake City as worth connecting to the Church, it is a commercial/residential complex whose developer happens to be the Church. While the location of the building has to do with maintaining the stability of the neighborhood around the Salt Lake Temple, the building itself is not in anyway distinguishable from other such joint use complexes elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the LDS Church alone there is also the Relief Society building, the Family History Library, the regional Family History Centers, the Church History Library, the Church History Museum, the Beehive & Lion houses, visitor centers & historical site buildings (such as most of Kirtland, Nauvoo, BoM/Granger press site), almost all of the buildings at the church schools, a large percentage of the Institute buildings (i.e. those that do not include a chapel, like the ones by/at the church schools, or ASU), seminary buildings, other Church Education System buildings (like Academia Juárez & multiple schools in Tonga & Samoa), Mission Homes/Offices, Welfare Square, all of the Bishops store houses & LDS Family Services buildings, the old Relief Society granaries, the old tithing offices, the old social halls, old stake academies, the old muli-stake activity centers (e.g. the one by the Oakland temple, that activity center in Sacramento where the temple was later built, or the "Tri-stake center" in Mesa), multiple Girls Camp locations, multiple Boy Scout Camp locations actually owned by the church (e.g. Camp Onway). This abreviated list doesn't even start to include building by other demominations. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ecological definitions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ecological definitions to Category:Ecology terminology
Nominator's rationale: per convention and better grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Pannonhalmians

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_18#Category:Old_Pannonhalmians - jc37 05:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old School

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all - Closing these all together, due to pretty much the same arguments throughout them all. None of the opposers are suggesting that the proposed targets are incorrect. One argues to maintain the the status quo; one suggests that "Old fooian" is more commonly known, and so should be used; and one on some un-named principle. Clear consensus to rename. - jc37 05:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old Bloxhamists[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Old Bloxhamists to Category:People educated at Bloxham School
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
In this case, the "Old Fooian" term used appears to refer to scholars, practitioners, or adherent of something called "Bloxhamism", rather than to the alumni of Bloxham School. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old Scholars[edit]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename both, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The current category names falsely imply that the people categorised here are aged or historical scholars, whether of topics called called "Ackworth" or "Bootham", or from places of that name. In fact, these categories contain people who studied at Ackworth School or Bootham School. The new category names convey that simple fact in plain English, and follow the "people educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.
General note
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written.
Over the last few weeks, I have been scrutinising groups of these categories, and bringing to CFD those where I see particular types of problem over and above the general failing which was identified by Moonraker. A week ago, I thought that the ~80 categories I had nominated by then might be the last of those which carried further problems of ambiguity or obscurity beyond the general problem ... but every time I think I have finished, I find that many of the remainder are a can of worms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old Foo Grammarians[edit]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename both, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The current category names falsely imply that the people categorised here are "grammarians", a term used to refer to scholars of grammar. In fact, these categories contain people who studied at one of two grammar schools, a type of secondary school in the United Kingdom. Historically, these were schools which taught classical languages, but since the 19th century (and particularly since the Endowed Schools Act 1869) the term has meant an academically-oriented secondary school, usually with a broad academic curriculum.
The proposed new names fit the "people educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom, and clearly identify the contents as being people from Hull Grammar School or Wisbech Grammar School. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no hits on Google News for either "People educated at Hull Grammar School" or "People educated at Wisbech Grammar School". Cjc13 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point made by BrownHairedGirl. To be honest, most alumni of WGS would probably call themselves an "Old Grammarian" if they were going to at all; this is what the school itself terms its alumni assocation. Historically, the alumni were called "Wisbech Old Grammarians", but I suspect the term went out of fashion because it could be offensive when it's abbreviated. Rob (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another 20 ambiguous Old Fooians[edit]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
One of the categories (Old Andreans) relates to a school in South Africa, so the proposed new name follows the "Alumni of Foo" convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in South Africa. The other 19 all relate to schools in England or Wales, so follow the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.
Notes on the problems
This is a list of each of the categories, with a note on some (but not all) of the problems with their current names:
General note
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written.
Over the last few weeks, I have been scrutinising groups of these categories, and bringing to CFD those where I see particular types of problem over and above the general failing which was so succinctly identified by Moonraker. A week ago, I thought that the ~80 categories I had nominated by then might be the last of those which carried further problems of ambiguity or obscurity beyond the general problem ... but every time I think I have finished, I find that the remainder is still a can of worms :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Another 20 ambiguous Old Fooians)[edit]
  • If you actually went through the discussions, you would see that the rationale has been answered many times. Many of the discussions seem to reflect the opinion of the closing administrator (often the same person each time) rather than an actual consensus. What has been ignored is WP:Commonname. Cjc13 (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:MOM Brands brands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MOM Brands brands to Category:MOM Brands
Nominator's rationale: Something about "MOM Brands brands" doesn't quite sound right. Maybe just "Category:MOM Brands" would work better? ViperSnake151  Talk  04:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Companies of Moldova by region

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Companies of Moldova by region to Category:Companies of Moldova
Nominator's rationale: According to the article Administrative divisions of Moldova, the country is divided not into regions but instead into 37 districts, municipalities and territorial units. I propose an upmerge rather than a rename to Category:Companies of Moldova by first-level administrative subdivision or Category:Companies of Moldova by district, municipality or territorial unit because the tree does not yet contain enough articles to justify a split into 37 subcategories. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:House painters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:House painters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. House painting is not a notable occupation and all of the member articles are categorised by other, more notable distinguishing activities. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was also an amateur bricklayer"! (Churchill) Oculi (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better make a Category:Amateur bricklayers! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is the stupidest argument ever. These are based on people having made their primary living from this trade for at least part of their lives. John Quincy Adams is not notable for being a lawyer, even though he was for a time a law professor at Harvard Law School, but noone would say he is miscategorized there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one would? I wouldn't? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand lobbyists

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Zealand lobbyists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The only article in the cat is not known for her work as a lobbyist, and I don't think there would be many NZ bio articles that could be used to populate the category. NZ has its share of activists, politicians etc but not lobbyists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Construction trades workers by country

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 as all the contents are in the process of being deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Construction trades workers by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. I have put both subcats up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, sure, but where? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the CfD's immediately below. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Singaporean construction trades workers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Construction trades workers. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Singaporean construction trades workers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The only member article can easily be recategorised elsewhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, sure, but where? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now given Samsui women, the only entry in the category, three extra categories appropriate to the subject. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand construction trades workers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Construction trades workers. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Zealand construction trades workers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Sibling cats up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't agree that by its very definition it will never have more than a few members. In fact with the DBNZ project that is going on now is probably a time when we will see a growth in biographies that fit this category. It is a natural category to fit into Category:New Zealand people by occupation and Category:Construction trades workers by country. Mattlore (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it gets more members the topic of "New Zealand construction trades workers" is not something that is of note for an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can you elaborate please. I don't understand why? Mattlore (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is my opinion of course. The way I see it is that even though Wikipedia is not paper there should be some sort of limit to the info we add. This is to help with maintenance, bandwidth limitations, server time etc. The policy at WP:NOT is an expression of the boundaries that the community wants to place on articles, and it is the spirit of those rules as well as the information value of the category up for deletion that led me to express my opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's covered under WP:OTHERCRUDHASNTBEENDELETEDYET, though I see that a number of the people in the railroad category are actually there as notable people within the field (e.g. Bulleid). Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mattlore, it is because accountants are a "profession" and worthy of note, while construction trades workers are just tradesmen, and dirty and not worth noticing by polite society. I think you have detected the rancid elitism at the heart of this nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have an article on construction trades it is clearly a notable profession. Oh wait, you meant "notable professions" not meanial trades. My bad. I will bow to the superior wonder of the profession. No, I will not. I will stick up for the farmers and construction trade workers and not go along with your rancid elitism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I worded it incorrectly. "Notable" in the sense that there are numerous WP articles, Please assume good faith. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand plumbers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to . Timrollpickering (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Zealand plumbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. It is not part of a series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any plumbers in New Zealand notable for being a plumber or are these people who are notable for something else who just happened to be plumbers. If the last is the case, then this category should be deleted. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two entries are know as rugby footballers who happen to be plumbers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand carpenters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Carpenters. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Zealand carpenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. It is not part of a series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus is very, very widely known for having been a carpernter. Saint Joseph the Worker is so named because of his work as a carpenter. With neither is this a trivial fact. Definantly as important as any work that Bill Clinton did as a lawyer. Jesus was more clearly a carpernter than Bill Clinton was a lawyer. It is just that you accept that lawyers are notable and feel that carpenters are trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of women's rights in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:History of women's rights in the United States to Category:Women's rights in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Per other categories in the scheme. Category contains both old and recent subjects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians was born in Kharkiv

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians was born in Kharkiv to Category:Ukrainian Wikipedians
Nominator's rationale: While a category for Wikipedians who reside in Kharkiv may be useful – for instance, to request a free photograph of a building in the city – a category for ones who were born there is not because it reflects no particular ability, interest, knowledge or skill that is relevant to encyclopedic collaboration. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Thomas Uber Cup

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Thomas Uber Cup to Category:Thomas & Uber Cup
Nominator's rationale: Since 1984 both the Thomas Cup and the Uber Cup are held together and the articles use the "YEAR Thomas & Uber Cup" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a better name. --Florentyna (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Language user templates/Uncategorized

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Language user templates/Uncategorized to Category:Language user templates
Nominator's rationale: This is essentially a 'miscellaneous' or 'remainder' category. The parent category currently contains over 140 userboxes which are not subcategorized by language – and not all of them should be subcategorized – and there's no advantage to keeping them separate from the 17 userboxes in this category . -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category