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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Yemeni Regional Branch of the Ba'ath Party (Syria) to Category:Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Yemen Region politicians
• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Syrian Regional Branch of the Ba'ath Party to Category:Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region politicians (category creator manually emptied Category:Ba'ath Party (Syria) politicians and replaced it with nominated category)
• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Lebanese Regional Branch of the Ba'ath Party to Category:Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Lebanon Region politicians
• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Iraqi Regional Branch of the Ba'ath Party to Category:Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region politicians (category creator manually emptied Category:Ba'ath Party (Iraq) politicians and replaced it with nominated category)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are politicians categories so should be named in accordance with the convention for such categories, which is "PARTYNAME politicians", where PARTYNAME = the name of the WP article for the party. Here, the articles are at Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Yemen Region, Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region, Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Lebanon Region, and Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region. (This is a borderline speedy but since I'm changing it from "members" to "politicians" I thought I'd bring it here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good practice to match categories with article titles. Hopefully makes this more straight forward for readers (though this is a complex one!). SFB 20:34, 8 September 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Christian scholars to Category:Christian scientists and purge

Nominator's rationale: this in accordance with its parentCategory:Christianity and science and in deliberate contrast to its childCategory:Theologians and a few grandchildcategories which I would to suggest to take out. The single articles in this category are almost all about scientists (i.e. about non-theologians) so it is pretty confusing to mix it up with a Theologians childcategory and grandchildcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Creating the proposed category would essentially be a re-creation of Category:Scientists of Christian belief, which was recently deleted here. Until we see a consensus change that we should have such a category, it would probably be eligible for deletion as re-created material previously deleted by consensus (referencing back to this discussion). So if the nominated category is serving the same purpose as a category for scientists who are Christian, it should probably just be deleted. It's also the creation of a wonderful editor named User:Pastorwayne, who was blocked for using multiple accounts whereby he created tons of problematic categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're right, I remember now that I've seen the latest discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The parent category Category:Religious studies scholars which includes “Hindu studies scholars” etc suggests to me that the category should be renamed as “Christian studies scholars” if they can be defined and are different from theologians (apart from not necessarily being Christians, just as a Hindu studies scholar need not be a Hindu). Only one subcategory of “Christian scholars” relates to science (Roman Catholic cleric-scientists) and the subcategories for scholars of Eastern Orthodoxy and for Dominican scholars (wot, no Jesuit scholars?) do not specify science. Hugo999 (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Christian studies scholars per Hugo999 above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A rename to Christian studies scholars is not in line with the current category content of single articles about scientists. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - whatever the final solution, Category:Christian Scientists already exists.Jsmith1000 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although that is obviously a different kind of Christian Scientist than what this proposal is thinking about. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It already exists (in a different sense - well done for noticing) and is too close to what is proposed above for that to be available for this proposal.Jsmith1000 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What about Category:Christian academics, which could then house the theologians cat but would also make room for folks in both the sciences and the humanities? Nevermind--that doesn't solve the issue listed in the proposal. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Final attempt, what about Category:Scholars bridging Christianity and science ? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is necessarily a diffuse category, covering both theologians and scientists who are Christian; The headnote requires this to be more than a trivial intersection. Theologians are certainly scholars, but are not scientists. The distinction between Category:Christian Scientists (a member of a denomination that orthodox Chritians may regard as a cult) and a Chistian scientist] (a scientist who is Christian) is obviously verbally a very fine one, though they are very different things. I would thus prefer to avoid having two categories so similar that inexperienced editors may get the wrong one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the difficulties of the naming. Could you also comment on the proposal rationale to purge the category to remove non-scientists? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove the parent cat since there should be a lot of non-scientist, non-theologian names added to this cat. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two questions: which of the parent categories do you mean? And also, do you mean that you don't agree to restrict inclusion criteria to scientists and purge the category to remove non-scientists? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking to delete the "Christianity and Science" cat and let the cat be for scholars in any field (theologians are already included). If "Christians in science" is just going to get deleted, then maybe we don't need a cat restricted to the sciences. I'm not tied to that solution, but it's worth a thought. Aristophanes68 (talk)

I don't think we should delete "Christianity and Science", since the relationship between Christianity and science is really a challenge within (parts of) Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC), e.g. per Science and Christian Belief. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 1- no clear reason to change to just scientists. 2- the proposes name is too like the CChristian Scientists and too likely to cause confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to "Sportspeople from City" and "Ice hockey people from Province/Territory" pairs. Consensus was to delete, but we have to make sure that we keep the articles in those trees. If anyone wants to help with the merge, feel free. As to major cities, that was not really discussed as to which ones, so there was really no case to exclude individual cities. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting all of the following:

Nominator's rationale: Per numerous past CFD discussions (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_12#Category:Ice_hockey_people_from_Detroit for the most recent), we do not create intersection categories for "sportspeople in individual sport from individual city"; rather, we keep such people in "Sportspeople from City" and "Ice hockey people from Province/Territory" without subcatting any more narrowly than that. All of these categories, accordingly, should be deleted, with the people upmerged to the appropriate "Sportspeople from City" and "Ice hockey people from Province/Territory" pairs. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per previous CSDs. Overcategorization....William 21:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per William. Oh, and Bearcat and William, I know who's creating the Ice hockey people by (city/town) categories. It was User:Marc87 that the user created the cities categories. So Bearcat and William, could either of you write a meesage to User:Marc87 and give him the warning by never create the Ice hockey people from (city/town) categories. OK? Thanks! Steam5 (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait -- The outcome of the Detroit precedent was followed by it being pointed out that the Ontario one had over 1100 people in it, which is too much for a useful category. That needs to be split, but how? Are there counities in Canadian provinces? Winnipeg and Vancouver are probably large enough to merit categories being kept, but may of the rest will be much too small, and will never get a reasonably large population. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep categories for bigger cities I don't see the purpose of getting rid of the pages from Category:Ice hockey people from Toronto, and placing them in Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario. The former is already somewhat large with 450 pages in it, and the latter already has 1,200 in it. Why would we want to make categories any more bloated than they need to be, when we have a way to manage their size? Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 02:14, August 25, 2014 (UTC)
• Keep All Using city to break down the mass of Canadian ice hockey players is a far more effective aid to navigation given the size and scope of the categories if they were to be lumped together by province as proposed. Alansohn (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and upmerge all per nom. Who says 1100 people is too big a category to be useful? If it's the right level the size is what it is. The are almost 9000 in Category:Harvard University alumni, and that's when you sub-cat out athletes and grad schools. The only reasonable sub category I could see would be breaking these into "ice hockey players from Ontario," "ice hockey coaches from Ontario," etc, without lumping them into "ice hockey people. But splitting them to smaller geographic units is breaking them into units that aren't that meaningful and also isn't consistent with pretty much all past CfDs which have always supported going no lower than state/province level for specific sports (city level does exist for sportspeople) Rikster2 (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - I will also say that it is nearly impossible to keep these categories to "just the big cities" once the structure is started. The sportspeople categories are a great example. At first we just had them for the really big cities. Now we have things like Category:Sportspeople from Norwalk, Connecticut. Once the structure is established, users (naturally) expect this to be acceptable practice across the board. Where does the line get drawn? Rikster2 (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further point to what he said: Good luck trying to enforce an arbitrary line being drawn like, "cities with 500,000+ inhabitants." Not only is is arbitrary, i.e. original research, but the proliferation of categories with way smaller populations will be too difficult to police. You'll be taking literally dozens to CfDs and wasting immeasurable time and effort trying to enforce such a silly thing anyway. Cut this off at the head and do not allow any players (of any sport) to be subcategorized by a geographic region smaller than a U.S. state or Canadian province. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and upmerge all I agree with Rikster here. The only reasonable split for this category would be splitting coaches/players. But splitting by city is not defining of a player. A player who is from Toronto is not a significantly different sort of hockey player than one from Kingston. There is a point where categories need to stop being split. In this case Province is it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and upmerge all per both Rikster2 and DJSasso. There is ample precedent in past CfDs about this exact topic and all of them resulted in upmerging back to the state/province level. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/upmerge. I agree with the others. These categories weren't bad ideas, per se, but I don't see the existence of categories with a couple thousand entries to be problematic. (Hell, Category:Living people has over 660,000 entries!) Overall, I think that breaking down by city actually increases the difficulty in finding players via the category tree. Resolute 18:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep categories for bigger cities. for the same reason as stated by Canuckian89 GLG GLG (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge but keep for major cities. As centres of population, major cities invariably have greater concentrated numbers of sportspeople. The "People from x" categories are also forms of identity category. People identify with large cities, more so than they do regional units, thus the distinction is useful for readers and biographical purposes. SFB 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what population cutoff distinguishes a "major" city from a "minor" one? And, for that matter, how do you propose to pick any population cutoff at all without violating WP:OC#ARBITRARY in the process? Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if these are to be deleted, shouldn't they be salted? - Hoops gza (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2014 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:National Football League summer camp sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Kansas City Chiefs summer camp sites

Nominator's rationale: That, for example, the New Mexico Military Institute has hosted a summer camp for a sports team is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the institute (it's not even mentioned in the article text). DexDor (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is essentially a performance by performer venue: the camp being the performance and the venue the performer. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-essential characteristic of those places. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. As Peterkingiron notes, this is the stadium equivalent to performer by performance. Resolute 18:27, 29 August 2014 (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 (G7). – Fayenatic London 16:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sports originating in Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category given it has only one entry, no hope of growth, and the fact that it's parent, Category:Sports originating in Canada has only a dozen entries itself so distillation by province is not needed. No upmerge is required as the lone article is already in the Canadian category. Resolute 20:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the category, I have no objection to its deletion. Cowdy001 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2014 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cholmondeley Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Having won an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at Cholmondeley Award. I checked a sample of the articles in this category - all are in a suitable category (e.g. Category:English poets) and they either didn't mention the award (some examples) or mentioned it in a list of awards received. DexDor (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- list exists. A prize of £8000 will be important to the poet winning it, but it clearly fails WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Please make sure that any and all categories that are deleted have their content in Wikidata.. You are destroying a resource for information for Wikidata!! Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I beleive WikiData gets info from lists and infoboxes (where info can be cited), not afaik from categories. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2014 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Which associations a university/college is a member of is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic (most of the articles in this category do not mention this association in the article text, let alone in the lead). For info: This is part of a series of CFDs for membership of university associations (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_20#Category:Port-City_University_League). For info: there is a list in the template on the Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and Universities article and the category could also be listified into that article. That article should be upmerged to Category:College and university associations and consortia in the United States. DexDor (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Question: I do not see how this category differs from any other in the Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by association tree. Are all of those entries going to be put up for deletion? And if so, why not just do them all at once? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered: Is the reason we're only doing these one-by-one because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_2#Category:Universities_and_colleges_by_association? That link would be a lot more useful to use in the rationale statement. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Belonging to this association is not a defining trait of the members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2014 (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) 22:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films set in a fictional region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of the films and overly-broad in any case. DonIago (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Films are fictional, so this becomes pointless and non-defining to the film in question (IE, it's almost never ever mentioned in the lead). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This category was created to differentiate from "Films set in a fictional country" as only the particular region may be fictional while the country may be real (eg: Gotham in USA). I therefore considered it useful that way. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see there is that "region" is a vague term. A country could be a region. Additionally it's unclear in the sense that the Matrix is a fictional region, but so is a fictional town set in a real state/country/etc. DonIago (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not defining for the films. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Supported keeping the fictional country category but this one doesn't seem defining to the articles currently in the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2014 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:McCarthy Trenching albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  as the article on the band McCarthy Trenching was deleted via Wikipedia:Proposed deletion months ago for being non-notable it would seem to follow that the albums are non-notable. Although I suppose it might be possible that the band is notable and the deletion could be reviewed.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Article on the band has been revived. I'm not withdrawing yet as the individual album articles might be made redirects to it.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but per WP:SMALLCAT. Two articles is best handled by a "See also" section. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2014 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Beulaville, North Carolina to Category:People from Duplin County, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county community with just one entry. ...William 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 23:36, 28 August 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 21:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Film awards for male debut actors to Category:Film awards for debut actors

Nominator's rationale: There is a female counterpart category named Category:Film awards for debut actress. As "Actor" implies a male actor, there is no need to add "male", this will also result in a similar naming convention between the two categories. Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as hashed out at numerous past CFDs, is that "actors" simultaneously functions as both the gender-specific term for a male actor, and the gender-neutral umbrella term for both male and female actors — and because of the WP:CATGRS rules about gender categorization, the only way that separate categories for actresses could exist at all was if they paralleled male-specific categories within a gender-neutral parent, and not if they were subcategories of wherever the male actors were sitting. Accordingly, the consensus established at CFD was to move male actors into subcategories that specified "male" in their names — and since there's no other possible solution that avoids the problem of making women a subcategory of men instead of women and men both being subcategories of humans, it's going to have to stay that way. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge the actors and actress categories into "Film awards for debut performances"? Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thing is, look at the other categories in Category:Film acting awards: Film awards for lead actor‎ and Film awards for lead actress‎, Film awards for supporting actor and Film awards for supporting actress‎. Only Film awards for male debut actors‎ has "male" in it. So either all other categories should change, or this one should have a similar naming convention. Keeping it as is just serves no purpose.--Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Actor is increasingly used in a gender neutral fashion hence the rise in use of "female actor" and its "male actor" counterpart. SFB 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Contrasting "male actor" to "actress" is the standard practice in Wikipedia category names. I think it is a good way to do things. Since it is done in hundreds of categories, changing it in just this category and not others would make no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2014 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rock singer-songwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: By definition, anybody who writes rock songs is not a singer-songwriter, so this should be a null set. (FYI, a singer-songwriter is primarily a solo act, one person playing a guitar or piano, singing serious songs that are political or socially topical. Rock songs are written to be performed by a rock band.) All the sub-categories should be deleted as well, for the same reason. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly there is room for a category containing the set of people who write and sing rock songs, but it should not be using the specific term "singer-songwriter". Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you're attaching some extraneous details to "singer-songwriter" — the term refers to anybody, regardless of genre, style, thematic concerns, instrumental accompaniment, etc., who performs as a solo artist and writes some or all of their own material. It does not require a piano or a guitar — those are certainly the most common accompaniments for a singer-songwriter, because they're the two kinds of instruments it's easiest for a solo musician to play while simultaneously singing, but they're not requirements of the term (strictly speaking, it isn't even necessary for them to actually accompany themselves on any instrument at all — Morrissey, frex, just sings, while a backing band plays the actual instruments.) Nor does it require the songs to be politically or socially topical — that's one type of material that singer-songwriters can do, certainly, but far from the only type. I can name you dozens of singer-songwriters who've never gone anywhere near political material of any sort. What needs to be changed here is not the wording of this category name, thus, but the parts of the introduction at singer-songwriter that led you astray. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, let's imagine that Wikipedia really needs two articles, a simple one about singers who write songs, and a complex one about the people who fall into the genre of the folk singer tradition. The above category would confuse the two. If we are to have proper categorization, the two concepts should be separated. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as almost swallowing the two components. If kept, presumably because the combination is what's defining, then all articles in the category should be removed from the corresponding "singer" and "songwriter" categories as supersets of this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the opening paragraph of our article on singer-songwriters "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material including lyrics and melodies. As opposed to contemporary pop music singers who write or co-write their own songs, the term singer-songwriter describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition.[1][2] Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano; both the compositions and the arrangements are written primarily as solo vehicles, with the material angled toward topical issues—sometimes political, sometimes introspective, sensitive, romantic, and confessional." I had assumed that this term just meant someone who both sings and writes songs, and may have added such classification based on that. After reading this, I think we might be best off getting rid of the category at all. It too much sounds like something like "actor-politician".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2014 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rhythm and blues singer-songwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: By definition, anybody who writes R&B songs is not a singer-songwriter, so this should be a null set. (FYI, a singer-songwriter is primarily a solo act, one person playing a guitar or piano, singing serious songs that are political or socially topical.) All the sub-categories should be deleted as well, for the same reason. Binksternet (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly there is room for a category containing the set of people who write and sing R&B songs, but it should not be using the specific term "singer-songwriter". Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you're attaching some extraneous details to "singer-songwriter" — the term refers to anybody, regardless of genre, style, thematic concerns, instrumental accompaniment, etc., who performs as a solo artist and writes some or all of their own material. It does not require a piano or a guitar — those are certainly the most common accompaniments for a singer-songwriter, because they're the two kinds of instruments it's easiest for a solo musician to play while simultaneously singing, but they're not requirements of the term (nor, for that matter, are they entirely absent from R&B music, as pianist Alicia Keys and guitarist Bruno Mars and both-of-them Prince can attest.) Nor does it require the songs to be politically or socially topical — that's one type of material that singer-songwriters can do, certainly, but far from the only type. I can name you dozens of singer-songwriters who've never gone anywhere near political material of any sort. What needs to be changed here is not the wording of this category name, thus, but the parts of the introduction at singer-songwriter that led you astray. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, let's imagine that Wikipedia really needs two articles, a simple one about singers who write songs, and a complex one about the people who fall into the genre of the folk singer tradition. The above category would confuse the two. If we are to have proper categorization, the two concepts should be separated. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons I stated above, and with the same comment as mine above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the opening paragraph of our article on singer-songwriters "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material including lyrics and melodies. As opposed to contemporary pop music singers who write or co-write their own songs, the term singer-songwriter describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition.[1][2] Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano; both the compositions and the arrangements are written primarily as solo vehicles, with the material angled toward topical issues—sometimes political, sometimes introspective, sensitive, romantic, and confessional." I had assumed that this term just meant someone who both sings and writes songs, and may have added such classification based on that. After reading this, I think we might be best off getting rid of the category at all. It too much sounds like something like "actor-politician".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2014 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pop singer-songwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: By definition, anybody who writes pop songs is not a singer-songwriter, so this should be a null set. (FYI, a singer-songwriter is primarily a solo act, one person playing a guitar or piano, singing serious songs that are political or socially topical.) All the sub-categories should be deleted as well, for the same reason. Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly there is room for a category containing the set of people who write and sing pop songs, but it should not be using the specific term "singer-songwriter". Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you're attaching some extraneous details to "singer-songwriter" — the term refers to anybody, regardless of genre, style, thematic concerns, instrumental accompaniment, etc., who performs as a solo artist and writes some or all of their own material. It does not require a piano or a guitar — those are certainly the most common accompaniments for a singer-songwriter, because they're the two kinds of instruments it's easiest for a solo musician to play while simultaneously singing, but they're not requirements of the term (strictly speaking, it isn't even necessary for them to actually accompany themselves on any instrument at all, as many singer-songwriters just sing, while other session musicians play the backing instruments.) Nor does it require the songs to be politically or socially topical — that's one type of material that singer-songwriters can do, certainly, but far from the only type. I can name you dozens of singer-songwriters who've never gone anywhere near political material of any sort. What needs to be changed here is not the wording of this category name, thus, but the parts of the introduction at singer-songwriter that led you astray. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, let's imagine that Wikipedia really needs two articles, a simple one about singers who write songs, and a complex one about the people who fall into the genre of the folk singer tradition. The above category would confuse the two. If we are to have proper categorization, the two concepts should be separated. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as almost swallowing the two components. If kept, presumably because the combination is what's defining, then all articles in the category should be removed from the corresponding "singer" and "songwriter" categories as supersets of this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the opening paragraph of our article on singer-songwriters "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material including lyrics and melodies. As opposed to contemporary pop music singers who write or co-write their own songs, the term singer-songwriter describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition.[1][2] Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano; both the compositions and the arrangements are written primarily as solo vehicles, with the material angled toward topical issues—sometimes political, sometimes introspective, sensitive, romantic, and confessional." I had assumed that this term just meant someone who both sings and writes songs, and may have added such classification based on that. After reading this, I think we might be best off getting rid of the category at all. It too much sounds like something like "actor-politician". The article on singer-song writers says they are not pop musicians in the current tradition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2014 (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) 22:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Istanbul Marathon winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The Istanbul Marathon (like the other marathons below) is not a competition that is recognised across the sport as a major race to win. Winning this race is not a defining characteristic by default (indeed, for many in the category is was just one of many races they entered and won that year). Compare this for example with Category:Boston Marathon winners – winning this competition represents reaching the pinnacle of the sport and international coverage. SFB 18:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt if we should delete. The category may not be as relevant for Wikipedia readers who are interested in top marathon running, but it may be interesting for Wikipedia readers interested in running sports in their own country / own city, so with a sports x geography interest. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Istanbul Marathon has risen to the world's best marathons "Gold Label" by IAAF (International Associations of Athletics Federations) for the third time. İstanbul Marathon, which has run in the silver label between 2008 and 2011, entitled to the Gold Label since 2012 as a result of the successful organizations. The world's top 22 marathon title of the "Gold Label" was given to the İstanbul Marathon as 22nd. Thus, İstanbul Marathon ranked among the best 22nd Marathon in the world and the best 11th Marathon in Europe. 36th İstanbul Marathon going to start third time in the Gold Label as one of the best marathons in the world.": "The İstanbul Marathon Will Be Run In The Gold Label For The Third Times!". Vodafone Istanbul Maratonu. Retrieved 2014-07-25.

• Weak Keep Istanbul, Listify Others Istanbul seems (arguably) defining, the others clearly are not. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other nominations

• Category:Košice Peace Marathon winners
• Category:Leipzig Marathon winners
• Category:Polytechnic Marathon winners
• Category:Vilnius Marathon winners
• Listify (if necessary) then delete -- This is much too like an award winners category for my liking. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essentially fail the awards categories rules for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per JPL....William 20:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining award or performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:American women engineers to Category:Women in engineering and to Category:American engineers if not in an acceptable sub-cat.
• Upmerge Category:Iranian women engineers to Category:Women in engineering and to Category:Iranian engineers
• Upmerge Category:Canadian women engineers to Category:Women in engineering and to Category:Canadian engineers if not already in an ERGS free sub-cat.
• Nominator's rationale With over 850 articles in the parent, it is evident that Category:American engineers is not effectively split by non-gender means, and so it would seem to be better to upmerge this to its parents than to have it sit as a functional last rung category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my comments here, I believe existence of gendered categories should not be subject to existence of other sub-category types. A non-diffusion approach should render the last rung rule unnecessary. SFB 17:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. Gender is usually not a defining characteristic within a profession. (There's a similar CfD with women historians running.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, this is not similar to the issue for women historians. Here, I am proposing that we keep a separate category for women in engineering, I am only proposing that we do not split it by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. In the light of the historians discussions, I would rather favour only merging to Category:fooian engineers actually. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no need to ghettoize these - are there reliable sources that American women engineers do engineering differently than American non-women engineers? Please provide them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. While engineers have traditionally been male, so that it is still a profession where there are few women, there is little reason to believe women perform much differently from man. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As an appropriate and effective navigation aid across this strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2014 (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.