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: re-listify! We'll show those AFDers! what do you mean, stop joking around? ok, then... keep. Consensus is that abandoned (given up, not in use, but still standing) is different from former (demolished). Kbdank71 15:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Abandoned buildings in the United States to Category:Former buildings and structures of the United States

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. What exactly is the difference here? Apparently this category was created from this AfD discussion which I read as a delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Trending toward keep - a "former" building is a building that no longer exists. An "abandoned" building still exists but is not in use. There is a difference between the two which would be lost if the categories were merged. Otto4711 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abandoned actually means 'given up' as far as I know. I think that most of these are still actually owned by someone and hence not abandoned. They may be not in use, but clearly are not abandoned. Could this be a US/UK issue? Would a rename to Category:Deserted buildings and structures of the United States be better? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term abandoned is typically used in a broader sense, so it goes beyond ownership to refer to buildings that are no longer occupied or maintained. A quick Google search for abandoned buildings gives a pretty clear idea about how the term is applied. - Eureka Lott 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Abandoned buildings are quite definitely still standing, so they're not former buildings. They often end up as former buildings, so this category may require occasional attention. I moved the category up a level, from Category:Former buildings and structures of the United States to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States. - Eureka Lott 00:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I just noticed that the description of Category:Former buildings and structures of the United States was changed. It used to read, "This category is meant to incorporate buildings and structures within the United States which no longer exist." Now it says, "This category is meant to incorporate buildings and structures within the United States which no longer exist or are no longer used for their original purpose." I think that it should probably be changed back. - Eureka Lott 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the introduction should be changed back. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)On second thought that introduction gets into the differences between former, abandoned, defunct, demolished and reused. Not sure where that leads. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that it contradicts the description of Category:Former buildings and structures that has been in place since the category was created in 2005. - Eureka Lott 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think. Several are awaiting new uses, subject to planning consent/listed building issues/finance etc. The Daniel Boone Hotel has been demolished it seems. It all seems rather arbitary, plus there is a "current" issue, as at least some are likely to be used again for something. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "abandoned" = existing, but not in use; "former" = non-existent. There is a meaningful and defining distinction between the two states. Alansohn (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "abandoned" means more than that. What if a building has eg security arrangements & at least minimal maintenance, as seems to be the case with many here? Abandoned is falling apart in the countryside in my book. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename because, as noted above, abandoned is different than "former," which means no longer existing. I'm not certain whether the abandoned category should exist at all, however. How concrete of a classification is "abandonment"? How stable is it a condition for a building? Is this category only meant to apply to any building that is currently abandoned, or any building that was ever abandoned, even if it later came into use again or was demolished? Postdlf (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose upmerge because there seems to be a useful distinction here, as many have noted already. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose changes By the common English meaning of the words, there is a difference between a 'former building' (demolished) and an 'abandoned building' (no longer being used). Hmains (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lincoln scholarship and biography ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Books about Abraham Lincoln, consistent with other sub-cats of Category:Books about United States Presidents. I suspect this category was named thusly in order to include the article about author Emmett McLoughlin, who hardly counts as a "Lincoln scholar" in any event. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While the parent Category:Books about United States Presidents is a mish-mash of variations, "Books about Abraham Lincoln" would be the most consistent with the other categories there. Again, we should probably consider this issue more globally than just Lincoln. Alansohn (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (upmerge). Kbdank71 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biographies of George Washington ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete and upmerge the sole article to both parents. I just spent about 20 minutes looking around for other articles about Washington bios, and amazingly, this appears to be the only one we've got. If there were already 2 or 3 articles, I'd just leave the category alone and assume that more will be added over time. With only one article, it just doesn't make sense. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the creator, I figured more Washington biographies would be added. Since that hasn't happened, there really isn't a point to a one article category.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to be consistent with the Lincloln category (above), should it not be renamed Category:Books about George Washington? Peterkingiron (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and upmerge per nom. If a need develops for it in the future, it could always be created anew. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Judy Garland biographies to Category:American biographies

Nominator's rationale: Merge the books per nom. Merge the list to Category:Judy Garland. The existing list is more complete and better for navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to both parent cats. This was on my "to do list" -- ya beat me to it. Cgingold (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as a reasonable sub-category of Category:Biographies by subject. Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm honestly a little surprised by your Keep votes on these. By implication, you appear to be supporting a category structure on a par with books by author. Where would you set the threshhold for such categories? 3 books? 2 books? Cgingold (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the potential exists for additional articles on other Garland biographies (print or otherwise) so I don't believe that an over-arching threshold or category structure is needed. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an example of a small category with ample room for growth on a defining subject. Alansohn (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and to Category:Judy Garland. A good list exists so no real need for a corresponding category right now. I find it unlikely that many of the other books listed there will have independent articles written about them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. It's not in Bios by subject (which itself seems to be a small random group of bios; it's missing a lot of "by subject"s), and American bios isn't so big to need subcatting at this point. recreation ok if it grows to need it. Kbdank71 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Tom Cruise biographies to Category:American biographies

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. OCAT, upmerge to parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent cat. Like I said above, this one was on my "to do list". Cgingold (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as a reasonable sub-category of Category:Biographies by subject. Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an example of a small category with ample room for growth on a defining subject. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete OCAT. Books are already listed in further reading section in the persons article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to both parent cats. Like I said above, this one was on my "to do list". Cgingold (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as a reasonable sub-category of Category:Biographies by subject. Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an example of a small category with ample room for growth on a defining subject. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would support a narrower "biographies of..." formulation, otherwise it becomes the unwieldy problem of how much about the subject must it be and what RSes tells us that it's at least that much... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlos; well-stated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian biographies (books) to Category:Indian biographies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The other by country subcategories of Category:Biographies (books) are of the form Category:Fooian biographies so this should be named to match. If consensus is to rename all of the others to this form to match the parent, that would also be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CNET websites to Category:CBS Interactive websites

Nominator's rationale: CNET websites are now owned by CBS Interactive. --- RockMFR 21:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Has CNET been dissolved as an entity? Or is it now a subsidiary brand of CBS Interactive? It's not clear from the articles, and I still see CNET links on a couple of the sites.-choster (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNET still exists as an entity [1]. It's owned by CBS now, but is still a separate entity. TJ Spyke 23:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean CNET Networks, not CNET the website. My point is that if it is an intact subsidiary of CBS Interactive, there's no need to delete, because the websites remain part of CNET. If, on the other hand, the unit has been dissolved, it would be appropriate to eliminate the corresponding category.-choster (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, there is no longer an entity known as "CNET Networks". --- RockMFR 03:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. NPOV, too broad, many unanswered questions, and no good solutions. Is there no existing merge target? Perhaps not all articles will fit in the new category, but that isn't always a bad thing. Kbdank71 16:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Victims of communism to Category:to be determined

Nominator's rationale: Rename - this name strikes me as NPOV and it seems strange to ascribe victims to a socio-economic theory. Something like Category:Victims of communist regimes is closer to the mark but may not be the best choice. Otto4711 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This contains only subcategories at present, most of which specify victims of "repression" (Category:Victims of Communist repressions in China, Victims of Communist repressions in Poland 1939-1989, Category:Victims of Communist repressions in Romania). Perhaps the best name for the parent would be Category:Victims of Communist repressions? Postdlf (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, slogan like definition. The persecution was always organized by the state and its extent and details were country specific. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The current name & scope are too broad, with unclear boundaries. In light of the contents, I suggest renaming to Category:Victims of political repression in Communist states, which would be a sub-cat of Category:Communist states. I guess we would also want to set up Category:Political repression in Communist states as the intermediate sub-cat between the head category and the one we're dealing with. Cgingold (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's hard to construct this narrowly enough. Otto's suggestion would presumably include Francis Gary Powers and Arthur Liebehenschel, and arguably all residents of each communist country during the period it was communist (in some more practical view) neither of which was probably not how it was meant. The formulations by Cgingold are narrower, but ultimately lead the question: what was the difference between political repression and other sorts of repression? Show trials, ethnic cleansing, repression of religion, various foreign intrigues and interventions, etc.. And who were victims? Presumably, again, the entire populace whose free speech and fundamental rights were stifled are among the victims? Probably not what was meant. If we want to be narrow, why not Category:People convicted of treason in communist states, Category:People convicted of sedition in communist states, and whatever other instruments of state-imposed criminality, and such others as needed Category:People sent into exile by communist states, Category:People confined to mental institutions in communist states, and whatever to limit the scope of the category and gather them up under Category:People confined by communist states. Failing a narrowing and definition, the cat should be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renamings

Category:History of Germany by place -> Category:History of Germany by location

Category:History of Italy by place -> Category:History of Italy by location

Category:History of Portugal by place -> Category:History of Portugal by location

Category:History of France by place -> Category:History of France by location

Category:History of Turkey by place -> Category:History of Turkey by location

Category:History of Spain by place -> Category:History of Spain by location

Nominator's rationale: Location sounds more serious then place. Further, we have Category:History by location but no Category:History by place. As Cat:History of Place already has Category:History by country as a subcategory, the above categories, plus Category:History of Poland by location which I just created, should be categorized under a new category, perhaps Category:History of countries by location, which should become a new subcategory of Category:History by country.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the category mixes cities, bundeslaender (some of which are formerly independent states), etc. Does "location" connote such mixing, or should it be "by geography" or "by geographic entity" or something more nebulous to take in the variants here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've used "by location" in the past to cover a multitude of geographic entities, including both cities and larger regions. I think the proposal is fine on that score. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Talk page templates to Category:Talk namespace templates

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The functions of these two categories appear to be identical, so merge to the name that fits the existing categorization scheme. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Windsor Station ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete 1)The category was for one railroad station in Vermont, which already has an appropriate category of it's own. Single railroad stations rarely ever need separate categories. 2)This category once included a commonstag for a former railroad station in Quebec. DanTD (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, but the category needs to be tagged for cfd. Occuli (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Done. I couldn't find a tag before. ----DanTD (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Endocrine-related diseases and the skin to Category:Endocrine-related skin conditions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Endocrine-related diseases and the skin" category should probably be renamed to "Endocrine-related skin conditions" as the proposed name is more concise and less ambiguous. With regard to the category's scope, conditions being included are not inherent diseases of the skin, but, rather, cutaneous manifestation of underlying endocrine conditions (see List_of_skin-related_conditions#Endocrine-related for a listing of all the conditions considered part of this category) kilbad (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Probable Delete - I haven't had time for a comprehensive look at this category, but it After a thorough examination... this category seems to raise the same sorts of issues that I just discussed in the still-open CFD for Category:Nutritional skin diseases, because much like nutritional deficiencies, endocrine disorders result in a wide array of signs and symptoms, of which skin conditions are just one (and rarely the foremost). Again, I suspect that a list article or chart of the sort I outlined in the other CFD would serve the subject -- and readers -- better in any event. Cgingold (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just added Category:Endocrine diseases as the other parent cat. Some of the articles should probably be upmerged to that category if appropriate. Cgingold (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The proposed change will make the category more self-documenting. --Arcadian (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify what you mean by "more self-documenting"? More importantly, I'd like to know what you think about the issue I've raised, which is much more fully elaborated in the related CFD I linked above. It seems to me that this category and Category:Nutritional skin diseases both suffer from the same fundamental flaw: most of the articles they're being used to categorize are not, in fact, about skin conditions, but rather about other disorders/conditions -- with only brief mentions of skin-related conditions (among many others). As I've explained, that's not really a very sound basis for categorization. Cgingold (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Whether or not the suggested new name for the cat is ideal is a discussion I'll leave to the more medicine-savvy editors; however, I feel that the current name of the cat, Endocrine-related diseases and the skin, does need to be changed (or deleted if an existent cat will suffice). It seems to group two phenomena that are quite dissimilar despite some relations. I'd rather have an article that bears two cats than an article with one omnibus cat that can rarely be used and is difficult to place in the cat hierarchy. Best regards —Eustress ^talk 05:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, mostly as per Cgingold. Comment There are a few articles in that category which really can be described as "Endocrine-related skin conditions" (e. g. ANOTHER syndrome, Acanthosis nigricans), but most of them are simply endocrine diseases with various symptoms, dermal and other (e. g. Acromegaly, Hyperparathyroidism). I am not sure whether it will be worth keeping this category if we remove all of the latter. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support there must be a separate category for the endocrine disease that has symptoms appearing on skin, or affecting the skin, and i don't see the current name making that clear. Plus its a part of a proposed categorizing system by the Dermatology task force. Maen. K. A. (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I wanted to say that after reading Cgingold's comments at the other CFD I have come to agree with him that the "Nutritional skin diseases" is probably not an appropriate category given his rational; therefore, I would support a deletion of it. However, I still Support Category:Endocrine-related skin conditions as there are several actual skin conditions in this category. kilbad (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see that there are several articles that would qualify (I had missed one of them), so I suppose there is after all a rationale for this category. :) In which case, Rename per nom (as long as we're agreed that the rest of them should be cleared out for the reasons I've articulated). Cgingold (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Rename - per kilbad --Megapen (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst we were sorting out the cats for the London area last September, someone sneaked in a new duplicate to the original one of Category:London boroughs before the bot had finished. I think these changes below will finally put this and the remaining things right:

Merge Category:London Borough into Category:London boroughs

Nominator's rationale: The cat Category:London Borough (created last year) duplicates the original Category:London boroughs.

More...

These changes correct the remaining categories of London Boroughs which are duplicated:

• Category:Barking & Dagenham merge into Category:London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
• Category:Barnet merge into Category:London Borough of Barnet
• Category:Bexley merge into Category:London Borough of Bexley
• Category:Bromley merge into Category:London Borough of Bromley
• Category:Bromley merge into Category:London Borough of Bromley
• Category:Enfield merge into Category:London Borough of Enfield
• Category:Greenwich merge into Category:London Borough of Greenwich
• Category:Haringey merge into Category:London Borough of Haringey
• Category:Harrow merge into Category:London Borough of Harrow
• Category:Havering merge into Category:London Borough of Havering
• Category:Hillingdon merge into Category:London Borough of Hillingdon
• Category:Lewisham merge into Category:London Borough of Lewisham
• Category:Newham merge into Category:London Borough of Newham
• Category:Redbridge merge into Category:London Borough of Redbridge
• Category:Sutton merge into Category:London Borough of Sutton
• Category:Waltham Forest merge into Category:London Borough of Waltham Forest
• Category:Westminster merge into Category:City of Westminster (note: this one is a city)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicated cats.

This should (I hope) almost sort out the last of the London category oddities. Yet not to worry; I'm sure that new editors will soon create some more for us. These changes were all agreed to last September. However, it was part of such a huge job its not suprising that the bots let some slip through. For any one that wants to read through the debate here is the link.Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_13 --Aspro (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not being a Londoner, I am not sure aboutn this, but several London boroughs contain more than one place. Is the eponymous place not allowed its own article separate from the borough to which it gives its name? All categories need to be carefully checked to ensure that they are all borough-wide categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It's OK. All London boroughs contain more than one place. These remaining administrative towns (eponymous places) will still have their own articles. It is only the category name for the borough that is being corrected. Should these administrative towns have their own category? Answer -No! This is because today they have had their boundaries adjusted so they (as districts of London) are now all about the same size (from the administrative point of view) as the other places in the borough. Therefore it would amount to over categorization and so there is nothing that needs checking in this respect.--Aspro (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – the present set-up of Category:London boroughs is confusing (Category:Barnet is a parent of Category:London Borough of Barnet although Barnet is one place in its borough). This seems a step towards greater clarity. Occuli (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks for pointing that out. I wonder if that is why the bot didn't do these? It might have found itself looking at a loop condition. Tomorrow I will have to check and manually remove any loop-backs I find. --Aspro (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: That loop condition appears to have been commons to all those categories that failed to merge last time. So I have removed those links.--Aspro (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Hi there, I dropped a note on your talk page about my concerns - but you seem to have them well in hand. You might find this list of London Categories handy. Pls let me know if there's anyway I can help. To clarify, some central districts of London Boros gave their name to the London Borough itself. It causes problems at the article level, as well as the categories. Kbthompson (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seems the reasonable approach. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Australians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Australian people, since any Australian person with an article is presumably "notable," i.e., "famous" in some way. If this is meant to be a "step-above" mere notability, it is an entirely subjective category. No need to merge as article is already in a subcategory of Category:Australian people. (Note: A few days ago I speedily deleted this category as I figured it would be uncontroversial and obviously redundant, but the creator protested on my talk page and re-created it. This is a good lesson that no matter how obvious you think something is, other users will probably disagree.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fame is a funny thing. Some "famous" people are more famous than others. If one wanted to separate the "really famous" ones from the others, it would be a very, very subjective assessment. And some people who were famous in days gone by are utter nonentities today. So which time period do we look at? But anyone at all who qualifies for an article is inherently notable, according to our guideline. Notability itself has a degree of subjectivity about it, but we can at least test if by finding - or not - sources that attest to their notability. "Famous Australians" is simply doubling up, and thus redundant. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If a person has his/her wikipedia article means that is notable.User:Lucifero4

• Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and commend the nominator on the sufficiently circumspect comments in 'Note' - such self realisation is a worthy and commendable level of honest reflection for someone who inhabits Cfd - the obvious is never what you think mate SatuSuro 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "famous"="notable", which is redundant at WP article or cat names. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People associated with Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:People from Braintree, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Merge, redundant. The category's description purports to limit "associated" with those not born in the city, but "from" is not limited to birthplace in wording or in practice, nor would "associated" exclude association by place of birth. Postdlf (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've always thought that People from X should only include people who were born in X, since that's the usage I'm accustomed to. However, Wikipedia seems to have standardized on People from X including other sorts of association, so I'm sure there's plenty of precedent for the proposed merge. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - ideally also purge of those whose link is too tenuous. I assume that I am "from Hagley", because that is where I live. I might also be "from" another village (which is where I was born). However, I ought not to be categorised as associated with Bournmouth because my grandparents retired there, nor with Leicester on the grounds that I was at university there. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "associated with" is a weasel word that adds little to the navigation system, that only rivals the use of "-related" in turning a category into a near-meaningless agglomeration of articles, as there is no definition of what makes someone "associated" with an area. Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever "from" means seems to be better approximated than "associated with". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Internet advertising by method to Category:Internet advertising methods

Nominator's rationale: 'by' method sounds like a list to me. Internet advertising methods seems clearer to me. 79.68.37.222 (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed -- "by method" is used when there are sub-categories involved. Cgingold (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Cgingold. "Internet advertising methods" sounds more natural anyway. ~EdGl (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sly & the Family Stone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Eponymous category for a group. Main article already serves as sufficient hub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Three sub-cats + articles = sufficient contents to warrant a head category. Cgingold (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't know why 10lbhammer keeps nominating these substantial eponymous categories with multiple subcats (which have nearly all been no-consensus keeps for the last 6 months or so) when there are hundreds of much smaller ones in Category:Categories named after musicians with 0 or 1 subcats which would be deleted without opposition. Occuli (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Examples of substantial epononymous musician cats which have been nominated for deletion (mostly by 10lbhammer) recently are:
• Not deleted: The Everly Brothers, Allman Brothers, LeToya Luckett, Meshuggah, Dixie Chicks, Shania Twain, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Rush, Musicians X-Y (2 listed, both extant), Musician categories - A (10 listed, 9 still extant), Olivia Newton-John (Jan 09);
• Deleted: Corinne Bailey Rae (3 subcats), Toni Braxton (2 subcats); plus unanimous deletions of plenty of smaller such categories with 0 or 1 subcats. Occuli (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Create navbox then delete category. Navboxes are a better naviation tool than templates in cases like this. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These categories are well-defined and defining. While one person's personal opinion about the superiority of one means of navigation may be interesting, WP:CLN, the relevant Wikipedia editing guideline on the subject emphasizes that Categories AND Lists AND navigation boxes all work synergistically together and that one is not superior to the other. I would fully support the creation of lists and navboxes to support this category. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bloody Roar characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete All related articles to this subject have been merged to the character list per discussion, leaving it empty.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Support deletion and note that if not nominated here, it would be a candidate for speedy deletion. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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