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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mull to Category:Isle of Mull

Category:Landforms of Mull to Category:Landforms of the Isle of Mull

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Mull is ambiguous. Rename to match the name of the main article, Isle of Mull. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. As with the other recent nominations for Scottish islands categories, the first question is have you notified WP:EILEAN and WP:SCOTLAND? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. If anyone is interested they can have the categories on their watch list. If a project is interested in the category they can sign up for article alerts and receive automatic notification. I see no reason for a nomination like this to have to do extra work. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now listed at both. I presume ArticleAlertbot does the notification - it has produced nothing so far. Ben MacDui 08:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleAlertbot did not provide a notification [1]. Does anyone know how this is supposed to happen? Ben MacDui 09:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as long as there is adequate notification of the change as there is a parallel deletion and change discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_20#Category:People_from_the_Isle_of_Mull - ie the bottom of this page as it currenlt appears - my this whole process and system is clearly in need of overhaul when you get stuff like this happening at the same time personally I dont understand why the system isnt streamlined in some way SatuSuro 06:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per discussion about Category Isle of Skye - "Isle of Mull" is not the island's name - it is called Mull and the article is only "Isle of Mull" for dab reasons. Really, it should be "Mull, Inner Hebrides" or similar. We don't rename categories to "xx of London Town" because they sound cutesy and we should avoid perpetuating a silly name where possible. Re request by BrownHairedGirl, there is a bot that alerts WP Scottish Islands (which should work for cats I believe) , but the recent discussion about Category:People from the Isle of Mull (where I at least would have supported the move) only lasted nine hours. Ben MacDui 08:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't generally select category names to be cutesy and that was not how this proposed name was selected. Clearly it was pointed out that the proposed name matches that of the article. If something like 'Mull, Inner Hebrides' is a better name, then do suggest that the article be renamed. The fact that the article has a bad name is not a reason to reject moving the category name that you yourself agree is ambiguous. Sometimes we need to go through stages of discussion to get the category name and the article name correct. I'll point out that you could support renaming the category to Category:Mull, Inner Hebrides and if that passes to have the article moved as well. That is a better approach then an outright rejection of a move to something else, at least in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier with that idea if I thought that there was a serious likelihood of another category called "Mull". The other Mulls on the dab page are all "Mulls of..." or (imho) somewhat obscure. In fact, come to think of it, there is a real case for moving the contents of the existing "Mull" to Mull (disambiguation) (currently a redirect to Mull) and "Isle of Mull" to "Mull". (What an absurd sentence). This diff would appear to be the start of the problem. Ben MacDui 18:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call something that happened 4 years ago the start of a problem. If it has existed that long, I would say it showed support for the status quo. As I said, if there is a better name for disambiguation purposes, please feel free to propose it. But since Mull is ambiguous, this category really needs to be renamed. As a general rule, categories and articles should have the same name, especially when a particular name is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now proposed that "Isle of Mull" be moved to "Mull" - there is no serious ambiguity that I can see. I'll move them in 48 hours if there is no objection. Ben MacDui 08:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss this at WP:RM? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but if you think it is a "debate that would benefit from wider community input" by all means list it. Ben MacDui 09:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (renaming Category:Mull to Category:Isle of Mull) Category should match article. "Isle of..." avoids ambiguity and is used. I oppose renaming the article. Finavon (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but to Category:Mull (island) per argument of Ben. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Isle of Mull; Rename main article to match. This seems a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 22 December 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 to merge or rename. Jafeluv (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:English-language education to Category:English as a foreign or second language (or vice versa)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories; main article is at English as a foreign or second language. English-language education redirects there, and personally I think the shorter one is a superior name, so the merge could be reversed if desired. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge to match name of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, because different subject e.g. in English language in the Netherlands education is only one section of four sections. The other three sections deals with knowledge and usage of English. Andries (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is quite a bit of duplicate categorisation here, so I believe some sort of merge is necessary. Category:English as a foreign or second language is a subcategory of Category:English-language education and Category:Language acquisition. Category:English-language education, in turn, is a subcategory of Category:Language education, which is a subcategory of Category:Language acquisition. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some of the parent categories to Category:English as a foreign or second language before I realized the categories were essentially duplicative. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think that the categories are duplicative. For example, Dunglish and Engrish can go into to category:English as a foreign or second language, but not into Category:English-language education. Andries (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that there is no distinction between the terms in article space since one term redirects to the other. The distinction is subtle enough to not require a separate article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this is a problem in the article space. There is much more to say about English language in country x (See English language in the Netherlands) than mere English language education in country x. Andries (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • A larger problem is how the articles are split between the two categories. There has been no attempt to make one a subtype of the other. There are many ESL articles in the first, when really they should be in the second if this is the meaning of the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment English mother tongue/first language education would fit in the first category but not the second. 70.29.209.121 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment where would English education as English mother tongue go? There have been debates on English teaching methodology for English education for people without any other language, like the "whole language" versus phonics debates, etc. (ie, where did you go to school for English when you were 6 years old? ESL?) 70.29.209.121 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I am far from sure these are the same thing. As an Englishman was was taught in my native English language. On the other hand, in India "English-medium education" is regarded as the gateway to a well-paid career. In that case, English is the main medium of instruction, but may, for many pupils, not be their first language. Nevertheless, this is soemthing quite different from teaching English as a foreign (or second) language. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nom). If it's true that the second is a subtype of the first, there are many miscategorized articles in the categories. There are many articles about ESL in the first category. The fact that they are being treated the same in practical terms is what led me to believe they were duplicates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose change -- In English-medium education, English is the primary language of instruction. The distinction between the two categories may be fuzzy, but they are distinct. If there is a need to clarify where the boundary lies, it should be worked out on the category talk pages, not by a CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like that's gonna happen. Someone's just going to have to go through all the stuff and categorize it one way or the other. This is what the creator of the new category SHOULD have done, but it's essentially been offloaded onto some other poor schmuck who will have to do it. If you're not going to populate a category properly, you may as well not even create it. It just makes more trouble than it solves. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:English-language education to Category:English-medium education to be defined as where English is the primary medium of instruction. This is the term used in India for schools that each in English. The pupils may use English or a vernacular language as their mother tongue.

Rename Category:English as a foreign or second language to Category:English as a foreign language: the abbrevation for this in Great Britain is TEFL - "Teaching English as a Foreign Language".

If this suggestion is accepted, some one will need to recategorise many of the articles into the right destination categories. The destination for the redirect of English-language education cannot determine the outcome of this CFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Teaching of "x" (say physics, phys ed, art) in English would be English-medium education, such as English immersion education, or native education in an English speaking region, but what of teaching the English language in English class of an institution whose teaching language is English? Shouldn't that be distinctly separate (as a subcategory perhaps) of English-medium education? 76.66.201.20 (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge. Category:English as a foreign or second language should be a subcategory of Category:English-language education, which includes native English speakers. I see no gain in clarity from renaming either. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 22 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cue sports tournaments ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded category redirect that will just cause article miscategorization; better for this to redlink than give a false positive bluelink. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Category redirects make unnecessary work for some one who has to patrol them. The wider Category:Cue sports competitions provides an adequate parent, so that this category is redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 20 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:House of Lords albums to Category:House of Lords (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename for proper disambiguation. Tim! (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match head article House of Lords (band), and to clarify that these are recordings by a musical band of that name, not CDs of the proceedings of The Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  (Their Lordships best-selling discs, such as the classic "Squirimin on the Ermine: Doin' the statutory instrument shuffle" and the cult favourite "Dossing on the woolsack", are not yet the subject of enough wikipedia articles to require their own category. Even the notorious anarcho-punk violin concerto "Life after death on the red leather benches" released in 1977 by the Lords Spiritual lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the tests of notability in WP:MUSIC ). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per both. Perhaps the publicity from the Westminster band's upcoming trials will help record sales? :) Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily rename as disambiguation. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 22 December 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. As mentioned below, the list exists at Poker Hall of Fame#Membership. Jafeluv (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poker Hall of Fame members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We tend to not categorize by awards. Since the logical parent for this, Category:Poker Hall of Fame, was deleted before and the deletion was upheld at deletion review, it seems reasonable to assume that this category should also be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the previous deletions were for: Category:Poker Hall of Fame Inductees and Category:European Poker Players Hall of Fame Inductees. This category seems to be the same as the inductees one. So maybe this should be a G4 after all. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is an award category, listify and delete -- that is the usual solution to award categories. However, I do not really understand what a "Hall fo Fame" is. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amended as list exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply a Hall of fame is a ritual practiced by some shallow people in the foothills of celebrity culture. It is a device invented in 19th-century Germany but popularised in the late 20th-century by the transpondians, whereby various wannabe-worthies throw a party and indulge in lots air-kissing and hagiographical speechification in order to associate themselves with someone who, unlike them, has actually achieved something in life. The victim may then be the subject of a plaque or mini-exhibit put up in some sort of tacky mini-museum which has been established as a honey-trap to which the organisers of coach-tours can propel their victims and relieve them of cash for tacky souvenirs and overpriced refreshments. However many so-called halls of fame have no physical presence other than the initial party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case should we not do a mass deletion on all Hall of Fame categories, or the basis that most are NN? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, that's only one definition, and not the usual one. A Hall of Fame, in typical American usage anyway, is usually an annual award offered by a sport's governing body, a trade association in a non-sport, or the like, to honor the contributions and achievements of the most notable people in the field in question, most commonly only one to a small few per year. . Hall of Fame in this sense very rarely translates to any kind of brick-and-mortar bulding. It's still categorization by award, but the image of some weenie in Poughkeepsie, New York opening the "Atari Video Games Hall of Fame" as some kind of aging geek tourist trap, while certainly an extant phenomenon is not the one at issue here, since virtually no such curiosities are notable. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The list already exists here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. Membership of a so-called "Hall-of-fame" is not a defining characteristic of the people involved, just an end-of-career recognition of people who have (by definition) already achieved plenty of recognition anyway (otherwise they wouldn't be eligible). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, since the list already exists, just delete without listifying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The hagiographic and speciously irrelevant definition of what a "Hall of Fame" is notwithstanding, this is a defining characteristic of the individuals involved, one that allows for navigation across a clear common characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hagiographic" is being overused as well (I saw that one just a moment ago in another CfD), but I agree with Alansohn. Mocking a straw man construction of the "hall of fame" concept isn't conducive to making the right decision here. That said, agree with BHG that this is cat. by award and thus deletion-bound. That said, the precedent either needs to be re-examined to see if it still has consensus, or it needs to be applied more stringently, as there are plenty of such categories still in existence. Start with Academy Awards categories and delete away... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is specious your new word for a line of argument you disagree with, Alansohn? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only when the shoe fits. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is the correct place to write this, and I am sorry if it is not, but I just wanted to write this for everyone's consideration.

Hello all. My name is Mark and my user ID is markvo. I created the category called "Poker Hall of Fame members" and see that is has been proposed for discussion and posible deletion. I think that the category should stay on Wikipedia because it helps to give special notice to those people who have been elected into the Poker Hall of Fame. This is a very prestigious honor, given to only 38 individuals, who I believe deserve special notice.

The people elected to the poker hall of fame fall into two basic groups: #1, those who have promoted, pioneered, or been influencial in the creation or promotion of poker, and #2, poker players who have proven themselves as great players over the years, both in terms of their success in the game, and their stature and respect by the poker community in general.

These people, whether they fit into one or both of the above groups, have been very influencial in poker and I strongly believe that they should be given special notice here on wikipedia, and by poker players and fans as well. I look forward to everyones' feed back on this and hope that the category of Poker Hall of Fame members will be kept for the above reasons!

Thank you,

mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvo (talk • contribs) 02:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, as explained by several others here, WP's handling of such people (no one is saying they are not notable) is to put them in a list article, not a category. Some things work better as categories, some as lists. Please don't take it personally, like "your" category is being "attacked" or anything. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is a long precedent for choosing to have lists for these types of awards rather than categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; should be (and is) a list, as pointed out by various. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Any idea why this is not closed yet? As I see the opinions, there are two keeps and the rest are delete or listify and the list already exists in Poker Hall of Fame. Add in previous consensus for this type of category and we should be able to close this. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably just a lack of active closers. Same deal as usual here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from the Isle of Mull to Category:People from Mull

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Yet another stray from the Hebrides - all the other categories relating to Mull simply use Category:Mull rather than "the Isle of Mull". Grutness...wha? 00:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. At this point I think it is better to match the name of the article and from the talk page there does not seem to be support to rename the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- We need consistency. The main article is Isle of Mull. Either the main article needs to be renamed to match the other categories, or those categories need to be renamed to match the main article. Personally I would prefer it with Isle, but I am English and this needs to be settled by the Scots. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Leaning to oppose, per Peterkingiron. The main article is Isle of Mull, but the nominator linked to Mull, which is a disambiguation page, and that does not suggest to me that rationale has been thoroughly considered.
  This is the third nomination in the last few days relating to Scottish islands, but as with the other two I see no indication of any attempt to notify the two wikiprojects with relevant expertise: WP:SCOTLAND and WP:EILEAN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm -I hadn't noticed that the main article was at Isle of Mull - I checked that Mull wasn't a redirect, but failed to notice that it was something completely different. In that case, it's likely that all the other categories need renaming... Grutness...wha? 21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are withdrawing the nomination? If so, we can close this and you can nominate the others. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless there are others who feel that the article would be better at Mull with all the other meanings at Mull (disambiguation), withdrawing it seems the sensible option, yes. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to maintain full name of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 20 December 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.