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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia users who support Flagged Revisions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - nominated previously with closes of what appear to be rather politically motivated no consensus closes. These categories remain divisive and contribute nothing to the collaborative nature of the project. Lining up editors on opposite sides serves absolutely no beneficial purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion. Wikipedians' editing philosophy is much more relevant and informative on their user pages than 95% of what one finds there. If one assumes good faith, it is a matter of constructive and polite disagreement, not of "divisive...lining up on opposite sides." Wareh (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain how these categories "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia", the stated purpose of user categories. "There's other stuff on user pages that I think is worse" does not answer the question. Otto4711 (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To rather lightly paraphrase our nominator (see here), this is yet another out-of-process "wah wah I hate the category so I'll keep nominating it for deletion over and over again until I get my way" constant CfD nomination should be shut down now. There was nothing wrong with the original consensus and this continued "I hate it, make it go away" deletion strategy should be recognized for what it is. I do assume that your description that previous closes were "rather politically motivated" shows that you are in agreement about clear problems among closing administrators imposing their personal biases instead of respecting consensus. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I take it from this outburst that you are unable to answer my question, which was (directly quoting and not paraphrasing at all, lightly or otherwise) "Please explain how these categories 'aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia', the stated purpose of user categories." Your claim that this nomination is out-of-process is a flat-out lie, as you know that nothing about this nomination violates any Wikipedia policy or process, so I can only assume that you lied in another attempt to score some point or another. Claiming that there was "nothing wrong with the original consensus" appears to be a deliberate obfuscation, since the original so-called consensus was no consensus, with "no prejudice against future nominations". The political motivations behind the previous closes were to address concerns that you were canvassing supporters of the categories. Alansohn, I am concerned by your pattern of telling untruths and making distortions in your attempt to get your way at CFD and elsewhere. Discussions between editors on issues of importance should be predicated on honesty, and telling falsehoods to attempt to gain an advantage undermines the attempts of truthful editors to come to an honest understanding. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I would have been notified by Alansohn if he had continued his notifications of users in the categories, and I have made clear that I do not object to deletion of the categories, and I am sure there are others who are part of the categories, particularly as most joined them indirectly via user boxes, who would not mind, or even support, seeing them go. It is not true that being in a category means you support it. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I see nearly 150 people who find these categories to be effective means of communication and collaboration. Efforts to delete categories you don't like by ensuring that those with a direct interest in the category and who have added it to their userpage have absolutely no opportunity to be notified can hardly be called an effort to reach an "honest understanding" of community consensus. Given our fundamental rule of quoting sources, I am disappointed that you feel that direct quotations of your positions are somehow "distortions". The closing admin ought to count the 34 supporters and 114 opponents as being Keep votes instead of weighing community consensus as coming only from those people who bother to show up at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, first you say you are lightly paraphrasing me, now you claim that you are quoting me directly. Certainly both of these statements can't be true. Which one is the falsehood? Oh and look, you've yet again slipped the old "you don't like it" canard into the discussion! Way to completely ignore the actual content of editors' remarks. Again. As usual. Given that your comments about counting the members of the categories as keep !votes (something that is so far out of process that the process does not even contemplate it, as long as we're yammering about process) was made just a half an hour after someone actually in a category stated that being in a user category doesn't mean you support it, I'm puzzled. Neither does being in a user category mean that one is using the category for communication (not a stated purpose of user categories at all) or collaboration. If you would please answer the direct question for a change by citing some examples by which these categories served as user categories are intended, aiding and facilitating coordination or collaboration for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia, it would be very refreshing. If you can't offer any examples, just say "I can't offer any examples". <--- Look, you can even quote it, no light paraphrasing needed. Otto4711 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If your genuine complaint is that your paraphrase of "whining" about recreating improperly deleted content applies to your repeated efforts at deleting content, I'm still unsure of what your issue is. I have quoted you accurately where you have been quoted and stated that I was paraphrasing where I paraphrased. If you truly believe that any or all of the 150 people who have chosen to place the userbox on their userpages are opposed to the category, the best way to reflect those voices is to ensure that all of these 150 people have an opportunity to participate in this discussion, instead of the usual behind-closed-doors-outsiders-keep-out process we usually use at CfD. I do appreciate that you believe that you can either score points or convince me to change, but there are plenty of other editors here who agree that this is an aid to collaboration, along with the 150 votes from people who decided to announce their view on this issue by adding a userbox one way or the other. I still have posted no stance either way at fagged revisions, but I will state my firm opposition to disruptive deletionism. Is there a userbox / category for that? Alansohn (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First, the content was not improperly deleted. It went through a full hearing and closure. You don't like the outcome of the CFD, but your personal dislikes, legendary in their scope as they are, do not make the deletion improper. If you are unclear on the "issue" I have with your deliberate and repeated use of material pulled from multiple discussions and hammered together without regard for context in an effort to score points, then I'm sure that I am unable to explain it any more clearly than I already have. Or perhaps you do understand and are deliberately choosing to pretend otherwise and continue your misrepresentations. "Closed-door-outsiders-keep-out process"? My, I had no idea that there was a secret handshake required to comment at CFD! Who showed it to you? All 150 people, indeed, all of Wikipedia, has the opportunity to comment in these discussions and your assumption that any or all of them have any interest in commenting (or for that matter that any or all of them even realize that placing the userbox on their page even puts them in the category) is unsupportable. And I see you got your usual phony claim of "disruption" in, but you forgot to call the process "abusive". I'll ask again: please cite examples of when these categories were used to aid or facilitate coordination or collaboration for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Surely these vitally important categories must have resulted in a veritable raft of coordination and collaboration! How hard could it possibly be to cite examples? Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are important and relevant stances within Wikipedia for which sharing this information serves to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". I fail to see why anyone would waste their time and ours in finding categories to delete, a problem that is far more divisive than any possible position on flagged revisions and contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please offer examples in which knowing that a particular editor is for or against flagged revisions has aided or facilitated coordination or collaboration. Otto4711 (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Highly notable subject regarding an issue of great import for our encyclopedia's future. Badagnani (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and relist from time to time to enable more of us to inform ourselves on the topic of Flagged Revisions (and others in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy - one might be a solitary Hyphen Luddite for instance and be delighted to find kindred spirits) and perhaps join one or other of the camps, or possibly create a 3rd category for undecided fence-sitters on this vexed topic. Occuli (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A Hyphen Luddite seems to be one who holds en- and em-dashes in contempt, BTW. -- Occuli (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - These categories serve to provide an "at a glance" look into the support base of each side of this critical issue and help supporters and opposers of flagged revisions find and communicate with each other, thus facilitating discussion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have been waiting for this CfD, and I am glad this can now be settled. Can I request that a fully impartial admin which has not participated in any previous debates regarding this issue close this discussion when it is time so there is no further unnecessary controversy. As some users may have spotted I was the creator of the support category, I did it as there was an oppose category, and so it only seemed logical if there was a support category too. The accusation has been made that the categories encourage divisiveness, and it has been questioned on their purpose. Their usefulness is clearly limited, though it is interesting to see which opinion people take on this issue. I think the question also needs to be turned on its head on where is the evidence that these categories are divisive. I have seen no such evidence and if anything the categories have helped people agree to disagree with each other on it. It is obvious through polling and such that the community is divided on the issue, and deleting one or two categories is not going to change that. Disagreement is inevitable and it is people that can make that unpleasant, not categories. Ironically the only lining up of editors on sides I see that stems from the categories is in CfDs, so I don't think that argument is very workable.

There are however pragmatic problems with the categories as they are at the moment. They are rather pigeon holing the issue as the issue is a lot more complicated that simply wanting flagged revisions in its full form and not wanting it at all. Many, if not the majority of users, want something in between. There has been some confusing use of user boxes due to this, for example User:Penubag/templates/Userboxes/noflags states This editor is strictly opposed to FlaggedRevisions in articles except when articles would otherwise be protected from editing. and categorises to the oppose category, but the views expressed in it are probably what a lot of those in the support category are thinking! The oppose category population is out of proportion with the support one due to the oppose category being advertised which did not occur, as far as I know, for the support category. I hence do not have a strong opinion either way on the issue, but I would not mind if the categories are deleted or re-organised. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as violating Wikipedia:User categories in that they don't support collaboration. "The purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." There is no encyclopedic reason to be looking through either of these categories to find users. VegaDark (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Categories are not divisive as the nom claims and contrary to VegaDark's argument above, they do very much support collaboration. These categories and the userboxes that link to them serve to inform editors about flagged revisions. The actual text on both category pages link to relevant information about flagged revisions and the categories link to each other. When an editor follows the category link from a userpage they will have links to follow for more information about flagged revisions.
  Propose creation of an additional category: Category:Wikipedia users who cannot decide if they should support or oppose Flagged Revisions
  --Tothwolf (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No speedy keep rationale applies. Please offer some examples where this category has led to collaboration. Since the user boxes are not proposed for deletion, any function that the categories might serve by linking to more information about flagged revisions can be accomplished by linking within the user box with no need for the categories. Otto4711 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for a CFD nomination and the repeated CFD nominations are getting into WP:POINT and WP:STICK territory. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion argument, which is why I do not make it, here or elsewhere. The previous nomination was over two months ago and was specifically closed with no prejudice to renomination, so your supposed concerns about POINT and STICK are without foundation. Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The only real argument for keeping thus far seems to be along the lines of "These categories will inform other editors about flagged revisions" - If this were a valid reason for keeping (and I'm not going to concede that), I can at least think of some much better names for the category for accomplishing this. For instance, both could be merged to Category:Wikipedians interested in Flagged Revisions or Category:Wikipedians interested in the Flagged Revisions issue. Such a name would equally "inform" editors about flagged revisions, and would eliminate some of the concerns I and the nominator have about the categories. You guys realize these are the only two user categories with a "Who support" and "Who oppose" naming convention, right? We've deleted each and every other one as these are not encyclopedic naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That idea would also solve some of my concerns on the categories as they are at the moment, and is a compromise which I would probably give my support to. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:27, 9 July 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 to Category:Murders. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Murder articles to Category:Murder

Nominator's rationale: I don't understand why we have this – it's an obvious duplicate of Category:Murder, but with the addition of the clumsy "articles" suffix. Anything in one should by definition be in the other, so there's absolutely no benefit I can see to the twin categories. I've abstained from unilaterally deleting-and-merging it purely because it's been live for three months with no other apparent objection, so maybe there's some grounds for keeping it which I'm not seeing.  – iridescent 20:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per nom. I went to the category to try to figure out why it existed, and am pleased to see someone beat me to the merger suggestion. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose These are distinct categories. Category:Murder articles consists of specific murder cases, while Category:Murder contains articles that generally have to do with murder. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Going with what Debresser said, I'd suggest a rename to something like Category:Murders, as "Murder articles" suggests articles about articles, which is nonsense. Delete. I don't think a merge would be appropriate as the articles in Category:Murder articles are probably from subcategories of Category:Murder, not from Category:Murder itself and I think these articles are better off in subcategories of Category:Murder by country. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Murder is about types of murder whereas Category:Murder articles is for articles about specific murders. A meaningful difference. As far as I can tell, the closest thing we have is Category:Murder victims. Category:Murder articles is about murders more than murder victims though, a finer difference, but given WP:BLP generally asks us to write articles about events rather than people, it's an important difference. I think the best category name here is Category:Murders, as a category for all the articles about murders. So I guess if you want a bolded keyword, Rename/merge to Category:Murders. Unless I'm missing something here. but merging to the top-level Category:Murder wouldn't be appropriate since that category isn't for specific cases. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Murder articles to Category:Murders per the standard way of distingushing between topic categories (about murder in general) and list-subcats (about specific murder cases). (There is already Category:Unsolved murders.) Quite a few of Category:Murder by country should be 'Murders', eg Category:Murder in London should be plural. Occuli (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. At a minimum, get rid of the clunk word "articles". I noticed the poor grammar in the category name and was expecting to do some action before I encountered this discussion. Royalbroil 00:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Murder articles to Category:Murder cases which I think is more specific than Category:Murders. Child and sister "Murder" cats can be renamed as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename along the lines proposed by User:Lenticel; this is a better solution than the merge. TJRC (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- it's probably beyond the scope of this CFD, but would "Homicide[s]" be in general a better word to use than "Murder[s]"? If a defendant pleads to Manslaughter to avoid the risk of trial, it's not Murder, but is a Homicide. TJRC (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a Category:Criminal homicide and Category:Manslaughter but both seem to have the same apparent problem as the murder category: a lack of a subcategory for specific cases. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Murder articles to Category:Murder cases per Lenticel. momoricks 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Murders. The way these categories of 'types' vs. 'instances' is often that the instance category is just pluralized of the type category. . In this case, it would be Category:Murders. Category:Murder cases sounds too formal, like you have to have a police department working on it before it is a murder instance. Hmains (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Murders per what I said originally. Sorry, changed my mind again! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Murder cases or Murders, per others, but I think the extra clarity is desirable here. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Murders. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Murders. It's clear to me that that name means "specific murders."--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Murders. --Law Lord (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Murder case. Cat names shouldn't be pluralized. --Damiens.rf 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several category names are pluralised, and wouldn't make sense if they were singular. Category:Songs, for example. In fact, the majority of categories are probably pluralised. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Murders to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 8 July 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: Speedy Delete as empty. --Xdamr^talk 22:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Azerbaijanis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:British Azerbaijanis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination to affirm out of process empty. Apparently this ethnic grouping is the subject of some discussion based on the intro to list of Azeris. I'll leave it to the experts to the experts to make a determination on the issues. I have restored the one entry that was removed for the discussion. The second category had the same article as the first, Sami Yusuf, and Azerbaijanis in the United Kingdom which was deleted at AfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary race/ethnic categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Repopulate Descent, ethnicity and national origin are strong defining characteristics. Keep these barring the creation or existence of an alternative category. Alansohn (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Sami Yusuf, again removed, seems to be in Category:British people of Azeri descent or Category:British people of Iranian descent rather than Azerbaijani. Occuli (talk) 16:13, 11 July 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) 08:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Spokane to Category:Buildings and structures in Spokane, Washington

Nominator's rationale: Seems like this should be a speedy rename, but doesn't seem to fit the six critera--feel free to move to the correct page. Rationale: Naming conventions and consistency with other subcategories of Category:Spokane, Washington. Katr67 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I missed this one on the pass through all these categories, obviously.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:32, 7 July 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. --Xdamr^talk 23:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Sports announcers to Category:Sports commentators

Suggest renamingCategory:Sports broadcasters by nationality to Category:Sports commentators by nationality

Nominator's rationale: they mean the same thing - the difference is just "dialectic' (see Sports commentator). Suggest merging to 'sports commentators' as it seems the most universally understandable - 'announcer' is just for North America and 'broadcaster' could mean a broadcasting company. Mayumashu (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So we have Category:Sports announcers but not Category:Announcers; Category:Sports commentators and Category:Commentators; no Category:Sports broadcasters but we have Category:Broadcasters (although there is Category:British sports broadcasters). Hmmm. Occuli (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It s quite messy. Category:Commentators and Category:Broadcasters need to be merged too. 'Commentators' by itself seems a little vague whereas (someone commentating, not necessarily via radio and/or TV) whereas 'Broadcasters' could mean 'broadcasting companies' and is hard to "disambiguate" - Category:Broadcasters (people) or Category:Broadcasters (journalists) do not really do it, as a broadcasting company is still a collection of people who are largely journalists Mayumashu (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Category:Announcers is at Category:Radio and television announcers Mayumashu (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As it is being used in the category tree 'broadcaster' is being taken to mean anyone who appears on radio or televison, regardless of whether or not they are a journalist / provide commentary or not. Accordingly, a game show host, actor, music, geinoujin, etc. - any radio or television personality is being included (see any Category:Broadcasters by nationality sub cat page) Mayumashu (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question -- Is there a difference between British and American usage on this? if so, great care needs to be taken. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• My understanding might not be everybody's, I admit — but my perception was always that a sports announcer would be the guy who actually narrates the "HE SHOOTS, HE SCORES!" play-by-play as the game is happening, while a sports commentator would be the guy who analyzes the big picture anytime from several hours before the game even starts to the post-mortem on ESPN SportsCenter the next day. I wouldn't necessarily oppose merging both to "Sports broadcasters" — and, in fact, I think the entire Category:Broadcasters tree needs a major overhaul — but since announcers aren't necessarily the same thing as commentators, merging them both into one of those titles isn't really the right solution here. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 8 July 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: Speedy reverse merge. Recreation of a deleted category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues to Category:Old Blues

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nom after User:The Twelfth Doctor created a new category titled Category:Old Blues, attempted to redirect the existing one to it, and began to empty the old one. No opinions as to which is the better form. Benea (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge (or speedy delete Old Blues as recreation of deleted material) for the reasons given in the CFD that led to the renaming of "Old Blues" to "Christ's Hospital Old Blues" in the first place - i.e. that "Old Blues" is ambiguous, since it could refer to people who have won their "blue" at Oxbridge. Bencherlite^Talk 13:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge (or speedy delete Old Blues as recreation of deleted material) per Bencherlite. Occuli (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, I do think that this page should be merged, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twelfth Doctor (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge, speedy delete the newly created Category:Old Blues. The reasons in the previous cfd still apply. Benea (talk) 21:17, 6 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Words referring to ethnic groups to Category:Ethnonyms

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Since 2007-12-05, an IP user added {{merge}} to the category, instead of {{cfm}}. The correct name is Ethnonyms.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and per ethnonym. Occuli (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but since the longer title is far clearer for most people, I would prefer that to be retained. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 8 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Number-one singles in Portugal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is based on the Portuguese singles chart, which has been deemed as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology (see WP:BADCHARTS). Out of all the songs in the category, only two come from a reliable chart, that being from Billboard magazine. That leaves rest of the other songs that topped an unreliable chart incorrectly categorized, since there's no known acceptable Portuguese chart outside of Billboard. — Σxplicit 07:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BADCHARTS. Portuguese charts for Billboard don't seem to be archived. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:55, 6 July 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. Both sides have provided strong arguments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Sportspeople from Melbourne to Category:People from Melbourne

Nominator's rationale: as per recent deletion of Category:Sportspeople by city and its sub cat pages (Category:Sportspeople from Manchester etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and upmerge all the other occupation subcats in Category:People from Melbourne per everywhere else in Category:People by city in Australia. This is a trivial intersection - there is no connection between someone's ability at sport and their home town. (Eg David Beckham is from London but has never played for a London club.) Occuli (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it may be significant that say David Beckham, John Terry, Rio Ferdinand and Joe Cole all come from London and play for England. Cjc13 (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More than for most other professions, information about an athlete's home town is typically recorded about the individual and reported in reliable and verifiable sources, and this connection is deemed defining regardless of whether or not the sportsperson plays in their home town or not. While some individuals have no interest in the subject, the media deems it to be a rather defining intersection, which convincingly rebuts any claim that this is a "trivial intersection". Alansohn (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it considered "defining"? Is there a meaningful difference, that can actually be referenced to real verifiable sources, between being a "Sportsperson from Melbourne" and a "Sportsperson from Brisbane"? Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the media deems it defining in reliable and verifiable sources. Every professional sports league and trading card firm deems the information as defining, which may be the reason that there appears to be a disproportionate number of athletes categorized. The unique characteristics of athletes from Melbourne is directly related to the corresponding unique characteristics of all of the academics, activists, actors, architects, artists, aviators, businesspeople, cartoonists, choreographers, comedians, computer scientists, crime victims, criminals, economists, engineers, explorers, film directors, geologists, horse trainers, lawyers, mathematicians, Mayors and Lord Mayors, medical doctors, meteorologists, military personnel, models, musicians, philanthropists, photographers, poker players, Category:Police officers from Melbourne, politicians, psychiatrists, public servants, radio personalities, religious leaders, scientists, settlers, Television personalities, Theatre directors, trade unionists and Writers, though I have ignored a few dozen subcategories. Do they do math differently in Brisbane and Melbourne? Maybe its something in the water down under, though it could be that it's simply an effective means of organizing articles by a defining characteristic. Please let me know if should add all of these categories to the nomination so that we can maximize the disruption, though I'm not sure if there are 14,000 people who would all be dumped into Category:People from Melbourne as was done with Category:Surnames for a recent benchmark on articles shoved into a single category in one CfD. Alansohn (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information being known is not the same thing as it being defining. To be defining, there has to be something meaningfully unique about the combination — something that makes being a "sportsperson from Melbourne" distinct from being a sportsperson from another city. It's not automatically a defining characteristic just because it's known. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspersons tend to achieve notability at a young age and have usually started in sport in childhood. Because of this their home town is more significant than for some other occupations. Having said that, they are many instances where the home town is significant in other occupations as it influences the opportunities that are readily available. Cjc13 (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's rationale for the decision to delete Category:Sportspeople by city states: not against the idea in principle but do not see it as necessary and wish to fell this tree while it s still a sapling. As the editor who created all the sub cats for Category:People from Melbourne I "thought" it was necessary as I said at Category talk:People from Melbourne before spending a considerable time in doing the work. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was in the businesss of providing useful information to the public. Is it more useful to have one category containing 1300 articles or to break those 1300 articles into suitable sub categories. Common sense would suggest the latter. As Alansohn put it, it's simply an effective means of organizing articles by a defining characteristic. If Melbourne was a State rather than a City, it would not be seen as a problem. For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with the demographics of Australia, 40% of the Australian population live in just two cities; Melbourne and Sydney. That is why the two cities are a natural categorisation break for Australian articles. I wonder if this nomination is just the thin edge of the wedge. Will the nominator be recommending the deletion for all the sub cats at Category:People from Washington, D.C., Category:People from Cincinnati, Ohio, Category:People from New York City, Category:People from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Category:People from Manchester, Category:People associated with Glasgow and Category:People associated with Edinburgh. I am sure that the people who live in Melbourne find the sub cats of Category:People from Melbourne a useful addition to Wikipedia. I strongly disagee with this nomination. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's suggesting that any "People from City" category would ever get deleted. But we really, truly just don't ever need "Specific occupation from City". That said, "Sportspeople from State/Territory" categories absolutely should exist for all Australian states and territories, but don't seem to as far as I can tell. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest that "People from City" categories would get deleted. I was talking about the sub cats of the above cities, which is the case with Category:Sportspeople from Melbourne. Should we also merge Category:Sportspeople from Washington, D.C. and its sub cats? We really, truly just DO need "Specific occupation from City" where the population and number of articles justify it. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many categories where there is a division by occupation.Cjc13 (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By state, province or territory, yes. Not by city. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally there are enough People from Melbourne to justify the division by occupation. Cjc13 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's OK to have sub cats for People from the Nothern Territory (population 220,000) but not for Melbourne (population 3.9 million). Cuddy Wifter (talk) 23:22, 10 July 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: Speedy delete per G4; see here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accused American spies for the Soviet Union ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category with "accused" should not be a subcategory of American spies for the Soviet Union because they are accused only. Drawn Some (talk) 02:17, 6 July 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. --Xdamr^talk 09:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Multinational law enforcement agencies to Category:International law enforcement agencies

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Essentially duplicate categories. Law enforcement agencies that are multinational are international and vice versa. (Note to closer: a template will need to be adjusted to finalize any merge.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at how Interpol is in both categories, and the only item in the first category, the move is obvious. I suggest a quick close of this case, as I can not imagine what arguments could someone possibly bring to object to this move (and I do have some imagination). Dc76\^talk 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree as per both above. And go ahead with the template. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The merge target includes the only entry in the category that should just be deleted. Neither name appears to have a corresponding article, so neither appears to have precedence in terms of retention, so let's keep the one that's better populated. Alansohn (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to merge here. "International" is a more common term to describe these articles. Jafeluv (talk) 08:27, 14 July 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 to Category:Crocodylidae. --Xdamr^talk 22:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Crocodylus to Category:Crocodylidae

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination to affirm an out of process move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:27, 6 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Bangladeshi actresses to Category:Bangladeshi actors

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per long-standing practice to not have separate categories for male and female actors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a number of examples I took at random show that no country has 2 categories for male/femaile actors. Also, on a finer touch, please note that Category:Bangladeshi artists should not be a subcat of this. It would make sense if it were the other way around, but even that I do not see to be the practice for all countries. Anyway, artists are not a subset of actors. Dc76\^talk 02:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Category:Bangladeshi artists was in several bizarre parents, now removed. Occuli (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the person who did that, I suspect that they misunderstood how to add subcategories to a category, rather than being deliberately bizarre — two of the three inappropriate parents were actually legitimate child cats. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that such is old practise. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Thks re the artists Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Established consensus about this. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. There's no point in splitting categories by gender. Jafeluv (talk) 08:46, 9 July 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: Withdrawn by nominator (me) pending article move discussion; to be pursued later. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bender to Category:Bendery

Propose renaming Category:Communes of Bender municipality to Category:Communes of Bendery municipality

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Bendery. If we want to keep "Bender" (an acceptable form), then it would need to be Category:Bender, Moldova because Bender is ambiguous. Also nominating a subcategory to match. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Bendery has to be moved to Bender, Moldova. A couple pro-Transnistrian editors moved it from Bender to Bendery (a name that is neither official, nor more often used in publications), and other editors did not bother to object. IMHO, the correct names would be:

• Bender, Moldova (I will propose proposed the move),
• Category:Bender, Moldova per your nom (but without "y")
• Category:Communes of Bender municipality. If you prefer Category:Communes of Bender municipality, Moldova, that is also ok, but let me just observe that while there are many "Bender"s, there is no second "Bender municipality".

I am sorry I forgot about the ambiguous nature of Bender when I created these 2 categories earlier today (already yesterday). I was going to review them later as a bunch, but since you mentioned it, let's fix this. Thank you very much. Dc76\^talk 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine with me, so long as the article move proposal is successful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the procedure right now? We wait for the discussion in Talk:Bendery to take place and conclude (I believe we should allow at least 7 days), and then pending on the result there we close the case here? Anything else I should keep in mind? Dc76\^talk 02:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it will be most easily approached after move discussion for the article is completed. I'll withdraw this for now and we can pick things up after the article discussion closes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:37, 6 July 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 Category:Japanese Cigarettes to Category:Japanese cigarette brands; delete Category:Japanese Cigarettes and Tabacco companies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Japanese Cigarettes to Category:Japanese cigarette brands

Propose deleting Category:Japanese Cigarettes and Tabacco companies (added at 3:58 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity—category is for Japanese-produced brands. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• support, plus miscapitalized. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ++add newly created Category:Japanese Cigarettes and Tabacco companies, should be merged and spelled better. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that that category should be deleted (only contains Japan Tobacco). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments – this diff moved Japan Tobacco from the correctly named Category:Tobacco companies of Japan to the bizarre new name. Upmerge Category:Japanese Cigarettes (most of which should be afd'd) to Category:Japanese brands and Category:Cigarette brands which is not subcatted by country. Occuli (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatively a rename of Category:Japanese Cigarettes to Category:Japan Tobacco brands would fit in with Category:Cigarette brands. Occuli (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All good ideas, any of which I could support. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rename was created by the original author, so this redundant category should now be deleted. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:42, 8 July 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.