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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gaelic games governing bodies in Northern Ireland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The Gaelic Athletic Association is organised on a national, provincial and county basis, does not align any of its structures or activities to recognise the partition of Ireland, and therefore has no governing body, committees, teams, media, awards or competitions for Northern Ireland; all nine Ulster county boards are within the Ulster Council. The Category:Gaelic games governing bodies in Ulster already exists and this hybrid category, mapping sporting bodies to a political construct, serves no purpose. Brocach (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This category is part of a series at Category:Sports governing bodies in Northern Ireland, which allows readers interested in sports administration in Northern Ireland to locate articles.
  Similarly the parent Category:Gaelic games in Northern Ireland is part of Category:Sport in Northern Ireland, allowing readers interested in sport in that area to find topics on Gaelic games.
  The question of whether or not any particular sporting body recognises Northern Ireland is irrelevant: this is a geographical category, like all the other categories for sport in Northern Ireland. Many other sports such as Rugby Union and sailing are organised on an all-Ireland basis, but are also categorised according to geographical location.
  To avoid any confusion about the organisational structure of the GAA, I suggest adding a note to the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The GAA position is analogous to the main churches in Ireland which also organise on an all-island basis, yet they also have NI cats. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Northern Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Gaelic games has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I see the nominator's logic, but given that there is a category hierarchy via Category:Gaelic games governing bodies in Ulster that reflects the national structure of the GAA I see no reason to delete this category, which is useful for the reasons set out by BrownHairedGirl above. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as above. — Jon C.^ॐ 14:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose these organizations are in Northern Ireland. No matter how much they wish to change the political situation, that is what it is, and we categorize by how things are, not how groups wish they were.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somehow -- Gaelic games are orginsied on an all-Ireland basis. The Ulster body covers Northern Ireland and further counties that were part historic province of Ulster, but not of Northern Ireland. If anything, the NI category should be a sub-cat of the Ulster one, but that would be stupid. I see no reason why the Ulster GAA category should not be directly in Category:Sports governing bodies in Northern Ireland, without an intervening level of category. It may not be as tidy as some people might like, but the reality frequently is not tidy! I expect that there is also a Republic of Ireland category, which should be dealt with similarly. Those things that are organised on an all-Ireland basis should be reflected by the categoriy structure adopted. We have got rid of a lot of "Ireland" on the basis that there are two countries, RoI and NI, but we should be keeping Ireland categories where an all-Ireland strcture exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Peter, Category:Gaelic games governing bodies in Northern Ireland has been a subcat of Category:Gaelic games governing bodies in Ulster since it was created. Why do you say that this is stupid?

  If you put and Ulster category as a subcat of Category:Ulster, you will be categorising County Donegal, County Cavan and County Monaghan as part of Northern Ireland. That would be blatantly inaccurate, and I'm sure you know that it will be rapidly reverted by lots of editors.

  The structure in place for GAA categories is long-standing, and reflects the structure of the GAA. The GAA's three levels of organisation (all-Ireland, provincial and county) are all reflected in its category structure.

  The situation here is similar to that of the churches, whose all-Ireland structure does not neglect the political boundaries. The solution in place is to ensure that there is a parallel structure which reflects both the organisational structure and the political-derived standard geographical categories. Removing topics from this dual structure breaches neutrality by prioritising one view over the other. Why do that?

  If for some reason you want to remove this category, the solution is not to delete it, but to upmerge it to all 4 of its parents. What navigational benefit is achieved by the multiple upmerger? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Northern Ireland is a geopolitical entity and these Gaelic games governing bodies whilst part of an all-Ireland setup are also in Northern Ireland geopolitically. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 all. – Fayenatic London 01:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:1st-century Christian martyr saints to Category:1st-century Christian martyrs
• Propose upmerging Category:2nd-century Christian martyr saints to Category:2nd-century Christian martyrs
• Propose upmerging Category:3rd-century Christian martyr saints to Category:3rd-century Christian martyrs
• Propose upmerging Category:4th-century Christian martyr saints to Category:4th-century Christian martyrs
• Propose upmerging Category:5th-century Christian martyr saints to Category:5th-century Christian martyrs

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to the parent. "martyr saints" is a tautology; every martyr is a saint. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• upmerge per nom. "martyr saints" is just not terminology anyone uses. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge although not all martyrs are saints by any definition, the divison out of martyrs who were sainted will just make a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to both the martyrs and the saints categories (Category:1st-century Christian saints, etc.) so that no information is lost.- choster (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Choster. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge -- In theory, there might be martyrs who have not been declared to be saints, but in practice they will have been completely forgotten, so that it is unlikely that we will have any articel on a martyr who is not a saint. Accordingly, the martyrs can be treated as a sub-cat of saints, at least at this period. For 20th century martyrs, it may be different; for one thing, most Protestant churches have no mechanism for canonising their martyrs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment non-Saint martyrs will begin no later than the 16th-century. There are many Christian religious bodies that use saint as a synonym for members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:European photojournalists, Category:Asian photojournalists and Category:African photojournalists to Category:Photojournalists by country

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to the parent. The category Category:Photojournalists by country is still quite small so there's no need for a by-continent breakdown. I would also argue that there's very little in common among, say, Asian photojournalists of different countries. The life of a photojournalist in North Korea is much more similar to the life of a photojournalist in Belarus than to the life of a photojournalist in South Korea. Pichpich (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. There is nothing gained by creating continent level cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Italian people convicted of tax crimes. - jc37 00:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Italian tax evaders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Used primarily for anti-Berlusconi POV edits. T. trichiura Infect me 19:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note The nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The nominator gets a minor WP:TROUTing for emptying this out of process but it's clear that this was created specifically for Berlusconi. WP:SMALLCAT alone is justification for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no point in having a one-entry cat like this. It is also unclear if this is really a defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But I suggest we reserve judgement until we have resolved whether Silvio Berlusconi can legitimately be placed in this category. I note that we already have a number of "tax evaders by nationality" categories, some of them fairly small. PatGallacher (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- nominator's rationale has no policy basis. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Useless category, WP:SMALLCAT, etc. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet of nominator. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:SMALLCAT is not a valid rationale for deletion, as this is part of an established "Xs by country" category tree. Either the category needs to be kept like the several other small cats for other countries, or upmerge is called for. Mangoe (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply Also SMALLCAT only applies if the category is not only small but has little or no potential for growth. Is it being claimed that tax evasion is particularly rare in Italy? PatGallacher (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Italy is in the top 3 countries in the world for tax evasion. Yesterday there were no members of the cat. Today there are two. There will be more. Ericoides (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the series of by-country subcats of Category:Tax evaders. The question of whether or not any particular article shoukd be added to the category can be discussed through normal processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a tax evader is not the type of primary biographical data we categorize people by. Anyway since we do not limit this to people convicted it has potential to be a BLP nightmare.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment You already !voted above. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 16:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious BLP violation. It should also be nuked from orbit as that's the only way to be sure. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If we delete Category:Italian tax evaders, then tax evaders in Italy will be categorised under the parent Category:Tax evaders. What would be the BLP (or other) gain from this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Comment I will support deleting Category:Tax evaders as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of a hierarchy, but rename to Category:Italian people convicted of tax crimes following Category:American people convicted of tax crimes. See precedents at CFD 2008 Dec 10 ("tax evaders" -> "convicted of tax crimes", and 2010 April 8 ("Americans" -> "American people"). Siblings & parent should be renamed likewise, probably speedily. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming of siblings  Done, see parent Category:Tax evaders by nationality now up for speedy renaming to Category:People convicted of tax crimes by nationality. – Fayenatic London 01:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the move to clear limit this to people convicted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I support renaming to "People convicted of". That makes the inclusion criteria clear and objective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (ish) rename C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Peoplel from Fleet, Hampshire to Category:People from Fleet, Hampshire

Nominator's rationale: The people in the category aren't peoplel (as far as I can tell). Ericoides (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Obvious typo. Dough4872 19:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedilyl rename for the typo. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per WP:CFD/S/C#C2A "typographic and spelling fixes". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Classic case of speedy Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. – Fayenatic London 23:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Hurricane Irene (2011) to Category:Hurricane Irene

Nominator's rationale: To match the main article Hurricane Irene. Dough4872 15:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are several other hurricane Irenes listed at Tropical Storm Irene (disambiguation), and removing the disambiguator will lead to miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The other hurricanes in Category:Wikipedia categories named after hurricanes do not have the year disambiguator. The naming convention calls for storms that are retired, such as Irene in 2011, to not require disambiguation. In addition, the other Irene's are not notable enough to warrant a category. Dough4872 17:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The convention may well work fine for articles, but a greater degree of precision is required in category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose categories should not be excessively ambiguous, and this would result in such, with massive miscategorizations quite possible. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There would not be ambiguity as the 2011 Irene is the most common meaning of Irene. We have Category:Hurricane Ivan to cover 2004s Hurricane Ivan, even though the name was used twice before. Dough4872 00:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, and adding the Hurricane Irene article with a slash so that it's always on top of the cat. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - it was retired, and per the naming convention. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply to category naming. Technical tools such as pipe tricks and redirects are not possible with categories for technical reasons. Hence why category naming has to be more specific than article titles may be. - jc37 00:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Gansu politicians to Category:Politicians from Gansu, but no consenus on the rest.
The nominator also tagged 6 other categories for renaming in the same way, but the unusual way in which this listing is structured makes it unclear that they are actually being proposed for renaming. The conventional format for CFD nominations lists all the proposed changes above the nominator's rationale, because that allows editors to clearly see what is being proposed. In this case, the other categories were listed much lower down, without a rename target.
I'm sure that this was a good faith oversight by the nominator, but the lack of the clarity about the scope of the proposal means that it would be unfair to regard this particular discussion as having reached a consensus to rename the other 6 categories. So I will open a new procedural listing of the other categories, and notify all participants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relisted discussion is at CFD November 2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Gansu politicians to Category:Politicians from Gansu

Nominator's rationale: Please see below for "umbrella" reasons. --Nlu (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be uniformity in the naming geographical subcategories of Category:Chinese politicians. I would like a general discussion on the issue, and, while as I explain below, I would prefer "Politicians from <province/city>," if the discussion results in "<Province/city> politicians," I will accept that; consistency is more important, regardless. I am planning on creating further geographic subcategories for the politicians category after this discussion results in a consensus, and we definitely need to decide on this before I can do that. (I am leaving Hong Kong and Macau off the discussion; those involve even more complicated category trees which I have insufficient expertise/confidence to tackle at the moment, and is probably better driven by Wikipedians with greater familiarity with those two SARs.)

Currently, the geographic subcategories that fall under Category:Chinese politicians are named in two different types. These are:

Under "Politicians from <province/city>":

• Category:Politicians from Beijing
• Category:Politicians from Guangdong
  • Category:Politicians from Guangzhou (subcategory of the Guandong category)
• Category:Politicians from Hangzhou (would eventually be a subcategory of a Zhejiang category)
• Category:Politicians from Harbin (currently under Category:Heilongjiang politicians)
• Category:Politicians from Jiangxi
• Category:Politicians from Liaoning
  • Category:Politicians from Dalian (subcategory of the Liaoning category)
  • Category:Politicians from Shenyang (subcategory of the Liaoning category)
• Category:Politicians from Nanjing (would eventually be a subcategory of a Jiangsu category)
• Category:Politicians from Shanghai
• Category:Politicians from Suzhou (would eventually be a subcategory of a Jiangsu category)
• Category:Politicians from Xi'an (would eventually be a subcategory of a Shaanxi category)

Under "<Province> politicians":

• Category:Anhui politicians
• Category:Gansu politicians
• Category:Hainan politicians
• Category:Heilongjiang politicians
• Category:Inner Mongolian politicians (note slightly different wording; should be renamed for consistency to Category:Inner Mongolia politicians if the <Province> politicians wording is used)
• Category:Sichuan politicians
• Category:Yunnan politicians

A number of provinces/other provincial level entities never had such categories created either by me or anyone else, presumably due to the uncertainty due to the inconsistency in the category names. (Chongqing, Fujian, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hebei, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jilin, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Tianjin, Tibet (although that may be another whole can of worms), Xinjiang, and Zhejiang.)

In my opinion, "Politicians from <province/city>" is a better formulation. It is less ambiguous and less POV. Further, while "<Province> politicians" may not sound awkward, I think "<City> politicians" begins to sound awkward -- there's something that doesn't quite feel right when you begin to talk about "Tianjin politicians" or "Chongqing politicians" (or even smaller divisions, as it may reasonably become necessary given the mass population that China has). (See also the Category:Politicians by city hierarchy.) But again, consistency is more important, and I'd be happy to abide whatever the consensus is. --Nlu (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I think in general x from y is a better form for city and province level cates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename it clears up whether these are politicians practicing in Gansu, or just being from it. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Professional Wrestlers billed as "World's Strongest Man" ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The link between these articles is rather tenuous and being billed "World's strongest man" by a wrestling organization is not a defining characteristic. Note that the category is for wrestlers that were marketed as the world's strongest man and not for wrestlers that actually held some sort of recognized strongman title. As such, this is not unlike categorizing cookies that were billed as the world's most delicious. Pichpich (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a category by unsupported assertion, which does not seem very notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete aren't they all, by someone, at some time, except the "pound for pound" claims. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sadly, 24 inch pythons just don't cut it anymore. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Metropolitan areas of South America to Category:Metropolitan areas

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Category:Metropolitan areas is still quite small so there's no need for continental subcategories that would only isolate the two articles and the category currently sitting in Category:Metropolitan areas of South America. Pichpich (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, it's ok merging seems good for this category.--Antodeabout (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mademoiselle Cover Girls ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete Being on the cover of a prestigious magazine is a big deal for a model's career but it is not a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete essentially a performer by perfornace category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and per WP:OC#PERF, which specifically includes models.
  See also the related discussion of Category:Glamour Cover Girls in the 60's at CfD 2012 November 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Off the Wall (Baltimore) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete Baltimore has this (pretty cool actually) outdoor exhibition of reproductions of über-famous paintings. (Scheduled to begin in November [1]) But categories are supposed to be about defining features of the subject and a painting is certainly not defined by the fact that a reproduction of it can be seen in the streets of Baltimore for a few months. Once the exhibition itself receives sufficient coverage, I could certainly see an article on that topic. Pichpich (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/possible listify Not defining; if the exhibit proves notable a list would be an appropriate component. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We do not categorize painting by where reproductions have been shown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jock Stein ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and to a certain extent WP:SMALLCAT. The connection between the 1967 European Cup Final and the 1985 Wales vs Scotland football match is rather tenuous and categorizing famous games by who coached each team (or what star player played on each team) is a bad idea that would lead to category clutter. I would also note that the articles 1967 European Cup Final and Lisbon Lions are almost about the same topic and don't really need to be connected through a category. Pichpich (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – a collection of vaguely connected articles of the type that gives eponymous categories a bad name. Oculi (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:1900s drama film stubs. This was not proposed below, but the consensus is to rename, and the films are all from the decade of the 1900s.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pre-1930 drama film stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No longer useful. All but one of the templates have now grown to full category size. Upmerge {{1900s-drama-film-stub}} to Category:Drama film stubs and delete this category. Dawynn (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge and delete Per nom. Never understood the cut-off for this category in the first place, and all the other decade cats from 1910 onwards are populated. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge or why not Rename to stub category "1900s drama film stubs" as all content seems to be for that decade; and create full stub category for "2010s drama film stubs" which also seems to be lacking Hugo999 (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Pre-1910 drama film stubs" which would then be also a subcategory of the overall film stubs by decade category Category:Pre-1910 film stubs This category includies the 1900s, the 1890s and 1880s. It is also labelled "parent-only" but contains 122 articles. If it is eventually proposed to create categories for the 1900s and pre-1900s then do it now though. And Category:Pre-1920 comedy film stubs should be renamed to Category:Pre-1910 comedy film stubs which I will propose (it already has Category:1910s comedy film stubs as a subcategory). 03:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I could support a rename for now, although this is quite undersized. I will propose an extra template over on the stub proposals in an effort to help fill this. (Template for the 1890s) Dawynn (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked. Not much for 1890 drama films. At that early point in film history, it was mostly comedy and documentary. (People were still fascinated that they could create film) Dawynn (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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