Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 3

< April 2	April 4 >

April 3

Category:C++ standard library

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:C++ Standard Library. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:C++ standard library to Category:C++ Standard Library

Nominator's rationale: To match capitalization of the primary article C++ Standard Library. Alternatively, rename the article to match the category. ―AoV² 05:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral; it doesn't seem to make much difference either way, and the nominator offers no evidence as to which is the common usage. However, if the category retains the uncapitalised version of the name, then there should be a {{Category redirect}} from the capitalised version ... and if the category title is capitalised, then there should be a {{Category redirect}} from the capitalised version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand all that, and have commented on the article′s talk-page. ―AoV² 10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current C++ standard is itself inconsistent in this regard. Section 17 reads: "This clause describes the contents of the C++ Standard Library (...) The C++ Standard Library provides an extensible framework (...)". However: The latest draft for the upcoming standard (N3035), known informally as C++0x, consistently uses "standard library", except for a single instance. decltype (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds great—let′s move the article instead. I′d do so myself except someone felt the need to “sort” that redirect, thereby obstructing reasonable page-moves. ―AoV² 12:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is clear consensus that either the category or the article should be renamed. Please arrive at a decision about the article title (discussion is ongoing at Talk:C++ Standard Library#Proper capitalisation) so that the category can follow suit. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. There are good arguments both for and against renaming, and there should be consistency between the cat and the article, so I'll switch to supporting the rename. decltype (talk) 23:10, 3 April 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.

Category:Video games by location

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:Video games by setting. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games by location to Category:Video games by depicted location

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate with regard to actual locations, such as nation/city of origin. SharkD Talk 06:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rename to Category:Video games by setting. That seems to be the usual term for it (see Category:Setting for existing examples). —Paul A (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Video games by setting, the best and most clear term to use, and one that is consistent with subcategories such as Category:Video games by country of setting and categories for other media such as Category:Films by setting. postdlf (talk) 12:56, 6 April 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.

Category:Nonfiction

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:Non-fiction. The subcategories mentioned by Occuli will, as a result of this discussion, become eligible for renaming/merging to the hyphenated form under criterion C2.C, and I will list them at the speedy renaming page once the merging is carried out. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: already have Category:Non-fiction. We should choose one or the other. I support deleting nonfiction and keeping non-fiction. Greg Bard 21:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choose the older Category:Non-fiction over the upstart Category:Nonfiction (created by user:Maurreen as it happens). There are also some oddball subcats which need renaming/upmerging, eg Category:American nonfiction writers (which competes with the established Category:American non-fiction writers). Occuli (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is at Nonfiction having been moved some time back from Non-fiction. Is this another UK/US difference? (www.timesonline uses both with the hyphen being more common.) Occuli (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per the article being at Nonfiction. Either way, through, they're clearly redundant, so I support keeping just one, whatever one consensus supports. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Merge as nominated. The article has been moved back to its hyphenated form. That page is playing a year-long game of table tennis, it appears. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to align with the main article. Maurreen (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Non-fiction per nominator, but re-create Category:Nonfiction as a {{Category redirect}}. The head article was moved to Nonfiction after only a cursory discussion at Talk:Nonfiction, which was not properly flagged as a WP:RM discussion. American usage tends to prefer omitting hyphens, but per WP:RETAIN we should keep the first version rather than encouraging editors to move articles and categories around based on their preference for one spelling version over another.
It's also regrettable that once again this prolific category creator has created a new category without first conducting the fairly easy checks for an existing category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support BHG, and reverse the move of the article to "Nonfiction": the hyphenated form is much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use hyphenated form as the older version. It is also the original article name [1] from 2002. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:36, 5 April 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.

Category:Band-centric video games

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:

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 12#Category:Band-centric video games. By the way, I noticed that this category is both a subcategory of and a parent to Category:Musician video games. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Band-centric video games to Category:Video games about bands

Nominator's rationale: It seems better to me than a coinage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 3 April 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.

Category:The Essential

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:

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 12#Category:The Essential. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Essential to Category:The Essential album series

Nominator's rationale: More intelligible name. I would recommend moving the main article as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as "The Essential" - Unnecessary change, unless there's another reason to do this. It's actually unintelligible to move something to a more onerous and more difficult to allocate category. While it does seem a very basic name, unless there's ambiguity in its title, there's no real reason for this move. If there's something else that ought to occupy, or co-occupy this title, then it would make sense, but no such proposition was made in the proposal to rename. --rm 'w a vu 07:45, 10 April 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.

Category:Musta Surma albums

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:

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 12#Category:Musta Surma albums. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redlink artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 3 April 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.

Category:Angolan people of Black African descent

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. Merging to Category:Angolan people is not needed as all of the articles are already in one or more subcategories (or subcategories of those) of Category:Angolan people. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Angola is IN AFRICA. Nearly everyone will be of "Black African descent". I understand the idea and Angola is a multiracial society, but this is a useless category.TM 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is Angolan society multiracial but there are only some 50 articles in total under Category:Angolan people. It is not impracticle at all to maintain this category. Mayumashu (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A more useful sorting might be by ethnicity, not Color. For example Category:Bakongo people. Sorting by descent when 98% of the people in Angola today are of a certain descent is crazy. Would you create Category:Luxembourgian people of European descent?--TM 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that by ethnicity is more meaningful, where sources can be found that give this info.
Delete – might as well have English people of Caucasian descent - absurd. (There are a lot more than 50 articles under 'Angolan people'. There are 66 footballers to start with, + another 53 international footballers, and nearly as many politicians in various subcats.) Occuli (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, there s more than a hundred bios (the footballers and international footballers largely overlap), and probably that s too many, certainly according to the majority viewpoint. I would favour an English people of Anglo-Saxon descent except for the numbers involved there too. What I don t like personally, however, is catting by ethnicity or ethnic descent only where individuals happen to be of a minority group locally. I d like to see each bio have its one or more ethnicity/ethnic descent links, or scrap the whole cat tree all together. Mayumashu (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would that work? My mother is English, my father Scottish. I have 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents etc who will go back to Angles/Norse/French/Picts/Romans/Celts and eventually to Kenya or Adam/Eve depending on imponderables. Recall that categorisation is for 'defining characteristics' - being English in England (or in Scotland for that matter) or black in Africa is not defining. Occuli (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Angolan people, so that people aren't lost from that category. But per the nom and Namiba, this is a useless category, only fractionally better than Category:Catholic Popes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to merge since all of the articles in this category are already in subcategories of Category:Angolan people.--TM 23:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only after checking that every one is already in a sub-cat: I hope that TM has done that. A few weeks ago I came across some one adding a Gaelic cat for for all early Medieval Irish and Highland Scots (when they ought to have been in a range of subcategories. I fear that my nom was not successful, but am not sure. Putting articles into parent categories when they are already in child categories is an abuse of the category system. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so twice but it is hard because Mayumashu keeps populating this category despite overwhelming support for deletion.--TM 11:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to "Angolan People" - subcategories should/could be created for erratics ie non-black-african-angolans - if necessary. Subcategorisation by local ethicity (eg 'tribes') is a good idea.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:58, 7 April 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.

Category:Rock Against Bush albums

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:Fat Wreck Chords compilation albums (i.e., upmerge). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only two volumes and it's extremely unlikely that there will be more. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Fat Wreck Chords compilation albums. Lugnuts (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please. only two, besides it is not encyclopedic.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Upmerge - a trend is typified by a grouping, and this is just two, and I'm 99% sure there won't be a third. Having said that, it's not unencyclopedic, but definitely unnecessary. --rm 'w a vu 07:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the two albums in the category can be added to Category:Fat Wreck Chords compilation albums. If that's what "upmerge" means, sorry. I don't participate in CfD's too often. Cheers, DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:10, 11 April 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.

Category:Washington, D.C., journalists by newspaper

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 as nominated to both parents. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Washington, D.C., journalists by newspaper to Category:Washington, D.C., journalists and Category:Journalists by publication in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge to both parents. With only two sub-categories and little prospect of expansion, this category just adds an un-needed extra layer. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to both parents and wonder about Category:Washington, D.C., journalists. Occuli (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see we have Category:People from Texas etc but Category:People from Texas by occupation uses 'Texas fooers', 'Texan fooers' and 'Fooers from Texas' at random. Occuli (talk) 17:39, 3 April 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.

Category:Texas journalists by newspaper

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 both parents as nominated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Texas journalists by newspaper to Category:Texas journalists and Category:Journalists by publication in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This categ has only two sub-categories, there is no need for this extra layer. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – I'm not sure what a 'Texas person' is anyway. It appears to be a person who works for a newspaper based in Texas. Occuli (talk) 17:09, 3 April 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.

Category:English expatriates in Scotland

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, noting that each article is also present in Category:English expatriate footballers and Category:Expatriate footballers in Scotland or Category:Scottish expatriate footballers and Category:Expatriate footballers in England. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English expatriates in Scotland to ~~Category:English people living in Scotland~~Category:English people who have lived in Scotland

Nominator's rationale: rather wrong to describe English in Scotland as 'expatriate' Mayumashu (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current name may offend hardened unionists, but the proposed new name doesn't work for dead people or for living English people who have now left Scotland. "expatriates" fits the current convention, and I can't see any better alternative. (I doubt editors would want to use the term "white settlers", which gets rather a lot of Google hits). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, in terms of those no longer residing there being excluded - proposed named changed Mayumashu (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category seems to have been created as containing just "Footballers born in England and currently playing for Dundee F.C". There's already a Category:Expatriate footballers in Scotland and these English Dundonian footballers are in it, so this is at best a duplicate. AllyD (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – being born in Foo does not make a person Fooian. John McEnroe is not generally considered German for instance. No-one calls Gordon Brown an 'expatriate'. There are far too many people in Scotland who are arguably English for this to work. (I'm sure we have deleted plenty of 'born in' categories on the grounds that place of birth is immaterial.) Occuli (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think we should have expatriate categories between different parts of UK, where precise nationality is legally defined. Football (and other sports) are an exception, sicne the 4 home countries often compete separately and the governing bodies have rules for determining nationlity. "Footballers born in England and currently playing for Dundee F.C" seems a gross case of overcat, and should also be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 4 April 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.

Category:Socialist Labor Party

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:Socialist Labor Party of America. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Socialist Labor Party to Category:Socialist Labor Party of America

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not sure if we need this category, but if we are to have it, the name should match the main article, which is Socialist Labor Party of America. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be much scope for expansion, but if kept rename per nominator to match head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename A political party with a 130+ year old history should expand to beyond 2 articles pretty easily. I will work to expand it but the renaming is a good idea.--TM 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, there is a subcat for members called Category:Members of the Socialist Labor Party of America.--TM 02:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match (unambiguous) main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - there is/was a (splinter) party in the UK of the same name - avoid confusionShortfatlad (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom and other reasons stated above. I added a few more articles that seem to have connections to the party, however unsuccessful it was. Hmains (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename - Just because something was unpopular and unsuccessful, doesn't mean it's not worthy of being here, but it should be given the accurate naming convention. --rm 'w a vu 07:52, 10 April 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.

Category:Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar to Category:B. R. Ambedkar

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not sure if we need this category, but if we are to have it, the name should at least match the name of the main article, which is B. R. Ambedkar. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the same. B.R. Ambedkar is a proper name of a person with initials. I have requested a move to rename this article as Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, which is the complete name. Furthermore, I have added only a few articles to the category to start, but there are many more that can be added later. I will do that as time allows. Thanks. Shivashree (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note On hold pending outcome of Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Requested move. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The article was not moved and remains B. R. Ambedkar, so the category should match it. — ξ ^xplicit 22:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and normal conventions. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 25 April 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.

Category:Investigative bloggers

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, with no prejudice against recreation if solid evidence can be produced which indicates that "investigative bloggers" are a recognized subgroup of bloggers as a whole and we have articles about individuals who are identified as investigative bloggers in reliable sources. There is no need to merge as all of the articles are already in a subcategory of Category:Bloggers (specifically, Category:American bloggers). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Investigative bloggers to Category:Bloggers

Nominator's rationale: Vague criteria, none of the people in this category are really known as "investigative bloggers" more than any other blogger is. Prezbo (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I see no evidence that the term "investigative blogger" is anything other than a rare neologism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems to me a legitimate subcategory - many/most bloggers are not particularily investigative. I imagine this category would cover those bloggers following conspiracy theories or perhaps having something to do with 'wikileaks' etc. I'm not familiar enough to comment whether or not this category is correctly populated.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:03, 7 April 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.

Category:Thongchai McIntyre

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. — ξ ^xplicit 22:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Small eponymous category serving only to link a musician's primary biographical article and his songs and albums subcategories, with no indication that growth beyond this is possible or likely. Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REname Category:Works of Thongchai McIntyre and merge the sub-cats into it. We need a container dealing both with songs and albums. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Works of X categorization convention is currently used only for writers (see Category:Works by author), not musicians (cf. Category:Carrie Underwood (a red link), Category:Carrie Underwood albums and Category:Carrie Underwood songs). The albums and songs subcategories are appropriately categorized into Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:24, 12 April 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.

Category:Dominionist organizations

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: uncontested and well-reasoned nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: "Dominionist" is generally more of a pejorative term applied by critics than one that people claim for themselves. Right now there are two articles in this, and Chalcedon Foundation is the only one I'm really convinced about. I removed this category from a few articles along the lines of Christian Coalition of America, where the article provided no indication that the organization was "dominionist." Basically the problems with this are similar to those with Category:Neoconservatives. Prezbo (talk) 04:12, 3 April 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.

Category:Sri Lankan Short Film Makers

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, creation of sockpuppet of banned user. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Only one article, that of Malaka Dewapriya would actually seem to belong here; until such time as the community feels that a top level Category:Short filmmakers is sufficiently defining, this category serves no useful purpose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: the category was created by a banned sockpuppet, indef blocked for his efforts to promote Malaka Dewapriya. Now the rationale for this odd little category becomes clearer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 3 April 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.

Category:U.S. Northeast journalists

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 as nominated, with no prejudice against creating appropriate by-state categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Category:U.S. Northeast journalists to Category:American journalists
Category:Journalists in the U.S. Northeast to Category:American journalists
Category:U.S. Northeast journalists by newspaper to Category:Journalists by publication in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category that adds an unneeded level of navigation on the first. Extra level of categorization on the others. If kept, the U.S needs to be expanded and the capitalization addressed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. Mote that this is one of a long series of poorly conceived categories of American journalists created by a single editor who is engaged in a massive recategorisation of American journalists, miscategorising many journalists along the way and refusing to fix the problems See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 27#Category:American_editors_of_Northeast_newspapers and many other related CFDs of categories created by this editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS see also the same creator's Category:U.S. Northeast journalists by newspaper, which if it exists should be a sub-category of this one, but should really be upmerged for the reasons set out in this nomination.
The same editor also created Category:U.S. Northeast journalists, which also needs attention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the latter only has two members. Both added to nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the latter two down under this heading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either upmerge as nom or split by state. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 4 April 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.

Category:Indian women journalists

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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Indian women journalists to Category:Female journalists and to Category:Indian journalists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Do we really need this extra level for navigation? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. and to Category:Indian journalists Mayumashu (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination modified. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that this category is appropriate within the 'Indian women by occupation' category scheme because both "women in journalism" and "women in journalism in India" are distinct topics of academic or popular interest; see, for example, this web article from SindhToday.net, this article in New Straits Times, and the books Freedom fighters of India (2008) and Women & media: a critical introduction (2006). The category contains 13 articles, which is enough to justify a split from Category:Indian journalists (which contains ~300 articles). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:39, 12 April 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.

Category:American female journalists

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. — ξ ^xplicit 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American female journalists to Category:Female journalists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Do we really need this extra level of navigation? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I have some doubts about the viability of Category:Female journalists (does it really fit with WP:CATGRS?), but given the potential size of that category, a split by nationality seems appropriate. However, there has been a lot of work done recently by one editor in dispersing Category:American journalists, and I think it may be a good idea to check that Category:American female journalists is not being used to ghettoize women journalists (i.e. no journalist should be removed from Category:American journalists or any of its other sub0-cats just because she is in Category:American female journalists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Are female journalists so unusual that we need them categorised separately from amle jounalists? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. In the United States at least, probably about half of journalists are women. Maurreen (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the context, but women in journalism in general is a distinct topic of academic and popular interest. In some countries, such as the United States, female journalists are not uncommon. In others, such as Saudi Arabia, journalism (and many other professions) are still primarily male-dominated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Category:American female journalists should be treated the same as Category:Female journalists. "Female journalist" cats should be kept only if the people included are somehow significant as being female journalists, such as historic firsts or working on topics focused on women. Maurreen (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because "women in journalism in the United States" appears to be less of a distinct topic of academic or popular interest than, e.g., "women in journalism in India" (see above). While the category is justified from the perspective of splitting Category:Female journalists by nationality, this particular gender-occupation-nationality intersection itself does not appear to be as significant as, e.g., Category:Iranian women journalists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:49, 12 April 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.

Category:American journalists by type of media

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American journalists by type of media to Category:American journalists by type

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Remove extra level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge pretty clear replication of scope. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No apparent distinction of scope. Another ill-conceived US journalist category from the prolific creator thereof. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There is no overall Category:Journalists by type of media and so to have American ones only is indeed ill-conceived. Occuli (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If US is anything like UK, journalists move between print and broadcast media. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually some work in both at the same time. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the U.S., most stay in either one field or the other. Maurreen (talk) 17:35, 10 April 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.

Category:A.S.C. member

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 11. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:A.S.C. member to Category:American Society of Cinematographers members

Nominator's rationale: Rename to make it plural and expand the abbreviation. Darwinek (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with either listifying or renaming per nom here. Since the category contains the list, a few of which are redlinks, I'm slightly more in favour of making an article out of it (or appending to the ASC's article, it's short enough), but failing that getting rid of the acronym is a good plan. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:57, 3 April 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.