Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 26

< February 25	February 27 >

February 26

Kilkenny

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 and merge as nominated. — ξ ^xplicit 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Propose merging

Category:Musicians from County Kilkenny to Category:People from County Kilkenny and Category:Irish musicians
Category:Music in Kilkenny to Category:Culture of County Kilkenny and Category:Kilkenny
Category:Media personalities from County Kilkenny to Category:People from County Kilkenny
Category:History of Kilkenny to Category:History of County Kilkenny and Category:Kilkenny
Category:Visitor attractions in Kilkenny to Category:History of County Kilkenny and Category:Kilkenny
Category:Historians from County Kilkenny to Category:People from County Kilkenny and Category:Irish historians
Category:Writers from County Kilkenny to Category:People from County Kilkenny and Category:Irish writers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge and deleted per WP:OC#SMALL. These categories are all far too small, and have little or no prospect of expansion any time soon. They are all the work of one editor who seems to have gotten a bit carried away with creating intersection categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and delete per nom the article says County Kilkenny has a population of 87,558- not nearly enough people and places in a population that small are going to be notable in these areas to make these categories useful. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:57, 7 March 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:Kilkenny managers

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:Kilkenny managers to Category:Kilkenny hurling managers. --Xdamr^talk 15:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kilkenny managers to Category:Kilkenny hurling managers

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify that this a category of mangers of Kilkenny GAA's hurling team, not a general category of people from County Kilkenny who were manager of something, or of County Managers of County Kilkenny.
The category currently contains only two articles, but I think it's worth keeping because if everyone in the List of Kilkenny managers were added to the article, it would have 11 articles, all of which exist already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Category:Kilkenny GAA managers or Category:Kilkenny GAA hurling managers as clearer. No view on which would be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a category for Gaelic football managers, so Category:Kilkenny GAA managers would be widening the scope. "GAA hurling managers" is tautological; is there some non-GAA form of hurling? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and populate per nom. The category is a subcategory of Category:Hurling managers, so broadening he scope would be confusing. If someone happens to be notable for managing hurling in Kilkenny without being part of the GAA, so be it; though I doubt this situation exists, it is possible. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:59, 7 March 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:Diseases with no known cure

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 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diseases with no known cure - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This recently-added category is trivial and unencyclopedic. Most diseases have no known cure; there are many thousands of diseases that would fit into the category. Also please see the recent discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incurable diseases, which resulted in the deletion of List of incurable diseases. Eubulides (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Eubulides, per deletion of previous list. This category is not useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic of a disease and not a useful classification (curable/incurable). We have no cure for most viral illnesses such as the common cold, which is listed here, yet the body deals with it within a week and very few die from it. At the other end, nearly all genetic diseases are incurable, and there are many, many thousands of those. The spectrum of seldom/mostly/nearly-always curable in-between shows that this isn't a boolean attribute of a disease and not really suitable for a category. Colin°^Talk 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective and undefining. Mind you, I couldn't resist making one addition to the category :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy. JFW | T@lk 11:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague and undefined. Orderinchaos 08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A category covering a very important topic; can see absolutely no reason why this category was nominated in the first place. Immunize (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator. Also, would suggest not continuing to add this category to all sorts of pages while this deletion discussion is in progress. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 6 March 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.

Birmingham

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:

List of Renames...

--Xdamr^talk 16:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Birmingham, England to Category:Birmingham

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion, Birmingham was moved not to Birmingham, England. The category's name should match the main article's name. Note that there are already several subcats (e.g. Category:Railway stations in Birmingham) that have this form. (Tagging subcats and marking them below. It will take time to mark/merge them.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Category:People from Birmingham, England (district) is to be changed to Category:People from Birmingham District, per that article's title. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Birmingham, England (historic) to Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Birmingham (historic)

Propose renaming Category:Wards of Birmingham, England to Category:Wards of Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Music from Birmingham, England to Category:Music from Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Health in Birmingham, England to Category:Health in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Birmingham, England to Category:Cemeteries in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Birmingham, England to Category:Visitor attractions in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Transport in Birmingham, England to Category:Transport in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Theatres in Birmingham, England to Category:Theatres in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Theatre in Birmingham, England to Category:Theatre in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Theatre companies in Birmingham, England to Category:Theatre companies in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Birmingham, England to Category:Streets in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Squares in Birmingham, England to Category:Squares in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Sport in Birmingham, England to Category:Sport in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Schools in Birmingham, England to Category:Schools in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Religion in Birmingham, England to Category:Religion in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Rail transport in Birmingham, England to Category:Rail transport in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Public houses in Birmingham, England to Category:Public houses in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Politics of Birmingham, England to Category:Politics of Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Places of worship in Birmingham, England to Category:Places of worship in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Performing arts in Birmingham, England to Category:Performing arts in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:People from Birmingham, England to Category:People from Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Parks and open spaces in Birmingham, England to Category:Parks and open spaces in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Nightclubs in Birmingham, England to Category:Nightclubs in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Nature reserves in Birmingham, England to Category:Nature reserves in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Musical groups from Birmingham, England to Category:Musical groups from Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Birmingham, England to Category:Museums in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Media in Birmingham, England to Category:Media in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Libraries in Birmingham, England to Category:Libraries in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Houses in Birmingham, England to Category:Houses in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Birmingham, England to Category:Hospitals in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:History of Birmingham, England to Category:History of Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Former theatres of Birmingham, England to Category:Former theatres in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Birmingham, England to Category:Geography of Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Festivals in Birmingham, England to Category:Festivals in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Entertainment in Birmingham, England to Category:Entertainment in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Education in Birmingham, England to Category:Education in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Drama schools in Birmingham, England to Category:Drama schools in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Culture in Birmingham, England to Category:Culture in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Country parks in Birmingham, England to Category:Country parks in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Birmingham, England to Category:Companies based in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Community organisations based in Birmingham, England to Category:Community organisations in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Christianity in Birmingham, England to Category:Christianity in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries in Birmingham, England to Category:Cemeteries in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Birmingham, England to Category:Buildings and structures in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Broadcasting in Birmingham, England to Category:Broadcasting in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Art museums and galleries in Birmingham, England to Category:Art museums and galleries in Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Areas of Birmingham, England to Category:Areas of Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Birmingham, England to Category:Archbisops of Birmingham

Propose renaming Category:People from Birmingham, England (district) to Category:People from Birmingham District

This has been discussed ad nauseam at cfd (eg 2008 February 17). I would not bother if I were you with any subcats until the head one has been discussed. Keep is my opinion: Category:Birmingham is a non-starter as a category name whatever the article might be, as it will gather articles from the many different Birminghams in the world. (See eg Category:People from Birmingham, which contains at the moment 8 incorrectly categorised people.) Occuli (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give us a break and put them together. Keep all per previous cfds. Occuli (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Category:People from Birmingham, England (district) is to be changed to Category:People from Birmingham District

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete. Category:People from Birmingham, England (district) is supplied by a tiresome national UK template and is difficult to change. We have deleted several such UK district categories as there is often no such thing. Birmingham District is a geological area in Alabama and probably has few notable unfossilised residents. Occuli (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Is there anyone who thinks that Birmingham is not ambiguous? No objection to Category:People from Birmingham, England (district) to Category:People from Birmingham District if others are OK with that. Opposed to Category:Community organisations based in Birmingham, England to Category:Community organisations in Birmingham since the purpose of the category is to list organizations that are based in Birmingham and not operating there. The proposed name would no longer make this distinction obvious. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham and Birmingham District are in different continents. Birmingham (district) might perhaps mean Greater Birmingham, which in turn is ambiguous and might well refer to West Midlands conurbation ("not to be confused with West Midlands (county) or West Midlands (region)", of course). Occuli (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (i.e do not rename). Whatever the merits of renaming the article, someone entering a "Foo in Birmingham" category through HotCat needs some guidance on which Birmingham the category refers to, because otherwise we will get lots of miscategorised articles. Keeping the categories at "Foo in Birmingham" prevents that from happening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename. 'Birmingham', is too ambiguous, 'Birmingham, England' is clear. Jaraalbe (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Keep "England" for clarity. Maurreen (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose this will become a giant maintenance headache. Birmingham is a big city in the USA. And category names should not be extremely ambiguous. This move would make it extremely ambiguous. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly Oppose (except "district")-- due to potential confusion with Birmingham, Alabama. I accept that making the categories match the main article is usual, but the risk of getting Alabama categories added to English categories is too great to allow the disambiguatot to be dropped. Any one who reaches Birmingham by mistake when they want the city in Alabama can quickly get top the right place via a capnote. I do not think this is quite as easy with a category, particularly as users adding the category will often fail to check that they have actually added an appropriate category, rathet than a similar sounding one: I am probably guilty here myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:People from Birmingham, England (district) should be merged to Category:People from Birmingham, England. All the places named are part of the city of Birmingham as currnetly constituted. It is possible that the residents of Sutton Coldfield (added to the district in 1974) are only reluctantly "from Birmingham", but they ought not to be offended if Category:People from Sutton Coldfield is made a subcategory of Category:People from Birmingham, England, as that status will only appear if users bother looking at what the parent category is. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the one other well known Birmingham (if there was a clear primary usage I would have voted Support). Perth, Western Australia has the same problem despite it being by far the biggest and most well-known. Orderinchaos 08:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it's self-evident that "Birmingham" is relatively ambiguous. As Orderinchaos notes, we often disambiguate ambiguous place names in categories, and the largest place that uses the name usually doesn't get a pass. (Of course, Category:London and Category:Paris are exceptions to this "rule", and we could debate ad nauseum why they get exceptions and why Birmingham doesn't qualify for one too.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Articles can do these things; because anyone arriving at Birmingham will instantly know if they are in the right place or not. (I find the argument about page views unpersuasive in that RM, but that's another discussion.) As categories lack such a feature, the new names would quickly get cluttered with things in Alabama, Connecticut, and other places. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative favoured. I prefer 'Birmingham, West Midlands' to 'Birmingham, England' to disambiguate these pages Mayumashu (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That disambiguator is fine by me. My concern is that we must have disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Rename all to ...Birmingham" or Rename all to ...Birmingham, West Midlands. "Birmingham, England" is a horrible construction not used and the convention is to use the county when disambiguation is needed, but the article location doesn't eed it. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:44, 14 March 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:Corbin Bleu

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 today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corbin Bleu - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, articles directly related to the subject are already links in the eponymous article in question, negating the need for this category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a parent for the existing eponymous subcategories. Per WP:CLN, we should keep both the article links AND the category and allow both to exist as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree if there were more than the songs/albums categories. You are then in favor of an eponymous category for every musical artist? To me, it is simply overcategorization for so few articles/categories. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note We have usually deleted eponymous musician catgeories such as this with 2 subcats, but then historically we had Otto and Carlossuarez who were vigorously opposed to such entities. It is certainly a means of navigating within category space between a song and an album, lost on deletion. It is also a means of seeing at a glance whether there are any other subcats (eg images, tours, videos, songs written by etc). Marginal either way in my view. Occuli (talk) 21:46, 26 February 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:Political sex scandal figures

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 00:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political sex scandal figures - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category attaches a "sex scandal" association to a living or dead person's biography without indicating the nature of the scandal, their role relative to it (see Newt Gingrich for a particularly tangential role) or whether it goes beyond supposition (see Alexander Hamilton). The danger of POV tainting (especially for a living person) is significant. Better in my opinion to remove the category and let scandals be covered by articles in the parent Category:Political sex scandals where assertions can be properly contextualised and referenced. AllyD (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree that it's a very different matter to categorize articles on scandals rather than the individuals involved in scandals. "Scandal figure" is also so vague that it could cover a wide degree of involvement, such that anyone relevant to a scandal would be included rather than just the "perpetrator." Incidentally, I think the whole Category:Political sex scandals structure is poorly named (what exactly is "political sex"?). Maybe "Sex scandals involving politicans", or "Sex scandals in politics," or...? Or maybe hyphenate it, to "Political-sex scandals", as it's the intersection of Category:Political scandals and Category:Sex scandals. Or maybe it's just me and no one else sees a problem there. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a great fan of the Category:Political sex scandals name either, but it's maybe least bad option to keep "political" and "sex" joined together. One reason is that these are not necessarily "sex scandals" as such, but only in the context of a particular time/place and often about a contradiction between public statement and private behaviour. For example, the Major government in the UK and its Back to Basics (campaign) foundered on various "scandalous" goings-on listed on that page. AllyD (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What next? "Political nose bobs" for a politician who has deemed plastic surgery necessary? Postdlf has made some good points. Given those choices, I would prefer "Sex scandals involving politicians." This has some basis in objectivity in contrast to whatever is being used today. It is less "labeling" and judgmental and more detached. It does not appear that Wikipedia is out to "get" the person so identified. The current ones frequently do not meet that standard of objectivity. Student7 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- This is not a trivial intersection because the sexual indiscretions of a significant number of politicians have ended their careers. The argument over "Political Sex Scandals" involves the parent of the category we are discussing, but that might usefully be renamed Category:Political sex-scandals. If so, the category should be Category:People in political sex-scandals. It is not appropriate for the category to be Category:Politicians involved in sex-scandals (or possibly unhyphenated), because Monica Lewinsky and Christine Keeler were not politicians but clearly ought to be included. Purge of any doubtful cases: for example should Jerry Springer be in, because he was once caught with a prostitute when in a NN political office? I oppose the upmerge suggestion (1) without the intersection the events would be NN (2) I do not think that a sexula scandal involving a politician is properly called a "political scandal". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Third parties involved in political sex scandals" would probably be the only appropriate alternative, and it'd make a mockery of us. Orderinchaos 08:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Political scandals of a sexual nature are a class of of their own. An encyclopedia should be specific. -- Evans1982 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't about deleting Category:Political sex scandals. It's about a subcategory with the very non-specific term of "figures" added. postdlf (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of a political sex scandal is a useful one, but desperately vague. Does it refer to any politician whose sex life is publicised in the tabloids? Or only to those where there is a betrayed-partner? Does it need to involve an apparent contradiction of a politicians's policy positions? Or possible criminality, as with the US Congress page boy case?
This category will always be in danger of being used to categorise by tabloid intrusions into someone's private life, and see way of recasting it to avoid that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with the nominator and other commenters that this is problematic due to vagueness of how exactly it is to be applied. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 4 March 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:Indigenous awards

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 DELETED, G7. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indigenous awards to Category:Awards honoring indigenous people

Nominator's rationale: I just created this award, and I think I gave it the wrong name. My suggested rename reflects sister categories Category:Awards honoring Hispanic Americans and Category:Awards honoring African Americans in Category:Awards by type of recipient. I was considering trying to speedily rename, but I think it may not be clear cut enough for WP:CFDS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of and only contributing editor to Category:Indigenous awards (created today) you can do as you wish with it. Create the new one (named appropriately IMO), move the articles, use db-author to delete the 'old' one. Occuli (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I should have thought of that! WITHDRAWN Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 26 February 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:Further education colleges in County Wicklow

Further education colleges in Ireland

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:

--Xdamr^talk 15:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This was originally a nomination of only Category:Further education colleges in County Wicklow, but I expanded it when I noticed that a similar sub-category of Category:Further education colleges in the Republic of Ireland had been created for each of the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland. Fifteen of the 26 categories are empty, so I tagged them with {{db-emptycat}}, and of the remainder only Dublin and Cork stands any chance or rising beyond one or two articles. These categories currently hold only 43 articles on FE colleges in the Republic, and I think that the actual number of articles is much lower because many of the articles in the sub-categories are in both the by-county category and in Category:Further education colleges in the Republic of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Hi there, I'm the creator of these categories, and I'm sorry, but I've never participated in a discussion here, so I'm not sure about procedure (if I'm allowed to vote or not), but this is my input.

I'm currently creating articles of approximately 176 Further education facilities in the Republic of Ireland, from this list List of further education colleges in the Republic of Ireland. At the moment, only 28 out the 204 articles are active, and I've added some stubs for about 7 of them. As there is quite a lot of these institutions, its taking me a bit of time.
I'm not sure how many institutions there will be per County category, but I'll start making a tally after writing this. If there are only 1 or 2 per county, then, now I think about it, it doesn't seem to justify having its own category, but if the amount of institutions is greater than 10, I feel that it would be easier for someone researching about that subject that have it categorized by county.
So anyway, I'll make a list of those, and post them asap. I'd like to hear what people think about this, even if there are enough values in each category; does this topic warrent its own subcategory, and what's been done in similar situations like this?
Sorry, I'm trying to learn about wikipedia, so any helpful advice you can give me would be much appreciated :) Thanks, TTGL, Talk to me! 00:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the table, is there normally a guideline for how many values a category should have if it is to be accepted? (I read the wiki page on categorization, but couldn't find an answer).

County	Amount of FE Institutions
Carlow	4
Cavan	1
Clare	5
Cork	24
Donegal	6
Dublin	41
Galway	16
Kerry	6
Kildare	8
Kilkenny	9
Laois	4
Leitrim	4
Limerick	10
Longford	4
Louth	3
Mayo	9
Meath	5
Monaghan	1
Offaly	2
Roscommon	2
Sligo	5
Tipperary	10
Waterford	6
Westmeath	5
Wexford	9
Wicklow	4

Thanks, TTGL, Talk to me! 02:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TTGL, thanks for your reply. And yes, as a new contributor you are quite entitled to express your preferences here, like the rest of us. Welcome to CFD!

That table is interesting: 176 FE colleges is a lot more than I thought. At an average of about 7 per county, that would (if all articles were present) be enough to justify a by-county category structure. However, the usual approach is to categorise articles, rather than to create articles to fill the categories, so even if you do manage to write all the articles, it'd be better to them first and categories later.

However, I was really surprised by the presence of 176 FE colleges, so I took a look at the List of further education colleges in the Republic of Ireland. A large number of the "FE colleges" listed there do not really seem to me to to be FE colleges. They are community schools, comumnity colleges, comprehensives, etc. I looked on http://www.qualifax.ie at detailed listings for 4 of them:

Castlepollard Community School offers 5 courses, one of which leads to an Level 5 NFQ, but the others to no qualification
Portumna Community School offers 1 courses, which leads to an Level 5 NFQ, but the others to no qualification
Mercy College Sligo offers 5 courses, all of which lead to a Level 5 or 6 NFQ
Lough Allen College offers 7 courses, only 2 of which lead to a Level 5 NFQ

From that data, I think it's a big stretch to call these "FE colleges". They are schools, which also host a limited range of FE courses, but notr FE colleges.

And look at their websites:

http://www.portumnacs.com/ looks like a school.
http://www.mercycollegesligo.ie is explicit "Mercy College Sligo is an All Girls Voluntary Catholic Secondary School under the trusteeship of CEIST"
http://www.loughallencollege.ie says "Lough Allen College is a mixed Vocational school situated in the heart of the picturesque town of Drumkeerin, Co. Leitrim"

So I think a lot more assessment is needed before categorising these schools as "FE Colleges" on the basis of their inclusion in the http://www.qualifax.ie list. Qualifax seems to be listing every institution that offers even one course outside the school curriculum, which is a valuable resource for anyone seeking a course ... but that doesn't make these places Further Education Colleges, not even in the eyes of the schools themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for you're detailed reply. I took another look at the institutions, and I see your point about them being called "Further Education colleges". Qualifax does seem to list any college that offers a further education course, even if the institution isn't a college. That can include schools that offer night courses, or part-time courses in the summer. I see that simply having taught a FE course does not warrant the institution being called a further education college. An idea would be to have the category renamed as something like [[:Category:Institutions that offer Further education courses in County Cavan]], however, that seems a bit like overcategorization, it might be better to merge it straight into Category:Education in County Cavan.

I might have been too hasty in creating the categories to place the unwritten articles into, and would be quite okay with accepting your suggestion to merge [[Category:Further education colleges in County X to Category:Education in County X and Category:Further education colleges in the Republic of Ireland]]>. However, could there be an exception for of Counties Dublin and Cork. In Dublin and Cork, there appears to be enough institutions that are actually FE colleges to justify having a category. I'd like to hear your opinion on that :) Thanks, TTGL, Talk to me! 13:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if that's the case, what should be done about this list List of further education colleges in the Republic of Ireland, should it be cut down to remove schools that only offer FE courses, but are not FE institutions themselves? Or should it be perhaps renamed, "List of Institutions that offer Further Education courses in the Republic of Ireland". Thanks, TTGL, Talk to me! 15:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TTGL, I think we're pretty much in agreement. You may have noticed that I didn't list the Dublin and Cork categories for deletion, since as the most populous counties they will inevitably have the largest number of colleges, but I think we agree on upmerging the others. As to the list, I think that the best solution would be to rename it as you suggest. That way the list remains comprehensive, and the number of redlinks in it provides a good guide to the number of educational establishments in Ireland which still don't have articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom in principle. Until the list is purged of community colleges offering post-school courses, it will be difficult to judge, but Dublin and Cork might have enough for a category, and conceivably Galway, Limerick and Tipperary. However my experiecne in England leads me to think that the numbers quoted for these is much too high. When the list is purged, it should be apparent how many real FE colleges there are in each county. I would suggest that the list be converted into a table, arranged by (1) county (2) type (FE college; school offering some FE courses; teacher training college; college of commerce (if tertiary), etc. If it is a redlink, I would suggest that any external link (e.g. college website) should be given in a further column. Universities are clearly not FE colleges; and I would have thought that teacher training colleges and a college of commerce were also different. However, I am English and am unfamiliar with the Irish arrangements. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom In broad agreement with PeterKingiron in that some may be able to survive on their own, but for now, it's probably best to just merge them all and then split out appropriately if necessary once appropriate checking has taken place. Orderinchaos 08:08, 1 March 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.

English-medium schools of medicine in China

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:

--Xdamr^talk 16:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WHO-Recognized English Medium Medical Programs (China) to Category:English-medium schools of medicine in China

Propose merging Category:MOE-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools in China to Category:English-medium schools of medicine in China

Nominator's rationale: Merge and rename. It seems to me that education conducted through a non-native language is a defining characteristic of an educational institution, but I see no benefit in retaining two near-identical categories which are differentiated solely by who published the list. This nomination merges the two categories, but I have no objection to listifying either or both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is quite common in Africa and Asia for certain subjects to be taught in a language other than the local tongue, even at the secondary level, especially where an international language (esp. English, French, Russian, or Spanish) is also widely taught. After all, there are a lot more medical faculty who speak French than Berber, and a lot more chemistry textbooks written in English than in Chichewa. But I can't say whether the specific case of English medium instruction in China is defining or not.- choster (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Maybe someone who knows more about education in China can clarify. If others reckon it's not defining, then I have no objection to deletion. My main concern is that we don't keep the 2 near-identical categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. In Malawi (Chichewa having been mentioned, a rare occurrence in cfd) English is an official language (as is Chichewa) and is the language of tuition in post-primary education. I would be very surprised if English has any such status in China. Occuli (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I would he happier if most of these were medical schools. A more accurate name would be Category:Universities in China with English-medium schools of medicine. I am not sure that possessing an English-medium school of medicine is defining for Peking University (and Peking University Health Science Center, for which it would be defining, does not mention English). Occuli (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your preferred name is fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. English is widely taught in East Asia from a young age (in South Korea and Taiwan it starts in grade 3), but as a second language.- choster (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. But the category Category:MOE-Recognized English Medium Medical Schools in China is very much important for the international student studying medicine in China. It has a great value due to restriction of Chinese Education Ministry. And this list of instutions is being changed by the chinese education ministry. Sometimes it can be reduced in number sometimes it can be increased in number. It has up and down situation. And about the WHO list, WHO organization just enlist those institution which is approved by the chinese education ministry. By comparing between these two list it can be seen that each list has its different importance though both looks identical. I have already added two links about the list. So I think if you don't merge it will be a better solution.--Kaish (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a medical student in China. I am an international student. I know the rules and regulation of the china. Thats why I have made this category. I want to suggest that this category should not be merged otherwise foreign student will be confused and their future will be in dark. Because if any student from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan; they have to get admission in this institution to study MBBS or Medicine course. Otherwise they will not get registration in their own country. This laws has been approved by the chinese education ministry and also by the Bangladesh, India, Pakistan government.For reference please visit chinese education ministry website--Kaish (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply. Thanks for the very detailed reply, Kaish. You make a good case for keeping a list, but not for a category. Any student basing their career decisions on a Wikipedia category is making a bad decision, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. An article can be added to or removed from a category in a few seconds using HotCat; the categorisation may be correct, dubious, or complete nonsense. Category entries are unreferenced, and they function as a navigational aid, not as a statement of fact; a list can includes references, but a category cannot, so a list is a better way of guiding students towards an authoritative source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- "English-medium" is confusing. "English-language" would be clear. Maurreen (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not know about China, but in India the term is "English-medium", because English is the medium of instruction. I would suggest listifying both categories before merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the "medium" bit an additional service offered to bereaved relatives? Orderinchaos 08:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the Category:WHO-Recognized English Medium Medical Programs (China), I went about this by actually poring through the last WHO Medical School Directory. This was an exercise in quality control, because I too am a medical student in China, and thus I'm very much aware of the misinformation going around.

The WHO is a respected authority in this case, and further updates will be clarified in the Avicenna Directories. The IMED (International Medical Education Directory), though not conferring accreditation, is also working towards this goal, which is particularly important because the "English Language" Medical programs in China are a new introduction, meaning only a select host of colleges are allowed to have this program.

I don't mind working with Kaish in this issue, but the information must be verifiable at the highest level. The beauty is that once the Avicenna Directories kick in, the 2 lists will become identical

Compendium wmc (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Wikipedia but actually I wanted to present some points that the category should be without merging with WHO category. I can understand that in wikipedia here is no value of students demand but Wikipedia should have the information which will be real and approved by the regarding organization or proper authority. I had added the links of chinese education ministry but I don't know why it was deleted by someone. Here are links for evidence Publication of the List of Higher Educational Institutions That Will Enrol International Students for the Undergraduate Clinical Medical Education Programme in English and the Plans for Enrolment for the Academic Year of 2008/2009 and The List of Higher Educational Institutions That Will Enrol International Students For the Undergraduate Clinical Medical Education Programme in English and the Plans for Enrolment for the Academic Year of 2009/2010. Actually we have had a contact with WHO, purpose of listing one chinese university and they have told us that recommendation is needed from education ministry of china. So due this kind of reason I have told that Ministry of Education of China is much more important than WHO.--Kaish (talk) 09:54, 2 March 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.

Conservatives by nationality

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 all. — ξ ^xplicit 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. The parent category, Category:Conservatives, was deleted over a year ago at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 30#Category:Conservatives, and it makes no sense to keep the by-nationality sub-categories when the parent category has been deleted per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. The consensus of a year ago still holds: Category:Conservative organisations was deleted at CfD 2010 February 13.

Note that some of these national categories have sub-categories for membership of a political party. I have not included any of those party categories in this nomination, because membership of a political party is an objectively verifiable fact (unlike political ideologies, which are fuzzy concepts subject to shifting definitions and POV interpretations).

I cannot find any record of Category:Conservatives by nationality having been discussed at CfD before, but have not checked whether any of the sub-categories have been discussed individually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I have also notified the relevant WikiProject, i.e. WikiProject Politics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find a useful precedent at Category:American conservatives. Bearcat (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For almost all of the individuals so categorized, their conservatism is their defining characteristic. We do actively categorize people based on their opinions, filling hundreds of subcategories in Category:Activists based on opinions on gender, race, religion, creed, sexual preference and national origin issues, all of which apparently lacks any POV concerns, and the case is the same here. By dividing on a national basis, we allow all of the subtleties of conservatism to be reflected appropriately. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Canadian conservatives to Category:Canadian Conservatives, since this seems to be about the the many-headed Conservative Party in Canada. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psssssst...Wildrose Alliance? Social Credit? ADQ? Bearcat (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can be fixed by pruning those out. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this categorization scheme is that it categorizes people by subjective assessments of what they believe; categorizing people as activists isn't the same thing, because that's something those people do. Certainly, people should be categorized by actual membership in a specific political party — but categorizing by a basic ideology is a mug's game, for a variety of reasons. I'll use Canadian examples here, since that's the political culture I'm most familiar with, but I'm sure every country is subject to the same issues.

Firstly, a lot of people aren't ideologically "pure" — people can quite easily be conservative on some issues and liberal on others. When same-sex marriage came up in Canada, for example, there were Conservative MPs who supported it (admittedly not many, but not none either) and both Liberal and NDP MPs who voted against it. Similarly, there are a considerable number of MPs in both the Conservative and Liberal parties in Canada who would describe themselves as moderates or centrists, rather than small-c conservatives or small-l liberals. The "liberal" Jean Chrétien ran a more fiscally conservative government than the "conservative" Brian Mulroney; Mulroney was actually very progressive on human rights, pursuing sanctions against apartheid-era South Africa long before any other G7 nation. And Pierre Trudeau, for all his progressive cred, invoked martial law after the FLQ blew up a couple of garbage cans. And going back to same-sex marriage, that actually passed into law under Paul Martin, who had supposedly moved the Liberal Party to the right from where they were under Chrétien.

Secondly, as BrownHairedGirl quite correctly points out, things shift over time. I live in a province where, for a good many years, the provincial "Conservative" party were the centrists and the provincial "Liberal" party were the right-wingers. Now they've shifted to where you'd expect them to be, but even so, in many ways there's still more commonality than difference between them. Then there's Saskatchewan and British Columbia, where the current governing parties are basically Conservative/Liberal coalitions — are the BC Liberals a liberal party or a conservative one? (Answer: yes.)

And thirdly, it can get very subjective. From where I'm sitting, Ed Stelmach is a pretty hardcore conservative, but to many Alberta voters he's a flaming liberal. David Emerson, conservative or liberal? Belinda Stronach, conservative or liberal? Scott Brison, conservative or Liberal? Joe Comuzzi? Conservative or liberal?

Delete all. We don't need 'em; categorizing by membership in a specific political party is sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bearcat. Bearcat has summarized the problem with categorizing Canadian people this way very well, and this is just one country of the lot. Similar problems exist with all of them. I agree that we should categorize politicians by membership in a political party, but not by someone's amorphous interpretation of where they lie on an imaginary political spectrum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Bearcat. I would just add that the subjective assessments to which Bearcat refers would mean that inclusion in this category in so many cases would be an inappropriate exercise in WP:OR. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most need to be deleted out of hand, according to the precedent of the former parent. However, the British and Canadian categories need checking before deletion, so that those closely connected with the respective Conservative parties are appropriately recategorised into a party-related category; also any other country with a Conservative Party (e.g. Denmark and Norway - which are not in nom). For example John Skeffington, 14th Viscount Massereene was president of the Monday Club, which is essentially (possibly not officially) a right wing faction within the British Conservative Party. Another English person I checked has been a member of a monarchist league before becoming mentally ill; that is "conservative" but not "Conservative". This may apply elsewhere where a person has a strong party link. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too subjective. One man's conservative is another's radical. Also, conservatism itself is a flexible category - it can include a wide variety of ideologies or political stances. For example, someone who is staunchly opposed to gay marriage and holds to generally conservative Christian views may support indigenous rights and education/health equity. Orderinchaos 08:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Categorizing by political orientation just equivocates unlike things and simplistically papers over real differences. The fact that such labels are in use in reliable sources does not necessarily make them a proper basis for categorization, where the meaning of the labels can and does change significantly over time, and when the definitions of the terms are not rooted in specific and concrete facts. So Source A calls Politician B a conservative, and Source C calls Politician D a conservative. But given the nature of these terms, and of using one word to characterize a whole political orientation, there's no guarantee that Source A and Source C are using the same criteria, particularly if the sources date from different times, and they may weigh different criteria (economic, social, foreign policy preferences) differently. So these categories provide no real or useful information; these are instead completely superficial groupings. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 1 March 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:Dutch Patriots

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. — ξ ^xplicit 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dutch Patriots to Category:Members of the Dutch Patriots faction

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to clarify that is for members of the Patriots (faction), rather than for all patriotic Dutch people. A category of "patriots" would be irredeemably POV, but membership of a political party is an objectively determinable fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep, makes sense. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:10, 7 March 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.

Liberals by nationality

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 all. — ξ ^xplicit 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. The parent category, Category:Liberals, was deleted over a year ago at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 6#Category:Liberals, and it makes no sense to keep the by-nationality sub-categories when the parent category has been deleted per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. The consensus of a year ago still holds: Category:American_liberal_organizations was deleted atCfD 2010 February 1.

Note that some of these national categories have sub-categories for membership of a political party. I have not included any of those party categories in this nomination, because membership of a political party is an objectively verifiable fact (unlike political ideologies, which are fuzzy concepts subject to shifting definitions and POV interpretations).

This category and its sub-cats were part of an unwieldy group nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 16#Category:People_by_political_orientation, which was withdrawn by the nominator. They do not appear to have been brought back to CFD after the closure of that discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I have also notified the relevant WikiProject, i.e. WikiProject Politics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Canadian liberals to Category:Canadian Liberals, since this seems to be about the the many-headed Liberal Party in Canada. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find a fascinating reaction to the suggestion that the QLP is a faction of the federal Liberal Party. Bearcat (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, originally, it was a faction of the federal party. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this categorization scheme is that it categorizes people by subjective assessments of what they believe; categorizing people as activists isn't the same thing, because that's something those people do. Certainly, people should be categorized by actual membership in a specific political party — but categorizing by a basic ideology is a mug's game, for a variety of reasons. I'll use Canadian examples here, since that's the political culture I'm most familiar with, but I'm sure every country is subject to the same issues.

Firstly, a lot of people aren't ideologically "pure" — people can quite easily be conservative on some issues and liberal on others. When same-sex marriage came up in Canada, for example, there were Conservative MPs who supported it (admittedly not many, but not none either) and both Liberal and NDP MPs who voted against it. Similarly, there are a considerable number of MPs in both the Conservative and Liberal parties in Canada who would describe themselves as moderates or centrists, rather than small-c conservatives or small-l liberals. The "liberal" Jean Chrétien ran a more fiscally conservative government than the "conservative" Brian Mulroney; Mulroney was actually very progressive on human rights, pursuing sanctions against apartheid-era South Africa long before any other G7 nation. And Pierre Trudeau, for all his progressive cred, invoked martial law after the FLQ blew up a couple of garbage cans. And going back to same-sex marriage, that actually passed into law under Paul Martin, who had supposedly moved the Liberal Party to the right from where they were under Chrétien.

Secondly, as BrownHairedGirl quite correctly points out, things shift over time. I live in a province where, for a good many years, the provincial "Conservative" party were the centrists and the provincial "Liberal" party were the right-wingers. Now they've shifted to where you'd expect them to be, but even so, in many ways there's still more commonality than difference between them. Then there's Saskatchewan and British Columbia, where the current governing parties are basically Conservative/Liberal coalitions — are the BC Liberals a liberal party or a conservative one? (Answer: yes.)

And thirdly, it can get very subjective. From where I'm sitting, Ed Stelmach is a pretty hardcore conservative, but to many Alberta voters he's a flaming liberal. David Emerson, conservative or liberal? Belinda Stronach, conservative or liberal? Scott Brison, conservative or Liberal? Joe Comuzzi? Conservative or liberal?

Delete all. We don't need 'em; categorizing by membership in a specific political party is sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all liberalism is too amorphous a concept to qualify as a category. exception: any of these categories which could be changed to an existing "Liberal party" in that country.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bearcat. Bearcat has summarized the problem with using this terminology in the Canadian context very well, and this is just one country of the lot. Similar problems exist in each of these. I agree that we should categorize politicians by membership in a political party, but not by someone's amorphous interpretation of where they lie on an imaginary political spectrum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearcat. And I would mention here, as I did in the conservative-related debate, that the subjective assessments to which Bearcat refers means that inclusion in this category would more often than not be an innapropriate exercise in WP:OR. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately delete but all articels for each category need to be checked to see whether the appellation "Liberal" refers to membership of a party (which is objective) or of his views on various subjects (subjective). The party members will need to be recategorised before deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 28 February 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.

Liberal think tanks

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:

--Xdamr^talk 15:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Nominator's rationale: A series of recent discussions have deleted categories of political organisations with subjective names, per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE: see Cfd for Conservative organisations, CfD for American progressive organizations and CfD for American liberal organizations. The latter discussion is particularly relevant: even in the context of one country (the United States), no stable definition could be found which would allow an objective decision as to whether an article belongs in the category.

Similar categories for individuals have also been deleted: see CfD for Category:Liberals and CfD for Category:Conservatives

The closer of the CfD for American liberal organizations summed up the problem concisely:

the vast array of opinion which the term is capable of representing makes the it a meaningless label without the provision of cultural and historical context and explanation. To quote Wikipedia:Categorization: "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition...". This is not a case where the word has a meaning, good for all times and good for all places. The meaning has shifted over the years, can encompass many divergent strands of opinion, and is generally deeply relative and subject to personal bias and outlook.
As in the previous debate, the questions of self-identification and reputable third-party sourcing have been raised. These certainly justify discussion of a 'liberal' outlook and identity in the relevant article, but they do not carry over to the area of categorisation. Categories appear to have a tremendous claim of factuality. If the category system is to work then they need to be concerned with objective and uncontroversial facts. A lack of consensus as to meaning of the word 'liberal' robs it of these attributes and as a result this particular term cannot be held to be a suitable basis for a scheme of categorisation

Having deleted a broader category of "American liberal organisations", it makes no sense to continue to categorise think tanks by such a subjective term, contrary to WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 20#Category:Progressive_think_tanks_based_in_the_United_States, and lower down this page Progressive think tanks and Conservative think tanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Categories_for_discussion:_4_discussions_on_think-tanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All For almost all of the organizations so categorized, their liberal politics is their defining characteristic. We do actively categorize people based on their opinions, filling hundreds of subcategories in Category:Activists based on opinions on gender, race, religion, creed, sexual preference and national origin issues, all of which apparently lacks any POV concerns, and the case is the same here. By dividing on a national basis, we allow all of the subtleties of conservatism to be reflected appropriately. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and a bad analogy. Some categories of activists do work, because they categorise by activism on a particular issue, which is usually fairly easily defined objectively. However, if there are other subjective categories of activists, we'll come to them eventually. You miss the crucial difference here, which is that there is no objective method of testing whether an organisation is "liberal": the term covers so many different perspectives and is used in so many different ways that use of the label may mean very different things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per previous discussion outcomes. How many names like this are lurking out there? I agree we should categorize organizations by country, but not by someone's amorphous interpretation of where they lie on an imaginary political spectrum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Reply. I'm sorry to say that that there are lots more of these: see Category:Political organizations by ideology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom -- The categorisation is highly subjective. The only exception would be party affiliated think tanks, which should be recategorised as party-related organisations. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom - Subjective. Not only is "liberal" defined flexibly in each country, but it does not mean the same between countries: in the US, it can broadly mean anything remotely left; in England, it is profoundly centrist; in Australia and the Netherlands (not sure about Germany), it exclusively means economically liberal and is often very socially conservative and right-wing; and finally in Iran, it simply means anyone who opposes the government. Orderinchaos 15:56, 8 March 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:Mary I of 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: Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mary I of Scotland to Category:Mary, Queen of Scots

Nominator's rationale: Match article name and the name used in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in line with the rename of the main article (on Feb 25th) and the naming on the subcategory. AllyD (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per new article name. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article. Both versions of the name are legitimate, but Mary, Queen of Scots is the term overwhelmingly used. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 28 February 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:Tongue twister

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:Tongue twister will be retained as a redirect category. — ξ ^xplicit 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tongue twister to Category:Tongue-twisters

Nominator's rationale: Pluralize and match hyphen in main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can Category:Tongue twister remain as a redirect? I like having the ability to search for whatever comes to mind and having it work. Gnebulon (talk) 14:39, 7 March 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:Aircraft manufactured by the Soviet Union and Russia

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:Aircraft manufactured by the Soviet Union and Russia to Category:Aircraft manufactured by the Soviet Union. Questions of category content are editorial decisions and should be decided at the editorial level. Any articles/categories incorrectly categorised after this rename should be distributed to suitable locations within the broader scheme of categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 15:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Aircraft manufactured by the Soviet Union and Russia

Nominator's rationale: Split into Category:Aircraft manufactured by the Soviet Union and/or Category:Aircraft manufactured by Russia. This is an oddly worded category since it implies that this is for air craft manufactured by the Soviet Union and Russia. In fact, it is probably for aircraft manufactured by the Soviet Union or Russia. I see no reason to maintain a category that combines the two. If this nomination succeeds, then we probably need to look at doing the same for other categories like Category:Soviet and Russian military aircraft. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - mostly the "Russian" part. The Soviet past is more or less clear and uncontroversial, but the present is one can of worms. First, why by country? Does it mean that the category is limited to state-owned factories or state-paid contracts, as opposed to private ventures? Second, and more important. Verifying that Model X, once produced in the USSR, was (or was not) later produced in Russia, may be difficult and troublesome. Public databases are not necessarily helpful - there were legacy hulls built in the USSR but commissioned in Russia, hulls were relabelled beyond recognition, refurbished planes resurfaced as newly built etc. NVO (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why by country? Take a look at the parent category, Category:Aircraft by country. I don't see a problem with verifiability. We are not talking about individual hulls here. So if a type of aircraft was made by both countries, it would be in both categories. Not difficult at all. I have modified the nomination to and/or to deal with the case where is was manfactured by both. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course the parent category is just as confusing. Briegleb BG 12 was not manufactured by the United States. It was a private venture. Perhaps in (country) is more appropriate, as in Category:Ships by country of construction or Category:Motor vehicles manufactured in the United States. NVO (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That may be, but we need to cleanup the category being discussed here. If someone wants to nominate these categories for a change, that should be a follow up and not impend the proposed cleanup.
Support ; if it isn't manufactured in Russia, then just remove it from the Russian category. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split as nom but target should say "in", not "by". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support split, and I'll send up all of them for renaming once this closes. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:13, 7 March 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.

Television people by century

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/merge as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Propose merging:

Category:21st-century television journalists to Category:Television journalists

Nominator's rationale: There is a general consensus against 20th and 21st-century categories of people-by-occupation, and television is another bad topic for this form of categorisation. Per the timeline of the introduction of television in countries broadcasts only began on a significant scale in the 1940s and 1950s, yet these categories set out to divide this 70-year history into two 100-year blocs. That's a really bad way of grouping articles for navigational purposes, not least because nearly all the 21st-century television people are also 20th-century television people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – as with most sportspersons, 21st- or 20th-century categories are not yet ripe. Occuli (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A particularly good example of where the 21st/20th-century split is not needed or defining yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per nom's recommendations. Unnecessary categorization. Reso lute 18:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is far too like "Current" and "former", which we do not allow. Most people active in 1990s are alive today, so that they would get both of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Television_personalities_by_century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Why we would want to divide a history of less than 100 years into century blocks, I do not understand. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 4 March 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.

21st-century hip hop musicians

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. — ξ ^xplicit 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century hip hop musicians to Category:Hip hop musicians

Nominator's rationale: There is a general consensus against 20th and 21st-century categories of people-by-occupation, and this is a particularly daft example (even more so than the rock musicians below). Hip hop music has existed only since the 1970s, and splitting it into 100-year blocks make no sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I am awaiting a defensible 21st- or 20th-century category but this is not it. Occuli (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. A 19th century and possibly 1900-50 category might be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Crazy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 4 March 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.

Rock musicians by century

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/delete as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Category:Rock musicians by century - Template:Lc1

Propose merging

Nominator's rationale: There is a general consensus against 20th and 21st-century categories of people-by-occupation, and this is a particularly daft example. Rock music has existed only since the 1950s, and splitting it into two 100-year blocks make no sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – neither are these defensible. Occuli (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep, no sense at all to this. Sheesh. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far to like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. A 19th century and possibly 1900-50 category might be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were not many rock musicians before 1950 :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support upmerges. Daft indeed. Not exactly a completed scheme, in any case—with only 3 articles in each. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 2 March 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:Biopunk 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: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biopunk video games - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I Don't think there are any other articles that could be added to this. Prezbo (talk) 02:30, 26 February 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.

Progressive think tanks

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 00:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Nominator's rationale: A series of recent discussions have deleted categories of political organisations with subjective names, per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE: see Cfd for Conservative organisations, CfF for American liberal organizations, CfD for American progressive organizations. The latter discussion is particularly relevant: even in the American context, where Progressivism in the United States describes various strands and phases of progressivism, no stable definition could be found which would allow an objective decision as to whether an article belongs in the category. The broader article Progressivism shows the term "progressive" has wildly differing means in different countries. It opens by describing it as "a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform", but acknowledges plenty of contrary examples, such as the Progressive Democrats (a right-wing party in Ireland), and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Having deleted a broader category of "progressive organisations", it makes no sense to continue to categorise think tanks by such a subjective term, contrary to WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 20#Category:Progressive_think_tanks_based_in_the_United_States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 27#Progressive_organizations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your last proposal has two identical names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! Thanks, corrected in this edit. I had proposed merging Category:Progressive think tanks in Canada into itself. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Categories_for_discussion:_4_discussions_on_think-tanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why doesn't Category:Progressive think tanks by country merge into Category:Think tanks by country ? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It could do, tho in practice it will be empty if the other related categories are deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per previous discussion outcomes. How many names like this are lurking out there? I agree we should categorize organizations by country, but not by someone's amorphous interpretation of where they lie on an imaginary political spectrum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom -- The categorisation is highly subjective. The only exception would be party affiliated think tanks, which should be recategorised as party-related organisations. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 28 February 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.

Conservative think tanks

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/merge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 00:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Propose merging

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The parent category, Category:Conservative organisations, was deleted at Cfd Feb 13, and this is a consequential tidyup. It makes no sense to delete "Conservative organisations" as WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, but keep a subset of organisations categorised in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Categories_for_discussion:_4_discussions_on_think-tanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per nom and per previous discussion outcomes. How many names like this are lurking out there? I agree we should categorize organizations by country, but not by someone's amorphous interpretation of where they lie on an imaginary political spectrum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom -- The categorisation is highly subjective. The only exception would be conservative-party affiliated think tanks, which should be recategorised as party-related organisations. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 28 February 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:20th-century bobsledders

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 09:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:20th-century bobsledders to Category:Bobsledders

Nominator's rationale: Merge, per the consensus against 20th-century and 21st-century categories of sportspeople. Organised bobsleigh competitions began in 1884, and it makes no sense to divide a 126-year old sport into 100-year blocks.
There are no other by-century categories of bobsledders, and Category:20th-century bobsledders contains only one article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – per well-rehearsed arguments. Occuli (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Reso lute 18:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all -- The 20th/21st century disitinction is far too like a former/current distinction, which we do not allow. A 19th century and possibly 1900-50 category might be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This might be getting close to the point where by-century divisions might be slightly useful, but I don't think it is there. Maybe in another 50 years. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 4 March 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.