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 - jc37 20:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:International Planned Parenthood Federation affiliates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete or maybe rename. The International Planned Parenthood Federation article needs expanding so ideally the contents of this category should be used to write some more prose for it, or at least be listified into the article. An article is generally the first port of call foe a Reader so that is where the information should be. Also, the way that the article is linked to the category is rather "clunky" and goes against convention. That could be fixed with a rename but even though I am keen on kategories I just don't like it.... I had previously removed the cat description of "This category houses national affiliates of the IPPF and people associated with them." and removed seven bio articticle from the category. That is not how categorisation is done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although it might be worth upmerging. It seems that being part of the Planned Parenthood network is notable for these organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 00:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per JPL. Affiliation to the IPPF does seem to be a defining characteristic of such organisations, so it's worth keeping. I would support a rename for clarity, maybe to Category:Affiliates of the International Planned Parenthood Federation or Category:Organisations affiliated to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus - jc37 15:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting: Category:Archipelagoes of the Republic of China ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. Both items in this category are already in the much larger Category:Islands of Taiwan. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support "Archipelagoes of ..." is a well established category tree but doesn't really match the geography of the ROC. Taiwan is one large island with very small islands around it, Matsu is more of a political/military subdivision of Fujian Province than a geographic one, and the Spratlys are claimed by a half dozen countries. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid this isn't the case. The Matsu Islands is a geographic one. The same is true for the Pescadores. 116.48.85.251 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the Archipelagoes by country hierarchy. 116.48.85.251 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)— 116.48.85.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete the Islands category is good enough. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Merge to Category:Islands of Taiwan. WP consensus has decided that the polity calling itself the Republic of China should be known as Taiwan. The republic is not an archipelago, so that the present name is meaningless. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Or we could merge everything it into Category:Islands of the Republic of China with the future discussion. Either way, this sub-category is not useful at least as currently populated. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are similar categories for Chile, Canada and the UAE. None of these countries are archipelagic. 210.17.196.24 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the archipelago category for this country. It got a handful of archipelagoes. 210.17.196.24 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)— 210.17.196.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Socks? 210.17.196.24 and 116.48.85.251 seem very similar in their way of responding and commenting on this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Comment The lack of apparent meat puppets around a China/Taiwan discussion is novel though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • They tend to get blocked after a while, then fall back to IP editing. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 00:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to myself. 116 and 210. The closer should be aware of just how similar those edits are, in a geographic region known for socking. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Keep since they belong to two different (though interrelated) category trees. Jeremy (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - each country with archipelagoes should have such a category. The Republic of China should not be treated differently. Imperium Romanum Sacrum (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 02:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this is part of a well established by-county and by-ocean category structure. There is no valid reason for deletion. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 00:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a normal use of the term and the expected intersection DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename all as nominated. The consensus is that in the complex and changing history of national boundaries in the periods concerns, these categories are a confusing hybrid of two concepts: "military personnel by belligerent nation" and "people by ethnic or national group". The merger separates those two concepts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Category:Ukrainian military personnel of World War I to Category:Ukrainian people of World War I

Category:Ukrainian World War I pilots to Category:Ukrainian people of World War I

Category:Ukrainian World War I flying aces to Category:Ukrainian people of World War I

Category:Polish military personnel of World War I to Category:Polish people of World War I

Category:Russian military personnel of World War II to Category:Russian people of World War II

Category:Serbian military personnel of World War II to Category:Serbian people of World War II

Category:Ukrainian military personnel of World War II to Category:Ukrainian people of World War II

Propose renaming:

Category:Lithuanian military personnel of World War I to Category:Lithuanian people of World War I

Nominator's rationale:

Merge because of redundancy and potential for confusing readers.

1. Ukraine (Ukrainian People's Republic, 1917) attained independence near the end of World War I. Poland (Second Polish Republic, 1918) and Lithuania (interwar Lithuania, 1918) attained independence at the end of World War I. However, neither the national Ukrainian, Polish, or Lithuanian armed forces participated in this conflict (1914 - 1918). Since the territories now including these countries were divided between other powers, Category:Polish people of World War I and Category:Ukrainian people of World War I fought in the armed forces of World War I as Category:Austro-Hungarian military personnel of World War I and Category:Russian military personnel of World War I, and Category:Lithuanian people of World War I fought in the armed forces as Category:Russian military personnel of World War I. The case of Ukraine is particularly confusing because a Ukrainian army was formed by the Ukrainian State before World War I ended in 1918. However, this force did not fight in World War I.

2. Russia was a subnational Soviet republic forming part of the Soviet Union during World War II, but neither did it or any other Soviet republics participate in World War II as separate states. Since Russia was the biggest republic and occupied most of what had been the Russian Empire (and what is now the Russian Federation), its soldiers are often simply called "Russians" in the west, which probably led somebody to create a separate category for Russian personnel when Category:Soviet military personnel was already there. Some ethnic Russians fought on the Nazi side as part of the Russian Liberation Army, but there is a Category:Russian Liberation Army personnel for these Category:Russian Nazi collaborators.

3. Like Soviet Russia, Soviet Ukraine was also a subnational Soviet republic in World War II. Thus, Category:Ukrainian people of World War II most commonly fought on the side of the Soviet Union during World War II, but western Ukraine was part of the region of Kresy in Poland, so some western Ukrainians in 1939 fought as Category:Polish military personnel of World War II. Other Ukrainians fought the Poles, Germans, and Soviets as an independent nationalist guerrilla force, and belong in Category:Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

4. Likewise, modern Serbia formed part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia at the time. Serbs fought as Category:Yugoslav military personnel of World War II. Also as Category:Serbian partisans and Category:Chetniks of World War II. Subcategories like this will not be affected by this merge, but will instead be placed within the right parent categories. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, ethnic Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, and Serbian people took part in these wars. However, this should be presented in the clearest way possible. Persons who were born in X or belonged to group X but fought for state Y in Z war should be presented as Category:X people of Z war and Category:Y military personnel of Z war, rather than Category:X military personnel of Z war.

E.g., Category:Navajo people of World War II and Category:American military personnel of World War II, instead of Category:Navajo military personnel of World War II for Navajo Code Talkers. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all WWI categories except the three Ukrainian WWI categories which should be merged together. It is true that several of these nations did not exist at the time, but the ethnicities did exist and the people concerned were fighting for their freedom from imperial domination. I checked a few of the Polish articles and they seemed to be about people who had become Polish, having fought in WWI. The WWII categories are more difficult, but Lithuania was a state until it was forceably incorporated in USSR. USSR was (at least nominally) a union and each citizen had an internal nationality, which might be Ukranian, Tartar, Uzbek, or Russian (for exmaple); and how are we to categorise Ukranians who fought in German pay? Those who became British POWs were employed on mine-clearance after the war and then allowed to settle in the West (e.g. UK). This is a case of some one trying to use the category system to make life much simpler than it in fact was. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • re "It is true that several of these nations did not exist at the time, but the ethnicities did exist and the people concerned were fighting for their freedom from imperial domination. . ." Right, but I do not see how this will minimize their contribution, and I have taken care to specifically avoid that. Rather, what I'm suggesting is that they be identified as "X people" rather than "X military personnel" where X did not participate as a belligerent nation. Besides, we already have subcategories for notable units for these ethnicites. For instance, Category:Puławy Legion personnel for members of the Puławy Legion, a unit of Poles who fought for the Russian Empire. This would fall under Category:Polish people of World War I and Category:Russian military personnel of World War I, and Category:Military history of Poland in World War I would be good also. I think this makes things clear and very comprehensive.
  • re "The WWII categories are more difficult, but Lithuania was a state until it was forceably incorporated in USSR..." Lithuania was an independent state from the end of World War I until its annexation in 1940, but I am asking to rename the category for World War I, not World War II. Lithuania's independence was proclaimed shortly before World War I ended, but its military forces did not participate in World War I. Its people participated, mostly as soldiers of the Russian Empire, before a Lithuanian military was set up, so I am proposing to rename it to Category:Lithuanian people of World War I.
  • re "USSR was (at least nominally) a union and each citizen had an internal nationality, which might be Ukranian, Tartar, Uzbek, or Russian (for exmaple); and how are we to categorise Ukranians who fought in German pay?" Actually, the people of the USSR belonged innumerable ethnic groups. This basically shows why the present scheme is redundant and difficult, as logically we would need several hundred categories of the form "(X ethic group) military personnel of World War II" to subdivide everyone who fought in the USSR in addition to several hundred categories of the form "(X ethnic group) people of World War II". Would it make any sense to place Mao Anying, an ethnic Han who fought the Nazis in the USSR's Red Army, as part of Category:Han military personnel of World War II? Ukrainians in German pay are under Category:Ukrainian Nazi collaborators, which is divisible further, e.g. Category:Members of the Galizien division for Ukrainian members of the Galizien Division of the Waffen-SS. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename as nominated. Judging from his comment and with respect, I think Peterkingiron somewhat missed the point of the nomination. It is not to expunge any record of the person being of a particular ethnicity. It is to merge the ethnicity categories into the more general "FOOian people" categories and to reserve the "military personnel" categories for those who fought in the military forces of a particular sovereign state. In this light, I think the nomination makes perfect sense and in fact is a good idea that better reflects the realities of the situation as they existed in the Second World War. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:MILHIST notified - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all to relevant Soviet, Imperial Russian, Austro-Hungarian or whatever other category. We classify military personnel by nationality, and that means we should use nationalities at the time. If some of these people fought against their naition in liberation movements, we can classify them by the name of the military group they worked with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 23:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Siege of Port Hudson of the American Civil War to Category:Siege of Port Hudson

Nominator's rationale: This was a contested speedy renaming nomination. We have done away with many 'Battles of the Campaign of the Theatre of the American Civil War'-type titles but some still remain. The disagreement at WP:CFD/S concerned whether the title should be Siege of Port Hudson or Port Hudson Campaign. I think that the former is the more accepted name, as per the link (to a website of the American Battlefield Protection Program's Civil War Sites Advisory Commission) provided by User:Mojoworker. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Mojoworker (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominated . While the Battle of Plains Store was not at Port Hudson, it does seem to be part of that campaign name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Nominations on the tree might be needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in New Zealand ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If deleted, the contents would need to be upmerged to Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers and Category:Deaths by firearm in New Zealand. It's arguably part of an overall scheme, which would invoke the exception in WP:SMALLCAT, though Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers is not fully diffused to by-country subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't these all be "People killed by..."? "People shot dead by" sounds...very odd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it looks like the scheme is intending to limit its scope to those who were killed by police with firearms, to link it into the Category:Deaths by firearm scheme. "People killed with firearms by law enforcement officers" would probably sound even weirder, but I agree that the way it is currently phrased does have a bit of an odd ring to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we just have way too many death categories. After having seen people in 5 death categories I have decided we need to get rid of lots of minor and fringe categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Death to all categories!". Hmm, no that's not right.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You realize John, that the effect of deleting this category would be to place 2 "death categories" on the applicable article in place of the single death category that currently exists there! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No opinion on this specific nom, but the whole tree should be renamed: "X shot dead" to "X shot to death" - jc37 16:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as part of a scheme, I guess. I'm not sure about the naming issues, but we could pursue that in a broader nomination? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus, leaning to split. Just because it's atypical doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. These are articles for seasons, not teams, and so they are not overcategorized as it stands. Since UEFA is quite important, this stands for now. The split has merit to the commenters, so if someone is inclined to do so, go ahead. It's possible that one half (likely Champions League) might survive and the other might not.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not a typical grouping of articles. Just because these clubs have qualified for European competition in the season specified does not mean that those season articles should be categorised together. – PeeJay 19:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia:Categorization states "Categories are not the only means of enabling users to browse sets of related pages." This means that categories, among other types of pages, enables users to browse sets of related pages. Being in a European competition is one way to related certain club season articles. Kingjeff (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've missed the point of what that statement means. What it actually means is that just because pages are related (albeit spuriously) does not mean that they should be put in a category together; they can be browsed in other ways, such as with a navbox or a list article. It certainly does not give you carte blanche to create this category. – PeeJay 09:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm leaning towards deletion as I don't see the point.

  But if this is to be kept, I would prefer that it was split into categories for the Champions League and Europa League. This split would be more relevant, and would also allow more precise category naming. Clubs are not (to my knowledge) direct members of UEFA, which is what "UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season" implies to me. But it is easy to interpret "Category:UEFA Champions League clubs 2012–13 season" as meaning clubs which played in the Champions League. Renaming so that we do not have to deal with football trolls would be an added bonus. —WFC— 21:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I honestly don't mind the split simply because this category could possibly have up to almost 300 pages if this is fully implemented. The above category being discussed is suppose to be the same as categories like Category:German football clubs 2012–13 season, Category:Austrian football clubs 2012–13 season, Category:English football clubs 2012–13 season and Category:Scottish football clubs 2012–13 season where you are grouping club seasons that have similarities in them. Just like there is a common country involved with other categories I just mentioned, there is a competition-based relation between the articles that are currently listed in the above category. Kingjeff (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this rationale. The country-based categories were created as a natural solution to prevent there from being hundreds or thousands of articles in a single, over-arching, global category, whereas this category has no basis other than that these clubs happen to have qualified for UEFA competitions this season. – PeeJay 09:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Categorization states that categories are one way to "enabling users to browse sets of related pages." UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League are one way to do this. This category clearly meets at least this part of the guideline. Kingjeff (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, it says categories are one way of browsing a set of articles, but not the only way. Just because they are one way of browsing articles does not mean that is the way we should use, especially if - as I believe - categorisation is not an appropriate browsing method in this case. – PeeJay 23:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, what do you have in mind of Categorizing articles like the ones? Kingjeff (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • A navbox? Perhaps a link to each season article from the UEFA competition season pages? Maybe neither of those. But not a category. – PeeJay 00:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm a little amazed that the creator of the category first asks the Football project about such a category, and then creates the category without letting it be discussed. But I don't mind this category (if it's renamed per WFC) as it would be a nice way to browse through the season-articles, and those articles normally only have two or three categories, and one more wouldn't hurt. But my question is what would be done with clubs that play a spring-fall season instead of fall-spring, like the 2012 Molde FK season, which will play in the 2012-13 UEFA Champions League? Mentoz86 (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another good point! Combining articles that follow two different calendars into one category that refers to just one of those two is a little confusing and that is why only categorising by country is better. – PeeJay 09:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this category is kept, then please add some parent categories. It is currently orphaned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Montérégie-Est to Category:Montérégie Est
  • Category:Incorporated places in Montérégie-Est to Category:Incorporated places in Montérégie Est
  • Category:Regional county municipalities in Montérégie-Est to Category:Regional county municipalities in Montérégie Est

Nominator's rationale: This was a contested speedy renaming nomination, and the text of the original discussion can be found above. As indicated by User:P.T. Aufrette, the hyphen is absent in official usage: see, for instance, this publication of the Institut de la statistique du Québec, this directory of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Regions and Land Occupancy of the Government of Quebec, and the official website of the Conférence régionale des élus (CRÉ) de la Montérégie Est. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, obviously, as the original nominator of the failed speedy rename, though I never got around to initiating the CfD myself. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dub parody ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Very loose definition. MST3K is not a "dub". Some of these are indeed "dubs", but others are manipulative editing (e.g. The Funny Manns). Dub parody has never had an article, so I don't see how it can have a definition if it doesn't even have an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If we created an article on it that was a definition, it would be deleted for being a dictionary entry. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Parodies. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/upmerge. As above. Neutrality^talk 17:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Canadian theatre actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Assume mistakenly created by new user in place of Category:Canadian stage actors for their article. Since I placed that article into stage actors, this cat is empty so theoretically could be CSD'ed in however many days for being empty regardless. Syrthiss (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Place of birth Detroit Michigan USA (living people) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:People from Detroit, Michigan. - filelakeshoe 15:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but not for given reason. Directives on categorizing people by place say that a place of birth is rarely notable for biographical purposes. The "people from foo" categories are supposed to reflect that the person lived in the place for some amount of time, not mere birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What a combo! We don't categorize by birthplace, nor do we subcategorize Category:Living people into subcategories by place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, empty category, never had anything in it, completely flies in the face of everything categoryish. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Neither of the proposed alternatives has gained consensus support in this open-ended nomination, and neither is there consensus to delete the category entirely. No prejudice against anyone renominating this with a concrete proposal. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Open methodologies to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: The current name, Open methodologies (and Open movements) is not suitable. The primary reason is that the phrases do not exist outside Wikipedia, but it also is not supported by the main article Open source. Other problems I have with it is the lack of precision and consistency. Libre knowledge and Free culture movement implies to be Open methodologies (whatever that is), but they are apparently not Open movements (whatever that is), through Free software movement is supposedly a Open movement. As a suggested fix, I primary look at the already existing Template:FOSS. We could rename Open methodologies as Free and open source methodologies/concepts, as that would eliminate the above confusion, but it would at the same time suffer the same issue by being a term not existing outside Wikipedia. On the talk page of the nav-box, I suggested the name Free and open source communities, as it is supported by sources outside Wikipedia and topics like open hardware is mentioned to be part of the Free and open source community (source example). On the talk page, this was dislike, by arguments that it was a too narrow of a category. A broader name could be simply Free and open source, thus being a super category for the Template:FOSS. Belorn (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, please don't bring FOSS into this - that is a debate mostly amongst the open source vs free software people, and should be not be extended to the general space. I would be ok with Category:Open source (philosophy), or something similar, which would line up with the head article (currently Category:Open source redirects d'oh)- the idea of open source is now being applied to realms outside of software, and the article tackles that in some detail. --KarlB (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  At a first glance, Open source (philosophy) sound like it could work, but it is almost exactly like Open methodologies. The open source article does not actually support claims of defining Open source philosophy. It has an WP:OR Society and culture section, and you can find the discussion about it and why it is OR on the article talk page, and the No original research Noticeboard. I happy welcome an attempt to fix this problematic open source section by fixing, through finding sources has been the major problem. The few I could find was: a random wiki with a single page, some persons talk slides, a blog, and a commercial open source support company. The lead of open source article does also talk about open source as an philosophy with general scope (ie, outside software), but again this is completely unsourced. When we pick a name for a category, it should follow the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). The Political open source vs free software debate does not enter into it, and should not! We should use words and phrases which exist in reliable sources, the title name should be able to stand alone (with consideration to verifiability), and the included members of the category need to be consistent with the title. When a subject is part of the category (for example sake, lets randomly take Libre knowledge), Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view need to match. Currently, with Open methodologies, it does not. With Open source philosophy, it would be in the same boat. Take, Libre knowledge example. Should it be included as an Open source philosophy? what do we mean with Open source philosophy and what does we base that definition on? Does this then follow V, OR, NPOV? This is why this CFD section exist. We need to remove the confusion and the OR. Belorn (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Open source is broadly used, by many people, to mean much more than software development - for example: [3]. In this case, the category name is Open source with a parenthetical disambiguator, which does not have to match. In any case, I would actually be ok with just Category:Open source without the disambiguator also. --KarlB (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for source link. Will read through it all and see what it can give. But doing a quick early glance, he does not use the phrase open source to mean the underlying concept. That he calls Openness, in section 10 with the title "Extension of the concept Openness", in which areas like Open content is described. Earlier, in the introduction, he talks about an open source phenomenon, seen in the open source community and from open source software development. This is the base for what he later discuss openness as the underlying concept. If we based it on that source, we should call the category Openness (concepts) and link to openness. Doing some early checks, it does look to be in use in reliable sources (matching what I am after), through it is a bit vague in scope. Still, I would rather have it called that than open source. Doing some google searching on "openness" plus members of the category, and we do find most with reasonable number of hits, clearly a good sign for that name. Belorn (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The category is a meaningless one. Are we talking about 'open as in libre' (open source, open knowledge) or 'open as in gratis' (open access) or 'open as in transparent' (open government, open peer review) or 'open as in cheap' (Open Music Model) or 'open as in crowdsourced' (open-source governance)? At the moment, this category is effectively 'Things that begin with the word open', which is not a viable theme for a category. --Sanglorian (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The general concept certainly does exist, though it is difficult to give a universally accepted unique name for it. This doesn't surprise me, because in a sense we are the pioneers in having the concept generally accepted over multiple domains of activity. But for a category, we just need the characteristic, and whatever seems clearest should be used. The present name is not ideally clear, but it will serve--it does encompass anything that might be so included. If something fits in multiple similar groups, such as "free software" and "open software", then both are relevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you define what you mean with we in "we are the pioneers"? I am not sure if you meant the wikipedia community or the open source community, and I want to be sure not to miss-read the comments made here. Belorn (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, what is the general concept encapsulated by 'Open methodologies'? As I said above, I don't think there is a general category that encapsulates open knowledge, open access, open government and open-source governance, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --Sanglorian (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sanglorian. I think part of the reason there is difficulty in coming up with an encompassing name is because of what Sanglorian has said—this looks like an attempt to group things together simply because they contain the word "open". It seems to be venturing into WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES territory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Open source; especially given recent clean up of the software categories. These methodologies do not just share the word open, they all share a philosophy of open access to information, whether through publishing of data sets, releasing of government documents, or ability to see source code. In the literature - take a book like this [4] - the ideas are very much blended together, and many books/paper etc talk about applying 'open' methodologies to other domains beyond software (where a lot of these ideas first germinated, but not all of course). --KarlB (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The book you mentioned do not call the idea "open source", they call it open. The book draw parallels with open source software, and open source software development, but they do not call the idea or concept open source. If we based it on this book, the category (concept) should be called open. Belorn (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If that is the case – that the category attempts to encapsulate some kind of philosophical idea of openness of information – then possible titles include Category:Openness (philosophy), which is quite vague, or the more awkwardly worded Category:Openness of information. But... do reliable sources recognize such a category of thought? Even if such an idea of openness is recognized, its applications still are highly diverse, as Sanglorian points out, when we consider the distinctions between the meanings of 'open' as libre, gratis, transparent, and so on. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sanglorian and User:Good Olfactory. Looks like WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES to me too. - jc37 20:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this CfD? Would be nice if a helpful administrator or editor could write a consensus summery. Belorn (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the nominator states that open movement does not exist outside of wikipedia; I'm afraid the evidence shows otherwise. For example "The Open Movement — including such concepts and products as open source software, open access, open courses, and open data — is an exciting and challenging development. " Risk and entrepreneurship in libraries: seizing opportunities for change Pamela Bluh, Cindy Hepfer ; Google book search It's true that the literature has not yet settled on a final and agreed upon terminology, but it is also true that there is a lot of literature that groups these approaches together; it is not just based on the word open, it is based on the philosophical approach - whether open source, open data, open content - the philosophy underlying is similar. thus, this category should be kept, with no prejudice to a rename in the future if the literature settles on a perfect name. But for now, Open movements or open methodologies or even open source are all reasonable and sourced.--KarlB (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I can see, the evidence points clearly that the terms Open movements and open methodologies are not and has never been in common use. "open movement" (in the context of open source) gives around 927 hits on google in total, and the first hits are Wikipedia and blogs. Compare this to "open source's 26,599,473 hits, and it shows clearly how obscure the terms Open movements and open methodologies really is. "Free and open source community" has about 15 times more hits (15,545), and the first hits are not blogs and Wikipedia. Doing a book search, the numbers are 89 for open movement, and 385 for free and open source community. That said, it is not enough that one or two people has used one form of phrase or an other. The title we use need to be verifiable for each and every entry we add to the category. It need to be something which exist in reliable sources of those articles. It need to be common. It need to be precise. It need to be consistent. It is not enough that 89 (.0001) of 607,000 books about open source software has the phrase open movement in it. Belorn (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:NHS England hospitals to Category:NHS hospitals in England

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unlike NHS Scotland and NHS Wales, "NHS England" is not the name of National Health Service (England), so rename this category to Category:NHS hospitals in England, Category:National Health Service hospitals in England or Category:National Health Service (England) hospitals. The last sounds rather awkward so preference to one of the first two . Tim! (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "NHS England" isn't a term that is used. Lugnuts (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to reflect actual usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Steam5 (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Creation of Category:Roman engineering not precluded by this, but best to WP:TNT instead of a direct move. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Roman Inventions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete since for most of the contents it is a real stretch of the imagination to call them inventions. At the very least it will need to be renamed per WP:MOS. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tending to Keep It should of course be "Ancient Roman" (Nom, why say it will have to be renamed without saying what to?). If we have Category:Inventions of the Indus Valley Civilization why not this? I'm sure there are plenty more, but no doubt the whole of Category:Inventions by country is a referencing nightmare. Johnbod (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The upper case "I" should be lower case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category: Roman engineering and prune drastically. Not a lot of these things can be attributed to the Romans; the most worthy articles discuss Roman civil engineering. Mangoe (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Ancient Romans did not invent the aqueduct, law, roads, bridges, nails, distance measurements commensurate with miles, and was only one of several separate inventors of codices, and the Gladius was clearly adopted, since it is called the Gladius Hispaniensis, and of Iberian origin. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - note some of these are much better suited to Category:Ancient Roman technology. Neutrality^talk 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see Indus Valley up for a nomination, and the things in this one are far more verifiable.Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --Neutrality^talk 03:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the mile is not an invention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Not done - No point in relisting if the related Wikiprojects were not notified. (Note: The latter category wasn't tagged.) - jc37 20:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Energy development articles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Energy development articles needing expert attention‎
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. contains one subcat with one article and there is no WikiProject Energy development. There is however a Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong procedural oppose. There was a Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development, which was merged to Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy, and the nom is aware of this because he edited the redirect to change it from WikiProject Environment to WikiProject Energy. So these categories are a leftover from the merger, and the two extant projects should have been notified. These are project categories, and the projects should decide their fate.
  I regret to say that this is a very sloppy and misleading nomination: not only was there no Wikiproject notification, but the nominator did not disclose the fat that he obviously knew the history of the projects. So a big wet WP:TROUT for the nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Point taken on notifying the WikiProject but in the overall scheme of things it is of very minor importance. It is housekeeping and not worthy of this discussion (said Alan without even a hint of irony...). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 15:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:High school national record holder to Category:High school national record holders

Nominator's rationale: The plural, is, I believe, standard for such categories. Compare to Category:World record holders in athletics (track and field) Courcelles 04:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the category I have no objection to the minor renaming. Trackinfo (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I also offered on the talk page, that should some other editor or editors get so motivated, there are plenty of other sports that also have national records. I have also made no distinction as to past or present record holders. When the content volume so dictates, other sub-categories may become appropriate. Trackinfo (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I suggest the alternative of Category:American high school record holders? Although these performances carry much importance in the US, I would argue that national high school national records are pretty much non-notable in all other countries. This limits the category (seeing as we shouldn't really create categories for which no primary topic article is notable), so it would be better to focus the category to just the American ones. SFB 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per SFB Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not really a worth categorizing thing. If kept a short review of contents shows it should be Category:American high school national record holders or some other thing that makes it clear this category is limited to those who held United States national high school records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename. I am not persuaded that this is really a defining characteristic, so I would prefer deletion ... but if it is to be kept then it should be renamed to reflect the fact it is restricted to the USA, and based on the list maintained by the National Federation of State High School Associations at http://www.nfhs.org/recordbook/. SFBs suggestion of Category:American high school record holders is OK, but wouldn't it be better to use something which conveys that a) this is a sports category, and b) that it an NFS record? So I suggest Category:American high school sports record holders or Category:NHFS high school sports record holders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards delete. I can't say that this seems like it's defining for those included. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I checked about ten articles and noticed two patterns: (1) holding a high school record recognized by NFHS is a significant fact worthy of mention in the body of an article; and (2) it is usually just an early accomplishment in a sports career that yields more noteworthy achievements. This leads me to conclude that, in the context of a sportsperson's life as a whole, the characteristic is not particularly defining. Furthermore, the relatively narrow scope of this category – a grouping of individuals of one nationality (American) who achieve something (a record) in one field (sports) at a particular stage in life (high school) – and the fact that is seems to be based on one organization's published list suggest (see WP:OCAT#Published list) that this information is more appropriate for a list, such as United States high school national records in track and field, than a category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If the category is not deleted, it should be renamed in some way. Category:American high school record holders would be better but still not adequately precise, since it does not identify the field (sports) or the relevant authority (NFHS). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Ivy League alumni
• Nominator's rationale the creation of Category:Big Ten alumni has shown that this is a bad idea for categorizing things. It works to categorize by university or college and group those under state headings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even at the most sports-mad institutions, the athletic program is just one component of the university, so I would not see conferences and leagues privileged over the rest of Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by association. Second, the realignment drama of the last several years should indicate that this scheme will prove unsustainable for anything beyond sports categories themselves. Membership in a conference is no longer any guide to geography, size, or any other natural measure of similarity between institutions, if it ever was. Third, as for the cultural position of the Ancient Eight, the Ivy League still derives its reputation from the elite status of its members, rather than the members becoming recognized as elite because of their participation as an Ivy. Yes, even Cornell. :) So what purpose does the category serve except to add an extra navigational layer? - choster (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – according to Ivy League the term dates from 1935. It doesn't make much sense to me to group all alumni of say Harvard as 'Ivy League alumni'. Oculi (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This means a distinctive group of colleges, important both in the RW and in cultural preconceptions as being much more than an athletic league. It works to categorize universities by state, certainly, It also works to categorize by all defining characteristics. There's nothing that better gives the general nature of a certain group of college alumni in the US than this one,. The only valid objection to big 10 was that the institutions change, but this group has not changed. That the name was not used before the 1930's didn't mean the colleges weren't there, and of the same nature. We're categorizing college & their alumni, not names of colleges. To be honest, I thought that this was being proposed as a joke in response to the big 10 nomination, (it is too clearly a joke to be disruptive or pointy) but I see it's meant seriously. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that it is fair to others' opinions to say that "The only valid objection to big 10 was that the institutions change". Several editors there have objected to the category on the grounds that it categorizes all alumni via a sports conference category, which may be of limited relevance to a large percentage of the articles so categorized. There's also the issue of retroactive terminology application to those who attended prior to the invention of the terminology (in the case of Harvard, ~300 years' worth of alumni). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Choster's comments. It essentially adds an extra layer of categorization that is not needed and in a high percentage of cases will be applied in a fashion that is either irrelevant to or anachronistic to the subject (or both). But I can see how it is not quite the same as the Big 10 examples or any other athletic conferece, for that matter, as the term has migrated beyond athletics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, in part per DGG. I think that the parallels to the Big Ten Conference category, whose deletion I support, are misplaced. Most people outside the United States, and perhaps even most people within the United States who lack an interest in college sports, probably will not be familiar with the Big 10 or the institutions that constitute it. It is more likely, I think, that they will recognize the Ivy League and its member institutions.
  While this category is an extra layer of categorization, it is not an intermediate layer that impedes navigation; in other words, it is an extra layer that readers can go through but not one that they must go through. In addition, as a subcategory of Category:Ivy League, it is potentially useful even if, admittedly, it is not strictly necessary. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to 'delete'; see below. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per DGG. The crucial point here is that although the Ivy League is an athletic grouping, the term has taken on a much wider significance, and is used as a general shorthand for this group of eminent universities. As an Irish person living much of my life in England, I have seen the term "Ivy League" used repeatedly to refer to these universities,without any mention that it was an athletic group; and it wasn't until these CfD discussions that I became aware that "Ivy League" had any meaning other than "group of eminent universities on the American East Coast".
  This makes it a different case to the Big Ten, whose use as a generic label has not spread beyond the region to which it applies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case we will be mixing the actual and the metaphorical uses— "Ivy League" as representing a class of institutions rather the eight signatories of the Ivy Group Agreement. A category for "prestigious American private universities" would obviously not stand, nor corollary categories thereof, but retaining it would then seem to privilege those members over "peer institutions" like MIT or a certain Junior University.- choster (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting point, which I had not considered. If you have suitable refs to support your contention that the cultural use of "Ivy League" has broader and/or less clearly-defined scope than the original athletic league scope, then I will change my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category clutter; people graduate from individual institutions, not conferences or consortia. This is as nonsensical as Category:Land-grant university alumni or Category:Association of American Universities alumni. Neutrality^talk 14:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary level of categorization. Pichpich (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have to second the notion that this can not be seen as a class for presitgious, private universities. Not only is Stanford University not here, but neither is Washington University which at times outranks Cornell. For that matter, Cornell University and Yale University are only quasi-private, Cornell having some parts that are actually public Newe York universities, and Yale having the current governor of Connecticut as a member of its board (changed with the governor).John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Ivy League as an article is fine, but there isn't a need to group the alumni, in spite of the prestige or renown of this title.--KarlB (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is quite well attested. People are commonly referred to as Ivy League Alumni first and Alumni of their respective colleges second, unless it's Harvard or Yale. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Google News supports Benkenobi18's assertion: 1530 hits for "ivy league alumni". There are also 288 hits in Google Books. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No one is disputing that Ivy legaue alumni are at times grouped. However with everyone of these universities pre-dating the term by at least 50 years, and some by hundreds of years, it makes no sense to group the alumni this way. Grouping other Ivy Legue things may make sense, but not alumni who are connected with their university. Anyway, the very fact that Johns Hopkins University and New York University are not part of the Ivy League makes this a term that does not connote what people think it does. NYU is way more Ivy Legue than Cornell, by any measure people think of as measuring the Ivy Legue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Strong additional argument for deletion Harvard not only existed for over 300 years before the Ivy League was ever spoken of, but Harvard is actually part of 7 athletic conferences. Besides the Ivy League it is part of ECAC Hockey, Eastern Association of Rowing Colleges and the list goes on. So how can we classify with a specific sports association when member organizations do not even exclusively belong to that organization? The Cornell Big Red are also in 6 conferences besides the Ivy League, not overlapping as the same, including being in the Middle Atlantic Intercollegiate Sailing Association while Harvard is in the New England Intercollegiate Sailing Association. A check of Dartmouth Big Green Swimming and Diving wi;ll show us another team that does not participate in the Ivy League. Thus at present we are classifying people as "Ivy League alumni" who were athletes in other leagues. In fact, ever single university or college in the Ivy League has some sports where they play in other conferences.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I still think that, for most people, the label 'Ivy League' refers to more than just an athletic conference. It reflects a certain perception about the prestige of and quality of education received at those universities, as well as a certain image of the tradition and history rooted in those institutions. It is virtually synonymous with the idea of the educated elite.
  However, a category is a crude mechanism for capturing perceptions and poetry, and I find myself in agreement with the reasoning that it is meaningless to apply, however indirectly, this label to a 19th-century graduate of Harvard or Yale. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (changing my !vote). Like Black Falcon, I have changed my mind about this one. I still agree that Ivy League is a generic term for "prominent east coast university", but the more I look at this one the more I see problems. The critical issue for me is that the generic usage of "Ivy League" clearly has a wider scope than the sporting league itself, so any inclusion criteria will be arbitrary or subjective; both of those attributes are deprecated in WP:OC. There is also the element of anachronism, because some of the universities are much much older than the term, and Black Falcon summarises that problem well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:UK MPs 1801–1802, Category:UK MPs 1910 and the rest of the various subcats to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament
• Nominator's rationale This is meant to be for all the subsections involved, but I decided to get to the point of explaining the reasons. My main argument is that Winston Churchill is in 14 subcategories of the parent category. This is excessive. He may (or may not, I have not checked) be the extreme, but lots of people are in multiple categories. The rate of reelection to Parliament is high enough it would seem that this categories would better function as lists. There are other ways to subdivide this category that tend less twoards duplication. These categories have excessive tendency towards duplication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• NoteI was thinking about listing all of them, but I realized that this would just take too much effort on my part, and I figured we would get about the same discussion level from just listing off two at random. If someone else wants to tag and list the rest of the possibilities, they are free to do s. I did tag a few more, but could not remember what years they were for.
• I've recently argued, in a CFD discussion about a similar Greek category, that it's simply not useful to have separate categories for each individual parliament that an MP has served in — if Canada did the same, then a similarly extreme example would be Herb Gray, who would have to be in 13 categories for individual parliaments. This is pure category bloat, no question about it. By all means, each individual parliament should have a list of members who've served in it — that's what we do in Canada (see, frex, List of House members of the 41st Parliament of Canada) — but it's simply not useful to have a separate category for each individual parliament. Listify and upmerge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  For goodness sake ... if you tagged them, just check your own contribs list and them to the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep (as category creator). These categories have been discussed several times before: in January 2007 (no consenus), May 2007 (keep), and March 2011 (keep). These discussions are all linked from the talk page of the listed categories, and the nominator should have linked to the previous discussions.
  If the nominator had read the previous discussions, he would be aware that the Winston Churchill argument has been raised and addressed before. The situation there is simply that Churchill had an extraordinarily long career in politics, and therefore ends up in an extraordinary number of categories -- not just these ones, but many others. However, that sort of career longevity is quite exceptional: the majority of MPs serve in 4 Parliaments or fewer. There are about 650 MPs in total, and here are some examples of how the numbers break down, which you can check for yourself using the links to WP:CATSCAN:

• 84 MPs are in both Category:UK MPs 1987–1992 and Category:UK MPs 2010–. (That's a total of 6 Parliaments)
• 131 MPs are in both Category:UK MPs 1992–1997 and Category:UK MPs 2010–. (That's a total of 5 Parliaments)
• 232 MPs are in both Category:UK MPs 1997–2001 and Category:UK MPs 2010–. (That's a total of 4 Parliaments)

Note that these counts include MPs who lost their seats but were subsequently re-elected, so they will exaggerate the number of MPs in each count of categories.

Then look at a few examples:

1. the Foreign Secretary William Hague is one of the longest serving MPs of the current govt: he has been in parliament since 1988, so he is in 6 of these categories. But on my screen, these categs take up only 1 line out the 6.5 lines of categories. That's not cluttersome.
2. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is in also in 6 of these categories. They take up only one line out of 8 lines on my screen

So the "clutter" argument applies only in a few exceptional cases. That's because these categories were carefully designed to use succinct titles, precisely to avoid clutter.

So the clutter argument doesn't stand up, and the nominator doesn't consider the reason for these categories' existence: that serving in one particular parliament rather than another is a defining characteristic of an MP. It locates them in time, and in a particular political context, and amongst the peer group of those whom they worked with and against. It is a much more significant characteristic than where they went to school or university, but we categorise by those 2 characteristics. So why single out these defining categories, which in most cases will take up less screen room than the educational categories?

The nominator's proposal would lump in an 1820s MP with an 1890s MP and a 1950s MP and 2010 MP; four people whose lives may not even have overlapped, and whose careers certainly didn't. That makes no sense.

These categories are also invaluable for data-mining. Using tools such as WP:CATSCAN, these categories allow the reader to auto-build all sorts of lists: MPs by age in each parliament, MPs by constituent country in each parliament, MPs by party in each parliament. The possibilities are endless, and this functionality will be lost if the categories are converted to lists.

There are some existing lists of MPs, but the series is far from complete, and many of the lists are far from complete. This is unsurprising, because in the 19th century, an extraordinary amount of research is required to compile a complete list: the 1832 list, which is both complete and detailed, took me over 100 hours to create. Not many editors are prepared to put in that much work, and even if they do, these categories also serve an important maintenance role. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Simply as being defining to the individual. Lugnuts (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrative protest. If we're going to discuss an entire scheme, nominate and list the entire scheme. Otherwise we're just cherry picking categories or running "test cases". Did it ever occur to anyone that tagging categories actually serves some actual purpose in notifying users that CFD discussions are being held? There could well be users who watch some of these category pages but not all of them, and tagging the ones they don't watch is not going to notify them that the entire scheme is purportedly under discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk)
  • Comment For very large category schemes, I think it's fine (and more realistic) to nominate a test case. The relevant wiki project(s) should be informed though (I guess there's a UK politics one knocking about). I did a similar test-case nomination recently on a very large sub-cat scheme, opening with the line that this is indeed a test-case and I had no intention of tagging nearly 200 categories just to please everyone. Lugnuts (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Good Ol'factory about this. I notified WT:WPUKPOL, which the nominator should have done, but didn't. However, a Wikiproject's talk page will reach only some of the editors active in that area, whereas the category page will be seen by a much wider number of editors. For proper notification, the categories should be tagged ... and doing so is not a particularly difficult task for a simple delete nomination like this. All you gotta do is paste {{subst:Cfd|SectionName}} into each page.
      The effort required to do the tagging is usually considerably less than is needed for keep !voters to explain the purpose of the categories, let alone what is needed for other editors to populate the categories .... and . since the idea of this process is to generate a fully informed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, my test case got approved and then I speedied the rest based on that consensus. However, that was a wording change (x by Foo, instead of Foo x), rather than a more drastic upmerge. Lugnuts (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to point out, if there's a repetitive task that looks too time consuming, anyone can always ask a friendly editor that uses a tool, such as AWB, to do this quickly. As this nomination is specifically worded for all sub-cats of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament and people agree they all should be tagged, I've gone ahead and tagged all them with the same notification as the original (only took a couple of minutes with AWB). Hope that sorts this out, cheers Zangar (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Zangar, that was very kind of you, but you appear to have tagged them without the section name, so the links just point to this page rather than to this discussion :( --13:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Re: Lugnut's comments on test cases. I have no problem with test cases, they are a useful method—as long as they are explicitly worded as a test case. What I don't agree with is a nomination like this that says the whole scheme is being nominated but not all of the categories in the whole scheme are being tagged or listed, simply because the nominator can't be bothered or doesn't think it is worthwhile. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for pointing that out, I'd just used the template the nominator had inserted in the test cases. I've gone through and added the sections, but had to change the title of this CFD section, by including the "Category: " so the template's linking works - hopefully this hasn't messed up any other linking elsewhere. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per BHg Johnbod (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per BHG. Oculi (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all per BHG. To expand on that reason, Parliament is not a group of atomised individuals but a collection of people at a particular moment in time. The significance of a Member depends on who they served alongside and who they did not. Using the term of each Parliament is the appropriate measure as each Parliament has its own different character and its own different pressing issues. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the fact that most MPs serve in more than one parliament suggests that this is inherently category bloat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - There is no reason to be forced to choose between lists or categories when we can have both. Both serve slightly different but complimentary purposes. Snappy (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lists and categories will almost always both be necessary for a topic--I can actually think of almost no exceptions. Perhaps it is time we stopped discussing them separately. They serve complementary purposes--of providing for automatic placement, and of providing the ability to give additional information. Some people prefer one, some the other---I normally prefers to browse by using lists, but to find something specific by using categories. Others work differently. That someone or something is in multiple categories is no harm whatsoever; just as with articles, we're not paper.With something chronological that is inherently continuous there can be a question where to draw the line: but the successive parliaments are discrete, and always have been. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, as per Sam Blacketer, as well as the fact that these were all kept in previous discussions and no new reasons for upmerging have been presented here. Zangar (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. A Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament including all UK Members of Parliament since 1801 would be so vast as to be utterly useless. At present MPs are sub-categorised by their political party, by the place they represented, and chronologically by the Parliament in which they served. This is a sensible and useful system which should not be discarded merely because the nominator thinks Winston Churchill's article looks untidy. Opera hat (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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