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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Organisations based in Saint Barthélemy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Organisations based in Saint Barthélemy by activity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is the top of the tree of three categories for one article. The only other category at this level is for the US which has 12 subcategories. So is this needed at this time? I think not. Maybe in the future if we find a need for larger countries to do this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This relates to a small West Indies island, with six soccer clubs, all red-linked. Category:Sport in Saint Barthélemy is the only category that we need, and all the rest should be merged to it/deleted. The list article can go straight into the association football parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge nominated category to parent Category:Organisations based in Saint Barthélemy. The categories under the member category (Category:Sports organisations of Saint Barthélemy) are multi-layered and rather sparse, but worth keeping as part of international structures. – Fayenatic London 08:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge/delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge We do not need this many levels for one organization. Even if people created 10 more articles we still would not need this. Revisit when we have maybe 30 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2013 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by date of arrival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Category:Wikipedians that arrived in 2001 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Wikipedians that arrived in 2003 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The idea of maintaining a directory of users by year of arrival was attempted once before, in the form of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival, and there was overwhelming support to discontinue the initiative. Such a directory will be, at all times, either woefully incomplete (if it is user-maintained) or too extensive to be usable (if it is bot-generated); in either case, it would be redundant to the user creation log.

Considering this from the perspective of user categorization guidelines, these categories are not needed as they do not group users on the basis of a characteristic that is relevant to encyclopedic collaboration. Thus, the only remaining function of these categories is as a type of user page notice; however, a category grouping is not needed to achieve this, as a text statement or a userbox such as {{User:UBX/Wikipedian}} would do the same. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If developed properly it would be too unwieldy to be helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed to build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2013 (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 (target is being deleted; see discussion immediately above). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:First Settlers of Wikipedia to Category:Wikipedians that arrived in 2001

Nominator's rationale: The First Settlers "were the group of people that registered an account on Wikipedia or contributed to it anonymously in 2001". Thus, the scope of this category is identical to that of the proposed target category, and so there is no need to have both. The title "First Settlers of Wikipedia" does not indicate that it is a user category in accordance with established naming conventions (generally, the title of a user category should start with "Wiki"—e.g., "Wikipedians", "WikiProject"), and it is less clear than the title of the proposed category as it requires a viewer to guess the definition of the presumably made-up designation of "First Settler". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Although not directly a reason for merging, I also think that the title "First Settlers" exudes a Founders-type vibe (without the theocratic, racist, and nationalist overtones, of course), painting Wikipedia in the light of a new, utopic society or settlement. Perhaps it's just me... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question if kept, do editors who participated at the time with anon edits get included? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, according to the definition on the project page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It IS a bit pretentious-sounding, even if it wasn't intended to be. And yes, I support merging - but the merge target (as well as its siblings) should be renamed for proper grammar to Category:Wikipedians who arrived in 2001. However, I suppose that can be dealt with at Speedy. Cgingold (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since we are going to delete the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Wikipedians who registered in 2001 (or Category: Prehistoric Wikipedians for Wikipedians who have accounts dating from prior to the great history hiccup, and from the era when history was deleted from the database.) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed to build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2013 (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, merge and delete as nominated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:3rd-century BC establishments in Turkey to Category:3rd-century BC establishments in Asia Minor
• Propose renaming Category:2nd-century BC establishments in Turkey to Category:2nd-century BC establishments in Asia Minor
• Propose renaming Category:1st-millennium BC establishments in Turkey to Category:1st-millenium BC establishments in Asia Minor
• Propose merging Category:160s BC establishments in Turkey to Category:2nd-century BC establishments in Asia Minor
• Propose merging Category:163 BC establishments in Turkey to Category:2nd-century BC establishments in Asia Minor
• Propose deleting Category:163 BC in Turkey as unnecessary
• Propose deleting Category:160s BC in Turkey as unnecessary

Added to nom 11 August 2013:

• Propose renaming Category:2nd century BC in Turkey to Category:2nd century BC in Asia Minor
• Propose renaming Category:3rd century BC in Turkey to Category:3rd century BC in Asia Minor
• Propose deleting Category:Years of the 2nd century BC in Turkey as unnecessary.

Nominator's rationale: According to recent precedent, categories of this kind should be for the contemporary polity, not the present one. Turkey as a country in its current form was only created after World War I. Before that we use Ottoman Empire and presumably Byzantine Empire. In this case, we are going back so far that there is no single state, so that the regional name, Asia Minor, is appropriate. The decade and annual categories have little room for expansion and are thus not needed: the century is quite adequate; all four lead ultimately to a single article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• rename/delete as appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• rename/delete as per nom, and suggest also renaming Category:2nd century BC in Turkey and Category:3rd century BC in Turkey similarly. Grutness...wha? 12:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added these to the nom, also another unnecessary category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Asia Minor is the right term. What next, will people want to put Paul of Tarsus in Category:Turkish Christians?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Asia Minor is the right term. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2013 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia books on Internet to Category:Wikipedia books on the Internet

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per usual grammar and per all other categories of the form "Foo of/on/about the Internet", all of which have "the" as part of their titles. Grutness...wha? 10:56, 10 August 2013 (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: procedural close as only one of 22 categories affected by this nomination was tagged. I will reopen a new discussion for all categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 15#Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Singles certified by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand to Category:Singles certified by Recorded Music NZ

Nominator's rationale: The RIANZ has been renamed to Recorded Music NZ. This category, and the categories listed below, should reflect this.

This would also affect the categories:

• Category:Singles certified quadruple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand‎
• Category:Singles certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand‎
• Category:Singles certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand
• Category:Singles certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand‎
• Category:Singles certified triple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand‎
• Category:Albums certified by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand

• Subcategories of this Adabow (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Are they going to re-certify all historic certifications? If not then those Singles certified by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand are going to remain Singles certified by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand, surely? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominator, but recreate the old titles as {{Category redirect}}s.
  It's the same certifying body, just with a new name, so they don't need to recertify anything. Where a body changes name, we use the current name and redirect ... and a hatnote in the category can explanation of the change of name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the same body? It's been restructured and merge with http://ppnz.co.nz/ Is this a case of Heraclitus' river? Stuartyeates (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it might perhaps be better described as a "successor body", but the situation before and after is that there is one body in NZ which certifies the music. The fact that there was a merger is an interesting bit of organisational history, but it isn't particularly relevant to the core fact being captured by these categories, which "recorded music certified at particular level by the national certifying body in NZ". There's no point in splitting the category, and when a name changes we use the current name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 12 August 2013 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Places Associated with Thomas Edison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains articles like Boston (for which Edison is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic) and a few articles like Thomas Alva Edison Birthplace (most of which are already in Category:Thomas Edison). Some articles may need to be upmerged to Category:Thomas Edison. For info: This is the only "Places associated with..." category in WP. DexDor (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment only. If decision is to keep, it will still need to be renamed with a lower case a. Grutness...wha? 10:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. While a place is often defining element in the life of a person, the person rarely defines the place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This is a variant of overcategorization of venues by performance/performer. A category should group related subjects on the basis of a characteristic that is common to and defining for them. The information conveyed by this category might be significant for the subject of Thomas Edison, but it is trivial for most of the subjects that are categorized. Any subjects for which the connection to Edison is defining – Thomas Alva Edison Birthplace, Edison and Ford Winter Estates, Thomas Alva Edison Memorial Tower and Museum, Edison State Park, and Thomas Edison National Historical Park – can and should be (and, in some cases, already are) placed directly in Category:Thomas Edison. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a horrible way to categorize places. How are we to decide who is notable enough to be listed as a defining resident. Or will we put Boston in a category for every person in Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts. Down this rode lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a George Washington slept here category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 13

Keep it, it describes the important places in Edison's life. 67.83.57.182 (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC) August 2013 (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. If someone wants to create the list, the contents were: Bunscoill Ghaelgagh, Robert Corteen Carswell, Mona Douglas and Brian Stowell. If it can be established that this is one of the exceptions for award categories, the category can be recreated. Recreation would be subject to another discussion here and that outcome would depend on the case made. If that happens, the discussion should be given a fresh start and this discussion should not be used as a precedent. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Reih Bleeaney Vanannan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Being a recipient of an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#AWARD). The nearest I've found to an article on this award is Manx Heritage Foundation. DexDor (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. There doesn't seem to be much info about the award on Wiki, but the Isle of Man is a small place and there may not be many editors who work on Manx stuff. So unless the nominator has some info either way about the significance of the award, it seems to me to be a big leap to conclude that

poor WP coverage = non-defining award

I know that per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on the category creator to justify its existence. However, where the topic is as specialist as Manx culture, I think it is wise to to be a little cautious in jumping too conclusions.

So I have notified WikiProject Isle of Man, and hope that someone from that rather low-activity project may be able to help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My main reason for nominating this category is that it's better to categorize by what people are (e.g. in Category:Manx-language activists) than by what awards they have received. The lack of an article about the award itself is not the main reason for deletion (perhaps I should have preceded that bit of the nom by "For info:"), although in at least one previous CFD the view has been expressed that not having such an article implies that the award is nowhere near the importance of things like Nobel Prizes for which the normal WP:OC#AWARD "rule" does not apply. DexDor (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if I jumped too heavily on the no-WP_article point. However, my substantial point remains that we should exercise a lot of caution in judging the definingness of attributes relating to minority cultures, which are routinely under-reported in English-language sources.
  A kindof a parallel exists in Category:Welsh Eisteddfod winners, which is definitely defining for its winners. In the case in hand, a little digging shows that the award is presented by the Speaker of the House of Keys (the Manx parliament), so this is definitely not a trivial award. I don't want to conclude from that one source that it is defining, but I do urge more investigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify then delete -- That nis the normal outcome for WP:OC#AWARD categories. In this case there is not list: the category is doing service for that at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not even have an article on this award, so it clearly does not meet the requirements to categorize those who received it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of a Wikipedia article is not a relevant test, because WP is not a reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator's rationale: In explanation of the award and its context in Manx culture I have created the Wikipedia page for the Reih Bleeaney Vanannan award. I hope that this establishes the significance (for the Isle of Man) of the award. As to whether there should be a category for its recipients, I leave to the Wikipedia community. Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2013 (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. I was going to recommend a list but it exists in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tom French Cup winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Being a recipient of an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at Tom French Cup#Winners. DexDor (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. The head article Tom French Cup explains nothing about this award's significance, and I had never heard of it before (tho I don't follow rugby). Can any NZ rugby expert offer any info how important this award is? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support question. This needs comment from the NZ rugby fraternity and NZ Maori project participants before any decision to delete. The award would seem to be significant, if you consider the players who have been awarded it. NealeFamily (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I'm the major contributor to the article Tom French Cup – the award is for Māori rugby player of the year (specifically called the Tom French Memorial Maori player of the year), and awarded by the New Zealand Rugby Union. For obvious reasons, it's only awarded to New Zealand-based players. The award is highly significant considering the large number of Māori rugby players in New Zealand – especially at representative level. It's also got a long history, with some very notable recipients. For many of it's recipients it would have been the pinnacle of their career, for others, especially those that had long Test careers playing for New Zealand, it would not have been the pinnacle – but still very significant. So is this award a defining characteristic of its recipients? For some yes, absolutely, for others, no. It will entirely depend on the career achievements of each individual. For those reasons, I wouldn't be confident in voting either keep or delete. -- Shudde ^talk 04:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- There is a good list in the article. WP:OC#AWARD applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The burden is on the award to be shown to be truly defining and significant, unless the burden is met we scrap the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2013 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gellhorn Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Having been awarded a prize like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism#Previous winers. DexDor (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. I examined the first 5 articles in the list: Davies, Fisk, McGreal, Cockburn and Abdul-Ahad. In each case it's very clear that: a) those ppl are not defined by the award, and b) as noted in WP:OC#AWARD, they have all received several awards in the course of their lifetime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Article has a good list, so that we do not need the category, per WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a defining award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, defining. Neutrality^talk 03:05, 13 August 2013 (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.