April 14

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Categories named after research institutes

Category:Categories named after research institutes - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary category layer, since categories can contain both articles and other categories. All of the category's members are in the Research institutes category tree via other routes (including "by location" and "by type"); see [1][2][3]. I think that the approach of subcategorization is a more intuitive one than creating a parallel category structure for eponymous categories. Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Research institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area

Propose renaming Category:Research institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Research institutes in the San Francisco Bay Area

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the parent category, Category:Research institutes in the United States. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women philosophers

Suggest merging Category:Women philosophers to Category:Female philosophers

Nominator's rationale: We should choose one or the other. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Student societies in Pakistan

Propose renaming Category:Student societies in Pakistan to Category:Pakistani student societies

Nominator's rationale: Per what seems to be the convention of Category:Student societies by country. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:S-trains in Copenhagen

Propose renaming Category:S-trains in Copenhagen to Category:S-train

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article is located at S-train. The 'Copenhagen' bit is redundant since there is only one system called 'S-train'. Plurality incorrect since it is not a collection of trains of the type S, but refers to a system called 'S-train' (in singular). Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:S-train per nom. The article indicates that S-train is a particular rail network. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but to Category:S-trains. The plural is correct. In Danish, the word "train" is the same in singular and plural, so to an outsider it may seem as if "S-tog" can be translated to "S-train" as a name for the entire system. But to native speakers of Danish such as yours truly it sounds completely wrong to name the system by a singular noun without even an article. There is more than one train on the system, so it it is the network of S-trains, plural. Only when compounded into "S-train network" does it become singular. –Henning Makholm (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, "S-train network" may be a better alternative, since the category contains not just articles about individual services but categories for stations and lines within the network (and, of course, the main article about the network). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment S-trains would refer to the trains (i.e. the rolling stock in plural). The network is called S-train, per the article and the English-language web site of DSB [4]. I am a native speaker of Norwegian, which uses the word tog grammatically identically as in Danish (i.e. tog is also both singular and plural in Norwegian). While I understand your comments, tog is not referring to the trains, but the network. Consider phrases like "S-trains lines" and "an S-trains station" etc. They just simply do not work, because S-train is a singluar network. It is not called the Copenhagen Metros either. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universal monsters

Category:Universal monsters - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary redirect, created by the same editor ho created the redirect target. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination may be more suited for RFD, but as long as it's here... delete per nom. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I had a bit of a Faye Dunaway moment trying to decide between there and here. Otto4711 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athlete-politicians

Category:Athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1

Category:American athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1

Category:Canadian athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1

Category:Japanese athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1

Category:Luxembourgian athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1

Category:Romanian athlete-politicians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection: while both characteristics are individually defining, their interesection is not, since being a sportsperson and being a politician are unrelated characteristics. Most people have more than one occupation throughout their life, but creating categories for every intersections is not the best way to categorize that. Maybe these could work as a list, where it is possible to argue why the intersection may be significant for some people, but it's not a suitable basis for categorization. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per nom and per all the other deleted multiple occupation categories. I thought we cleared this set out a while ago. If for some ungodly reason they are retained they need to be renamed to "sportspeople-politicians" since "athlete" on WP refers only to track and field. Otto4711 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southern plantations in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Southern plantations in the United States to Category:Plantations in the United States (1st choice) or Category:Plantations in the United States by state (2nd choice)

Nominator's rationale: There is no need for a breakdown by region in this case since there are relatively few notable plantations in the United States that are not in the South. Also, even if categories were created for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, this would still amount to only 51 categories, which is hardly enough to require subdivision by region. Adding "by state" to the end of the category is one option, intended to make this a subcategory of Category:Categories by state of the United States, but it may be an unnecessary change. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I would have preferred not including 'by state', since that should be a subcategory of C:Plantations in the United States, if there were multiple sorting means, for instance there was also a C:Plantations in the United States by size (with subcats, (which is probably not a good idea)). Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. Considering that and the fact that I was unsure about the "by state" option from the outset, I've struck out the suggestion from my nomination. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(State) plantations

Propose renaming

Category:Alabama plantations to Category:Plantations in Alabama

Category:District of Columbia plantations to Category:Plantations in Washington, D.C. – to match Category:Washington, D.C.

Category:Florida plantations to Category:Plantations in Florida

Category:Jefferson County, Florida Plantations to Category:Plantations in Jefferson County, Florida

Category:Leon County, Florida Plantations to Category:Plantations in Leon County, Florida

Category:Georgia (U.S. state) plantations to Category:Plantations in Georgia (U.S. state)

Category:Kentucky plantations to Category:Plantations in Kentucky

Category:Louisiana plantations to Category:Plantations in Louisiana

Category:Maryland plantations to Category:Plantations in Maryland

Category:Mississippi plantations to Category:Plantations in Mississippi

Category:North Carolina plantations to Category:Plantations in North Carolina

Category:South Carolina plantations to Category:Plantations in South Carolina

Category:Tennessee plantations to Category:Plantations in Tennessee

Category:Texas plantations to Category:Plantations in Texas

Category:Virginia plantations to Category:Plantations in Virginia

Category:West Virginia plantations to Category:Plantations in West Virginia

Nominator's rationale: (State) plantations is more suggestive of categorization by type (i.e. it implies that "Alabama plantations", "Florida plantations" and so on are distinct types of plantations) whereas Plantations in (State) is clearly categorization by location, and I believe it is the latter that we want. This change would also bring the subcats in line with the parent, which is titled Southern plantations in the United States and not Southern United States plantations. For what it's worth, the categories on Commons follow the proposed format. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British and Commonwealth Academy Award Winners for Best Actor

Category:British and Commonwealth Academy Award Winners for Best Actor - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - not every intersection of two defining characteristics itself produces a defining characteristic. Categorizing by the intersection of "British and Commonwealth" and "Best Actor Oscar winner" is not one such intersection. The list article, which is more in line with other similar Oscar winners by country lists (although IMHO too narrow in scope and should be expanded to cover all British winners regardless of category), suffices for those interested. No other nationality has a separate category that I have found. Otto4711 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners in case some are not in both. ("British and Commonwealth" is a most bizarre combination - a search reveals that no other category name includes this phrase.) Occuli (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Discrimination by person

Category:Discrimination by person - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with doubtful growth potential. It seems exceedingly rare that an individual person's discriminatory beliefs or actions are going to rise to the level of necessitating a separate article per WP:SUMMARY. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mighty Men of David

Propose renaming Category:Mighty Men of David to Category:King David's Warriors

Nominator's rationale: Rename - I'm not thoroughly convinced that this category is necessary so a delete result would be fine with me too. If kept it should be renamed to match its lead article and to make it sound a little less like a Saturday cartoon show. Also not sure that "Warriors" should be capitalized (it is in the lead article name) so a rename to lower-case is fine by me too. Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The existing name is not inaccurate, but the proposed rename is better and matches the parent article. The passive-aggressive push for deletion ignores the fact that this is about the only thing these individuals have in common other to toss them into the potpourri Category:Hebrew Bible people. In almost all of the cases, this is the characteristic that defines them. Alansohn (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neoconservative think tanks

Propose deletion

Category:Neoconservative think tanks - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 26#Category:Neoconservatives, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 7#Category:Neoconservatives I propose deletion. Ray^Talk 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Leon County

Propose renaming Category:History of Leon County to Category:History of Leon County, Florida

Nominator's rationale: Adding state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per precedent to add the state to US city and county categories and, in this case, also to avoid confusion with Leon County, Texas. I renamed the main article a few minutes ago, and it is now located at History of Leon County, Florida. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Category Stelios Kazantzidis songs

Category:BAFTA winners (television series)

Propose renaming:

• Category:BAFTA winners (television series) to Category:BAFTA Award winning television series
• Category:BAFTA winners (films) to Category:BAFTA Award winning films
• Category:BAFTA winners (people) to Category:BAFTA Award winning people

Nominator's rationale: It's generally bad form to use parentheses in a title when we aren't disambiguating something or using a title. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as long as the acronym is expanded to British Academy of Film and Television Arts. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it not be more accurate to use "British Academy Film Awards" in the title for the films category and "British Academy Television Awards" in the title for the television series category? Also, should it be "Award-winning" instead of "Award winning"? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Start over - there is more than one award presented by BAFTA for films and television series. These should be deleted and the articles should be categorized on the basis of the individual award. This is like categorizing a film that won a single Oscar for, like, sound editing in Category:Academy Award winners rather than the appropriate specific subcategory. We don't categorize the Oscars, the Golden Globes or other awards of this nature as a lump (although the Oscar category needs some cleanup) and we shouldn't categorize BAFTA winners in lumps either. Otto4711 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guyanese musical instruments

Category:Guyanese musical instruments - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: I went on a binge of creating musical instrument categories for specific countries, and this week a bunch of folks followed suit and created country-specific categories. However, I actually populated mine from the get-go (see the brand-new Category:Ugandan musical instruments, but others created a dozen categories with one entry, or a simple "music of" entry that's not instrument specific. Advise this practice be discouraged and unpopulated categories within Category:Musical instruments by nationality be deleted to prevent clutter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Music of Guyana is not a musical instrument. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the category can be populated by at least one article about an actual musical instrument. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealander musical instruments

Propose renaming Category:New Zealander musical instruments to Category:New Zealand musical instruments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A "New Zealander" is a person from New Zealand. It is not an adjective. The correct adjective is "New Zealand". (This category only has one article in it, and I have my doubts whether the Great Highland Bagpipe is correctly categorized as a "New Zealand musical instrument".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, but I'm not entirely sure we even need a "musical instruments by nationality" category tree in the first place. I don't see what makes an instrument a "New Zealand" musical instrument- Is the criteria that it must be attributed to have been invented there? Widely used there? Something else? I'm not sure what benefit categorizing instruments in this category tree has, but I suppose that argument should be saved for another nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I would have thought it would have meant "invented there", but it seems to be being applied in a "used there" way, which is next to useless. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the categories make a lot of sense, in that they categorise instruments unique to a given nation/culture, or fundamental to its music. New Zealand music is (aside from Maori music, already covered in Category:Māori musical instruments) pretty much part of the general Anglo tradition, so it's instrumentation really isn't that much different from US/UK/Canada stuff. I think the overall "by nationality" category has some uses, and many of the subcats are great for showing what instruments are unique to a culture, but some of them are real stretches due to many European instruments having become so widespread as to no longer be defined by any given continent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I have added the Maori instuments to this, & remove the mention of NZ in Great Highland Bagpipe - it was recently added to the first sentence as having supposedly distinctive types, but there is no mention of it again. But while I don't mind keeping Maori in the "by nationality" scheme, NZ should be there too. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish murderers

Category:Jewish murderers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorisation: falls under WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. I don't think there's any significant link between being Jewish and being a murderer, so this category shouldn't exist; similar categories (e.g. LGBT murderers) have been deleted in the past. Robofish (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Don't need to categorize murderers by what religion they happen to be. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both above. PetersV       TALK 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is plenty of precedent for treating Jews as an ethnicity in categories. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know if I have a 'say', since I'm just an IP. But I don't really see the point of this category. I can't see it helping readers to find more articles of interest. I can see readers having an interest in, for example, by nationality (there are plenty of tv shows dedicated to, for example, american murders), but ethnicity? Anyways, like I said, I just don't see the benefit. (and I vote 'delete' if I do have a say) 209.90.135.158 (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - overcategorization, whether it's by religion or ethnicity. We would not have either Category:Episcopalian murderers or Category:Quebecois murderers. Otto4711 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Otto. In response to Johnbod, while there is "plenty of precedent for treating Jews as an ethnicity in categories", there seems to be no precedent for categorizing murderers by ethnicity. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever happens here should similarly apply to Category:Jewish assassins.--Anewpester (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with the name Stamp

Category:People with the name Stamp - Template:Lc1

Category:People with the Name Fronius - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of unrelated subjects with shared names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Would open the door for creation of a "People with the name x" set of categories, with "x" being any name ever given to a person in the history of the human race. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Josiah Stamp and Dudley Stamp are related subjects; they were brothers. Terence Stamp and Chris Stamp are related subjects; they are brothers. Further, Terence and Chris are collaterally descended from antecedent of Josiah and Dudley. Feel free to delete if still deem it to be a superfluous category. Cheers. --Qvidproqvo (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Qvidproquo[reply]
  • Uh, I'm pretty sure that he didn't mean biologically unrelated. VegaDark (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a clear-cut case of overcategorization, as cited by the nom. Categories for families and dynasties are one thing (useful if there is enough material to populate them well), but "people with the name (X)" categories invite inclusion on the basis of name only, rather than on the basis of some real relation. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish American Wikipedian Users

Category:Polish American Wikipedian Users - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete or double upmerge - First of all, this has an improper naming convention of "Wikipedian users" at the end, it should just be "Wikipedians", so this at minimum needs a rename. Second of all, it is a nationality-ethnicity combination category, which have all been either deleted or double upmerged previously (in this case, it would be double upmerged to Category:American Wikipedians and Category:Polish Wikipedians. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary intersection, the existing categories are perfectly sufficient. Robofish (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until we can determine the preferences of the people in the group. They seem to have a decided preference, and why should we impose our own on them? DGG (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They seem to have a decided preference, and why should we impose our own on them? - That argument could be used to keep any unencyclopedic user category. Category:Wikipedians who eat 63% ripe bananas on every 3rd Tuesday of the month on odd numbered years in Portugal could be kept via that rationale. After all, such users did, in fact, display their decided preference. The problem is, this category doesn't benefit the encyclopedia at all. It's an unncessary category intersection that does not foster collaboration, which is the goal of user categories. VegaDark (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Robofish as an unnecessary intersection of ethnicity and nationality, and allow the affected users to recategorize themselves as they wish (if they care about this at all). I agree with the general principle behind DGG's contention (that users should be free to identify themselves as they wish), but I think it is misapplied here. There is a difference between expressing a self-identification, which is fine, and creating a grouping of users based on that identification. Categories, including user categories, are not just bottom-of-the-page notices. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians equal rights for all

Category:Wikipedians equal rights for all - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - First of all, this category name doesn't make sense. I assume it is suppsed to mean Category:Wikipedians who support equal rights for all people, so this at minimum needs a rename to make sense. Secondly, however, this is a support/oppose category, which have historically been deleted from Wikipedia as not fostering collaboration and for being potentially divisive. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - very bad idea for a category. Amongst other things, it implies those who are not in it do not support 'equal rights for all' (whatever that means here). Delete as poorly defined, divisive and inherently POV. Robofish (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – In addition to the problem identified by the nominator (that the category "group[s] users by advocacy of a position"), I think that most people would agree with the sentiment expressed by the userbox (or perhaps it is that few would openly express their disagreement with it...), which makes this category a "grouping of users on the basis of something that may be a characteristic of most or all Wikipedia users ... or humans more generally". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Students of Bergen Community College

Category:Wikipedian Students of Bergen Community College - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bergen Community College - Needs to be renamed to follow the standard naming conventions of "alma mater" categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who love Kyiv!

Category:Wikipedians who love Kyiv! - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unencyclopedic. Doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize those who love a particular city. If the user wishes to create Category:Wikipedians in Kiev, they are free to do so, but "who love" is an unencyclopedic naming convention, and categorizing this has no benefit. I'll also note our article is located at Kiev, so at extreme minimum this category would need to be renamed to match the article title. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not useful for cooperation. 'Wikipedians interested in Kyiv-related topics' would be appropriate, but this category has no obvious use. Robofish (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a social club, nor MySpace. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – or rename to Category:Wikipedians who love Kyiv somewhat, but not enough to set up a Wikiproject. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obviously an attack category, leveling the implied accusation that those who are not in it hate Kyiv. Otto4711 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]