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: Non-admin close, re-opened at WP:SFD Otto4711 (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American election stubs to Category:United States election stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Makes it clearer that it applies to elections in the United States (not North/South America. Also conforms better with other subcategories of Category:United States stubs. —Markles 23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close - and re-open discussion at WP:SFD. Otto4711 (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swiss military personnel who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rationale: This category contains exactly one person, Arnold von Winkelried. It is doubtful whether this person actually existed and likely that his existence is fictional. Therefore, no apparent need for this category is evident. --Cú Faoil (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - given the doubt regarding the person's existence the verifiability issues coupled with the small size of the category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - to judge from the article there are further doubts (supposing that he did exist) about whether he committed suicide; and indeed about whether the incident in which he perhaps died would count as suicide. Occuli (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too narrow, small. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Swiss military personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should one include fictional people in that category? --Cú Faoil (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is legendary, and possibly mythical, but certainly not fictional. Like most figures in early Irish history really. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Kohanim descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Spelling correction of a misspelled category already on its way to deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 1#Category:People of Kohanim desents. Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous rationale (and possibly speedy very soon as recreation of deleted category). This is predominantly a surnames category, not a 'people by descent' category (which is for people of relatively recent descent, not from millenia ago). Occuli (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Rename Category:Jewish surnames associated with Kohanim and Prune (danish?) While the title appears to imply that the category includes individuals who trace their descent to Aaron, the category as it exists includes family names associated with Kohanim. Category:Kohen surnames might be a better (and more concise) alternative. This would be an appropriate category within the overall reconstruction of Category:Jewish surnames, and a corresponding category for Levites should also exist under its parent Category:Levites. While doing the pruning to remove non-surname article, a prune danish would help provide the needed energy for the arduous task. Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to this (eg Category:Kohen surnames) although there has been a great deal of activity recently with surname categories with very specific positions taken up and fortified, notably by W A Simpson. (Google immediately supplies a NJ supplier of Prune Danish, so Alansohn might be well-placed for all aspects of the pruning, en route to Dunkin' Donuts.) Occuli (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On a related note, I see that Category:Famous Levites is empty, and is a fairly dubious title for a category anyway. Does something need to be done about that category too? Grutness...wha? 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but purge. Having the surname "Cohen" and cognates indicates descent from the priests of the Jewish temple. This is a special class of Levites. Accordingly it is highly significant. However there is no reason for Finkelstein to be included. Rename to Category:Kohanim surnames. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. All proposals here for renaming are ungrammatical and should be rejected. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is ridiculous category based on pure OR. Having a Kohen-related surname does not "indicate[] descent from the priests of the Jewish temple" as claimed above. Jewishness travels by the mother's line, not the father's; and there is no indication that the surname was in any widespread use in Continential Europe until Napoleonic times or in the middle east for that matter until people stopped being named A son of B. And a last but obvious point: there are no Cohens who have been adopted, changed names, or Cohen wives who gave birth to another man's children? What fantastic sources does one have for any attempt to categorize BLPs thus? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in some form - upmerged or renamed. To Carlos, there are no individuals in the category. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly unverifiable OR applied to generic surnames. If there were a significant number of individual where reliable sources confirmed the relation, there might be some basis for such a category. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 16 August 2009 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Banana Wars military units to Category:Military units and formations of the United States in the Banana Wars

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match other categories in Category:Military units and formations of the United States. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 01:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to more consistently match corresponding categories in the parent. Alansohn (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom When I created this category, I expected that some non-US units might show up here. They have not--perhaps only the US military was the only military involved. So this rename is in good order. Hmains (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-hk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "This user is a speaker of Hong Kong English."; "Hong Kong English in theory, refers to the accent and characteristics of English spoken by Hongkongers. In practice, it is often considered, especially by the locals, as the Hong Kong variant of Engrish" - Unneeded babel category. No need to create babel categories for dialects such as this. My personal rule of thumb is that we shouldn't have language categories for spoken languages that don't currently have and don't have a reasonable probability of ever having a Wikipedia in its own language. Precedent to delete similar categories here. VegaDark (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak oppose certainly these people should have expertise in this language variant, so it would be a useful categorization by expertise... 76.66.193.221 (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean. Just speaking a language does not make someone an expert on that language, especially for encyclopedia purposes. Writing about the language simply because they speak it sounds like original research. Additionally, Hong Kong English is a very narrow area and a category for expertise on this sounds like a "Wikipedians by too narrow of a subject area" category, where any potential collaboration would be better served on the talk page rather than a category. VegaDark (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the only reason I see for categorizing users by language at all, is to show relative expertise in an area, ie. their language. If it's not useful to categorize people in such a manner, then all language categories for users should be deleted, since Wikipedia is not a social club, and the only other reason to categorize people by languages that they know is for socializing. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is my understanding that users are categorized by language in order for them to possibly help with translation (either articles or messages from other users). No such use is necessary for "Hong Kong English". VegaDark (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a useful category for the purpose of collaboration, the stated purpose of user categories. Otto4711 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created the cat, and I would like to state that this means that the user can read both American and British English, since hong Kong generally accepts both. It also means that British English is preferred by the user, since British English is used more frequently in Hong Kong. I shall not mind if this category is deleted; I am only giving an explanation. Thanks, Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 01:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The great thing about American and British English is that they are almost exactly the same, and and anyone who can read one can almost certainly read the other, barring some sort of confusion over specific words in very limited instances. I don't think a category for someone to show they can "read both American and British English" is useful whatsoever. Nobody is going to go to one of these people and say "Hey, this page is written in American English, can you translate it to British English for me?". I also don't see any encyclopedic value in maintaining a category for users who prefer British English. Why would someone specifically seek out a user in this category because of a preference to English? VegaDark (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-Hongkongers may have difficulty understanding what a 'body check' is. Besides, AmE and BrE have some idioms that don't exist in the other. Would a BrE speaker, for example, know what 'close but no cigar' means? (Would a speaker of AmE or BrE understand the australian term, 'go bung'?) Also, words like 'feces' is often quite difficult to understand for me, though perhaps that isn't true for others. I personally think that it may be useful for you to check to Hong Kong English page and some other pages on American and British English. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 02:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And besides, what do you think about cats like User en-nz (New Zealand) or User en-ca (Canada)? They also exist. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 02:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd love to see those deleted as well, if they aren't already. As I said, we should delete all language categories for "languages" without a Wikipedia or with no real chance of ever getting one. This includes every dialect of English (except "simple english", since we do have a Wikipedia for that). VegaDark (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The same idiomatic argument could be made of any regional dialect variant. English speakers in the Northern US are frequently utterly baffled by the slang and dialectical components of "Southern English" and vice-versa. Even English within the same rough geographical boundaries has variations, idioms and slang unique to smaller semi-regional, state or even city-level sub-divisions. The argument below about Indian legal jargon is in the end uncompelling because professional jargon is as a rule fairly impenetrable to those outside the profession anyway. I'm a native American English speaker and have even had some legal training but I still have to refresh myself on such terms of art as "collateral estoppel" or "replevin" when I run across them. Otto4711 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I do not see why this should not exist, but would oppose categories for US and UK English. I suspect that there will be local jargon, as a result of partially translating Chinese terms. I have contact with a speaker of Indian English, and frequently have to ask him what certain compound nouns (for example relating to Indian law) mean. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Since this a distinct dialect, and not just a matter of pronounciation, I think we should keep this. It may be, that this sets a precedent, but I can live with that. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If people are willing to self-identify in this manner it should be retained as an aid to collaboration. The argument that something should be deleted because it is "unneeded" is never a good argument for deletion of anything. Alansohn (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unneeded because it doesn't in fact aid in collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2009 (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: Category deleted. --Xdamr^talk 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that create userboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge/speedy merge - Redundant to the more correctly named Category:Wikipedians who create userboxes. VegaDark (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was unaware of that category when created. WP:CSD#G7 • S • C • A • R • C • E • 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this discussion is closed. Can somebody close it officially then, please? Debresser (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (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. --Xdamr^talk 23:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians play Puyo Puyo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Needs a rename at the very least, as this is missing a "who" in the title. However, this should be deleted since it is a "Wikipedians by video game" category, which have all been deleted since knowing who plays a particular game does not benefit the encyclopedia. See here for unanimous precedent to delete similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on both counts, I actually didn't know you couldn't do Wikipedians by Videogames categories. I pretty much copied the XChat userbutton and modified it, and since the encyclopedic value of knowing users who use XChat is pretty much no more than knowing who plays a Video Game I figured it wasn't a big deal. Sorry.

On the other hand, does this mean that the Wikipedians who use XChat page should be nominated for deletion as well? Nmn (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that the XChat category should be deleted, and in fact I have a nomination already written up for it. Unfortunately there is a user here that I anticipate will fight tooth and nail to keep it (they threatened to report me to ArbCom the last time I enacted a CFD closure related to an IRC category they wanted kept), so I've put it off for the time being. VegaDark (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2009 (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: Categories deleted. --Xdamr^talk 00:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AndrewGNF/SWL/PPI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:AndrewGNF/SWL/Protein interaction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Individual user categories, which have a unanimous precedent for deletion (see here). Users should use the prefix index for finding pages in their userspace, not categories. VegaDark (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: apologies, my mistake... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag the categories with {{db-author}} and they will be speedily deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody delete these categories, please?. No discussion needed, since creator has agreed. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged them for G7 now. Jafeluv (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2009 (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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ohio Appalachia to Category:Appalachian Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Ohio Appalachia to Category:Bridges in Appalachian Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Historic Places in Ohio Appalachia to Category:Historic places in Appalachian Ohio

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename All to match title of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to match Appalachian Ohio. Occuli (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2009 (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.