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 to Category:20th-century American people and Category:20th-century actors. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Most actors are going to have flourished in the 20th-century, and a significant proportion are going to be American. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet more WP:OCAT by century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:20th-century American people and Category:20th-century actors. Part of the Category:People by occupation and century and Category:American people by century trees. Mayumashu (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. What's with the recent spate of triple- or quadruple-intersection by-century categories for people? Unless the contents can be divided by year, categorizing by century is usually next to useless. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing mostly with more remote periods, I take the opposite view; by-year categories are a useless plague that should be eliminated, & by-decade ones not much better, but by century ones can be very useful. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they're in by-year categories they are then also in by-century, just further down the line of the category tree. The information is there, it's just harder to get at. It completely depends on what purpose you are using the categories for. Some people research specific years, or specific decades. Other people research centuries, eras, etc. I agree my statement was overbroad; it reflects my own research biases. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge I would be fine with :Category:19th-century American actors , but this type of category is only going to be usefully complete for historical periods. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clones. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famicom and variants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Unnecessary category with a single item. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clones, as the Famicom is another name for the Nintendo Entertainment System. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American spy films to Category:Spy films

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Only 6 articles, while the parent category has 262 articles of which many are surely American. No other by country subcategories there. Nor do I think these are needed. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate. I would be surprised if American spy films make up less than half the film in this category, and sub-categorising them will make life easier for anyone looking for American films, and much easier for anyone looking for non-American films. I don't think there will be a need for other by-country sub-categories, but this one will be more than big enough to be viable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and further populate A proper subcat of its parent Category:American films by genre. American spy films are certainly a group worth navigatng to. Hmains (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate the parent is a rather large ctageory that would benefit from a split to aid navigation. Alansohn (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Argentine legal professionals to Category:Argentine jurists

Nominator's rationale: I'm doing the paper work for [1]. Most subcats of Category:Jurists by nationality are "jurists" rather than "legal professionals". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category is tagged for speedy renaming - which is inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Most lawyers are not jurists. I would suggest that the top category should be Argentine lawyers (at present a subcategory) with notaries, judges, etc as subcategories. This is a complex merge vote. The term "jurist" may have differnet meaning in differnet countries, but they are all lawyers of one kind or another. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "jurist" was a catch-all title? Cat:Canadian lawyers is a sub-cat of Cat:Canadian legal professionals, and "legal professionals" is supposedly used interchangably with "jurist", is it not? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Jurists should be judges and legal academics/writers, not just any lawyer. If we are going to use this tree for all lawyers, it should say so. The questionable category note admits the term in the wider sense is US-only. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prison aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only 1 article. Not serious. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Extraordinary rendition program, since that's what this relates to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the article there is not a bad idea, but the category should just go. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are prison transport aircraft that are not part of the weirdly restricted definition left in the category description. The US Bureau of Prisons owns aircraft for prisoner transfer. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category; with this name, one would expect to find articles about individual aeroplanes, not an article about a CIA operation. Nothing to merge- the one article here is already in Category:Extraordinary rendition program. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 04:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Kalidas Samman Award to Category:Recipients of the Kalidas Samman

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Award is just called "Kalidas Samman". Hekerui (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The main article may just be called Kalidas Samman but that gives no information about what it is. Award at least identifies it as an award - better to leave things as they are. Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Compare Category:Recipients of the Padma Vibhushan, Category:Recipients of the Padma Bhushan, Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri Hekerui (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an other then national award is this notable enough to keep? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awarded by the government of a state of 60+ million people. Hekerui (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify per WP:OC#Award_recipients: "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- already well listed in Kalidas Samman. We do not like award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify per guideline for standard treatment of award categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify if desired. This is the outcome clearly supported by WP:OC#Award recipients. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Communist Party of Spain members to Category:Communist Party of Spain politicians

Category:Members of the Navarrese People's Union to Category:Navarrese People's Union politicians

Category:Members of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party to Category:Spanish Socialist Workers' Party politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename per convention of Category:Politicians by party; "members" is undefining for volksparteien, and judging from the contents and descriptions, these categories were intended for politicians. Among the PCE, only Antonio Cordón García has no mention of any standing for or serving in public office, and could be upmerged to Category:Spanish communists. Of the PSOE, only Hildegart Rodríguez Carballeira is not a politician, and she is described as an "activist." - choster (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom and similar recent changes on categories like this. This is a positive change and makes the categories more defining. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 to Category:People's Party (Spain) politicians. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Spanish Popular Party to Category:Members of the People's Party (Spain)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article name. The party is called People's Party in English. Darwinek (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People's Party (Spain) politicians per convention of Category:Politicians by party. Every article listed in the category is for a politician.- choster (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per choster. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People's Party (Spain) politicians per per choster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People's Party (Spain) politicians per User:choster. --BelovedFreak 21:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 04:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia noindex pages to Category:Noindexed pages

Nominator's rationale: No need for two different categories that contain exactly the same. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• These two categories were not exactly the same. The intention was to have different categories for different namespaces. The categories were populated by {{NOINDEX}}, but that is now managed by MediaWiki:Noindex-category. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_68#Noindexed_pages. I prefer categories to contain only pages from a single namespace, esp. since we can't filter category results by namespace. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge If kept separate, then a rename should specify the difference between these categories. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge This is a Wikipedia category, it should have "Wikipedia" in its name. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions that is true only if there would be confusion without the word "Wikipedia". In this case I don't think it is necessary (but I don't think it would be a problem either). Debresser (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to a clearer name, for example Category:Noindexed pages in Wikipedia namespace or Category:Noindexed pages in projectspace, and move all its members to the correct category, they are currently all mixed-up and the ambiguous name will cause more people to miscategorize. Also make a separate category for userspace pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by century. Bearcat (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and all Bearcat's noms below. Occuli (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all related nominations here Debresser (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of the Category:People by occupation and century tree. Mayumashu (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we are a decade into the 21st century, and the membership into this category will only increase with time. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Unless a by-century category can be logically divided into individual years, they are almost always next to useless OCAT. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might have made sense to do this 10 years ago, but not today. Ditto for all the others. Or should we wait until 2099? DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean "delete", DGG? Your "keep" and the rest of your comment seem to contradict. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of overall structures organizing by century and occupation as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. I only support these categories up to the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 to Category:21st-century actors. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century television actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by century; unused except for just three actors. Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we are a decade into the 21st century, and the membership into this category will only increase with time. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the fact that the vast majority of actors working today are going to simultaneously end up in Category:20th-century television actors, Category:21st-century television actors, Category:20th-century film actors, Category:21st-century film actors, "20th-century (Country) actors" and "21st-century (Country) actors" is actually adding anything of value to an encyclopedia? Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, since many actors of the 20th century died before the turn of the millennium or have retired already. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:21st-century actors, as part of the Category:People by occupation and century tree. Point that there will be duplication and thereby cat clutter taken Mayumashu (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Unless a by-century category can be logically divided into individual years, they are almost always next to useless OCAT. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might have made sense to do this 10 years ago, but not today. Ditto for all the others. Or should we wait until 2099? However, I can see the point of upmerging, on the grounds that many take part in more than one field., DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean "delete", DGG? Your "keep" and the rest of your comment seem to contradict. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. I only support these categories up to the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 to Category:21st-century actors. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century film actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by century; unused except for just two actors. Bearcat (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we are a decade into the 21st century, and the membership into this category will only increase with time. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Yes, it will grow huge, and even if fully populated now it would to be too big to be any use for navigation. So the next thing will be that it will start being subdivided, and then we'll end up with all the by-nation categories of film actor being divided into 20th and 21st-century ... and since film acting has only been a widespread occupation for about 90 years, we'll find a high proportion of film actors being in both 20th and 21st-century categories.
    As per previous CfD discussions, the people-by-occupation-by-century division of categories simply doesn't work for occupations which have only been in existence for one or two centuries. It may have a use for something like bishops (who have been around for ten or more centuries) or for members of the oldest profession, but centuries are very bad way to divide film actors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Category:Actors by century goes back to the 16th, from which there are a number of famous actors, one William Shakespeare for a start, and could go further back to Roscius, Theodora (6th century) (possibly the only actress saint) and several others - see Category:Ancient actors etc. But the 20th and 21st century categories are essentially the "default", and too large and incomplete to be worth the trouble. Many by century categories should only cover "historical" periods - ie stop at 1900. I realize Roscius made few films (sadly), and the point is only relevant for the more general categories. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:21st-century actors, as part of the Category:People by occupation and century tree. Point that there will be duplication and thereby cat clutter taken. Disagree that occupations that have been in existence for only parts of three centuries should be omitted so long as the tree exists. Mayumashu (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Unless a by-century category can be logically divided into individual years, they are almost always next to useless OCAT. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might have made sense to do this 10 years ago, but not today. Ditto for all the others. However, I can see the point of upmerging, on the grounds that many take part in more than one field., DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean "delete", DGG? Your "keep" and the rest of your comment seem to contradict. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. I only support these categories up to the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 06:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century female actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by century; also prior consensus against splitting Category:Actors by gender. See also subcat Category:21st-century female pornographic actors. Bearcat (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. We don't divide actors by gender. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. I only support these categories up to the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 06:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century male actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by century; also prior consensus against splitting Category:Actors by gender. See also subcategories Category:21st-century male film actors and Category:21st-century male television actors. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. We don't divide actors by gender. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 06:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nanotech Age (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Crystal Balling. We don't even know if the future will be called the "nanotech" age, let alone which technologies and topics will predominate. Also most the included articles are about space exploration, which is not defined by its relationship to nanotech. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per nominator as a particularly bad exercise in crystal-balling (see WP:NOTCRYSTAL). The category description begins "Articles related to the Nanotech Age (2025 - ?)", but it is pure speculation to guess that a particular era will exist at all, let alone that it will begin fifteen years from now. 2025 could just as well be the "Age when climate change so badly screwed up food supplies that most countries were engaged in food wars", the "age when abundant energy was no longer available to developed societies", or whatever your own crystal ball tells you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk)
• Delete per nom. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is pure WP:CRYSTAL (unless it is a variety of sci-fi. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep -- While the conventional knowledge (right now) suggests that global warming bring forth food wars and developed countries will lose access to foreign oil, I believe that nanotechnology, renewable fuels, and in vitro meat will also us to advance from the Information Age to the Nanotech Age within the next 15 years. GVnayR (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the problem. If you want to promote what "you believe", that's what a blog is for. We are trying to write a factual encyclopedia. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that this a rather pure case of crystal balling, not to mention a neologism as applied to those years. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Consensus was for eliminating the category. Of those opinions, the consensus was to not upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:20th-century American musicians to Category:20th-century musicians and Category:20th-century American people

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. no precedence for combining by century, by nationality, and by occupation Mayumashu (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – there is neither precedence nor consensus for these intersections. Occuli (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but do not merge. Per above, there is no consensus for these intersections. However, nobody has yet demonstrated any useful navigational purpose to be served by the broader people-by-century categories, which if fully populated will be enormous, so it's better to simply delete than to upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nominator. Deletion means losing information, so I don't see any purpose in that. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion means removing the cluttersome and useless by-century category from articles, which is good news. Merger means cluttering the articles with two useless categories rather than one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all "information" is of equivalent necessity or value in an encyclopedia. Not all information is worth not being deleted or lost to Wikipedia just because it happens to be information. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. century/nationality/occupation cats make sense in some instances, but it is overcategorisation for "musicians" which is too broad to be useful. The only page in this cat is Earl Wild, which is already in a subcat of Category:20th-century musicians; that page should be added to Category:20th-century American people. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As with actors & other things, I think there are some by century category groups that should stop at the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete; do not upmerge. Having a by-century category is almost always useless OCAT unless the contents can be easily divided by year, which this can't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Johnbod, why? Wikipedia is growing and time is progressing. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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