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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Paleontological media to Category:Paleontology media

Nominator's rationale: All four subcats -- books, documentaries, journals and websites -- use the noun "Paleontology" rather than the adjective form. Either this category name is wrong, or the four subcats should be renamed, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Which one fits Wikipedia's standards or manual of style best? Abyssal (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a mix'n'match. "Geology books" and "Botanical books" both feed into "Science books", a subcategory of "Scientific literature". There don't seem to be (m)any other "media" categories of this type - only "literature" ones. I'd suggest picking one form and changing all the others to it. The noun form seems to have some ascendency numbers-wise, but whther that's the best option or not I'll leave to others to decide. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rename – surely it's 'Chemistry book', 'History book', rather than 'Chemical book', 'Historical book'. A 'botanical book' sounds as if it should have plants sprouting amongst its pages and birds flitting between its leaves. Occuli (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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:X-COM per nom. --Xdamr^talk 21:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest merging Category:X-COM games to Category:X-COM

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge into main category. It doesn't seem necessary to have a separate category for just 8 games when there are only 9 articles in the main category by itself. A merge would solve the problem of overcategorization and the constituent categories being too small to be useful. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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:Films by music genre. --Xdamr^talk 21:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Film genres by music genre to Category:Films by music genre

Nominator's rationale: As proposed by Occuli in the CfR for Category:Punk film, I believe this is a simpler, better phrasing. The repetition of genres/genre serves no useful purpose that I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rename and re-parent to subcat of Category:Films (rather than Category:Film genres). One 'genre' per cat name is enough. Occuli (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• What purpose does this category serve? Do we gain anything by splitting these categories out of Category:Films about music and musicians? - Eureka Lott

I find them useful, anyway. They're all subcats of the various music categories, as well, so someone with an interest in Punk music can also search Punk films. It's similar to Category:Films by topic, I guess, but not exactly a "topic," IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. I understand why categories like those for punk films are useful. I'm just not certain what we gain by collecting them in the nominated category instead of its parent, especially in light of Occuli's suggestion. - Eureka Lott 18:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete how much about the genre must the film be or how many songs in the genre must it have? Purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the Punk film sub-category has a rather subjective definition: films that simply have a "DIY" ethos are said to be "punk." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:20th-century people by nationality - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:21st-century people by nationality - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Category:20th-century American people
• Category:21st-century American people
• Category:20th-century Austrian people
• Category:21st-century Austrian people
• Category:20th-century British people
• Category:21st-century British people
• Category:20th-century English people
• Category:21st-century English people
• Category:20th-century Scottish people
• Category:21st-century Scottish people
• Category:20th-century Dutch people
• Category:20th-century French people
• Category:21st-century French people
• Category:20th-century Greek people
• Category:20th-century Italian people
• Category:20th-century Spanish people

Delete all

Nominator's rationale: creates very long lists that are rather meaningless and significantly duplicate of Category:People by nationality and its sub-cats, since, what, two-thirds or more of all people with article pages on WP are of this or the previous century. Mayumashu (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep all Given that we actually have Category:Living people, I don't see why size is an issue. But in any case, these are mostly and correctly used to hold subcategories of manageable sizes. There will be an increasing need to distinguish the 20th & 21st century. Incidentally, how do we distinguish for people who lived in both? The period of major activity? DGG (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the period of WP:Notability. Many would belong to both and many, of course, would not. Category:Living people does not duplicate other lists though (such as by nationality, occupation, where from). Mayumashu (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep All When and where someone lived is a strong defining characteristic. These are effective means to split individuals up by country, and will be far more effective as individuals are added from prior centuries. Alansohn (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And will we then depopulate Category:Fooian people once the Fooians have been moved to their appropriate centuries, as we ought to do. I'm not convinced that this is category creep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- many of these will be very heavily populated. If we must have a change, we either need to find a way of splitting them, so that the categories are kept as parent categories, or we need to upmerge to Fooian people, which would be even more unwheildy. My preference is Keep until some one can suggest a sensible measn of splitting them - how about by occupation? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it will need to be by occupation - but, is the idea with these to subdivide what we already have? - eg. empty Category:English footballers into Category:19th-century English footballers, Category:20th-century English footballers, and Category:21st-century English footballers? I guess the answer is yes. Mayumashu (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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. I closed the other apparently infamous discussion. (Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot and suggests that I shouldn't be closing this discussion because I closed the other one, allow me to acknowledge that I am closing this discussion mainly because of my past close: as a result of it and the ensuing s-storm I am somewhat familiar with the background debates that lie behind this particular nomination. See also my concluding parenthetical.) Anyway, knowing what I know about the background, I would basically agree with what Occuli and DGG have said below about the previous discussion. It seems to me this was part of the attempt to implement the new scheme, so this discussion should really be considered afresh on its independent merits, without worrying about the deletion of Category:Slavic surnames. And I think the discussion here did (for the most part) properly focus on whether you want a mid-level category within the new "by-language" scheme, and it seems to me that there is a consensus that this mid-level one is wanted. Certainly, I have read here and elsewhere that there are still problems with individual articles being added to particular by-language categories when the article is unreferenced as to the name's "language of origin", so I again encourage users to ensure that all articles about surnames that are included in a by-language subcategory of Category:Surnames have sourcing that would support the article's inclusion in that category. This is just a repetition of basic WP:RS and WP:OR stuff, and shouldn't be controversial. (I know some of you imagine that I'm biased on these matters, so I'm looking forward to the same people who have complained about my bias in the past doing so again with respect to this closing. If no such complaining materializes from the same parties (or if complaining materializes from new parties), I guess I'll chalk up the difference in the "complaint experience" experienced after the previous close and the "complaint experience" that I will encounter now to simply this: whether the complainers liked or didn't like the actual outcome of the separate discussions.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Slavic-language surnames - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Previously deleted Category:Slavic surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (4 times), re-created mere minutes after the latest speedy deletion.

This category is for surnames originated among Slavic peoples, i.e., peoples who speak Slavic languages. Often the origins of these surnames is difficult to pinpoint, since the three cultures have common origins and heavy mutual influence.

There are currently 5 (not 3) languages listed:

• Category:Belarusian-language surnames
• Category:Czech-language surnames
• Category:Montenegrin-language surnames
• Category:Slovene-language surnames
• Category:Ukrainian-language surnames

This is not a "language" (singular) topic category, this is "languages" (plural) instance category – or a "by culture" category – at the very least misnamed.

While specific language categories have been created, there doesn't seem to be a need for grouping them according to migration of peoples. Too hard to accurately document in a category, and could lead to a proliferation of competing subcategories, rendering the parent category difficult to navigate.

Also, this should not be a catch-all category for inference or derivation. Instead, names that can be authenticated in more than 1 modern language should be included in each language category.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This was discussed earlier here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – I don't think a cfd on 'surnames by country' (with various non-countries tossed in) has any relevance at all, especially as this now has '-language' appended. There is Category:Slavic languages. (It is 'surnames' being plural which makes this a list-category of surnames. There is an argument for making it 'Slavic-languages surnames' as there are several such languages. But the same applies to 'Montenegrin-language' - see Languages of Montenegro.) Occuli (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for making my point. There were various non-countries improperly classified as "by country". Let's be more careful this time. Category:Slavic languages is ultimately divided into many linguistic variants, and there is no rationale for similarly organizing these languages here (East Slavic languages, Extinct Slavic languages, etc.) Montenegro adopted the Montenegrin language in its Constitution of 2007, so there is only 1 official language.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. A well-defined, unambiguous, verifiable, and meaningful supercategory. Useful for search, to compare closely related surnames. The nominator sems to be genuinelty confused as to the purpose of these categories: they are about the origin, not the usage of a surname. It doesn't matter that a surname can be "authentificated" in several modern languages. Also, I fail to see whats this to do with "migration" of peoples. Languages are not grouped acoriding to migration patterns. - Altenmann >t 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

1. This category is not useful for searching, unless all the names of its constituent subcategories are included (making them "distinguished subcategories" under the guidelines). It was exactly that sort of mess that made the "by country" categorization controversial, and ultimately worthless.
2. Since this nominator actually defined these categories, the confusion is not on the part of the nominator. The nominator apologizes should the Category:Surnames by language description need to be expanded with a more expansive explanation.
3. While the distant "origin" for some subcategories may well be "Slavic", just as the "origin" for others may well be "Latin" or even "Indo-European", the names in these categories are intended to be based on well-defined modern languages, not their archaic forebears. Such categorization can often be extremely controversial.
4. Perhaps you could explain the meaning of "authentificated"?
5. Moreover, you are egregiously incorrect. Languages and writing are often used by anthropologists and archaeologists to discern the migrations of peoples. Many of the language controversies that abound in Wikipedia (such as the Balkans) are due to migrations of peoples that spoke antecedents of modern languages, especially Slavic in this instance.
6. Are there any existing peoples that still speak Slavic?
7. I'd be more comfortable with surnames of Category:Ancient languages, as they are clearly labeled.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The closing in the previous discussion specifically permitted recreation by a different scheme such as this and also suggested redoing this by User:cjllw's suggestion of categorization by language. This is a reasonable implementation of that. The categories are designed as "Surnames of Czech language origin", etc. which is different from the possible separate set of categories, of surnames used by people speaking the Czech language. This should be kept, and confirmed as the right way to redo all the others. DGG (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody is suggesting deleting the subcategories, such as Czech-language. It is the way we are redoing all the others. This one does not fit. It is a useless super-category.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG and Altenmann Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete many of these are inappropriately categorized and/or totally unreferenced. If a surname is a Czech-language surname and a Polish-language surname, and a Slovak-language surname, as various of these seem to be, and it seems to be a BLP issue to boot - an example: to have a list with Serbian people with a surname and say that they have a Croatian surname (or vice versa) seems to be a contentious unsourced statement about a BLP and should be removed immediately. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• This, which is a very valid point, is all the more reason to keep the category and place more articles in the category itself. If we are moving to a by-language surnames scheme, where else would such names go? Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• If a surname is not uniquely Fooish-language, categorization is at best misleading and at median just plain wrong and at worst racist. If the language of origin of a surname is defining, having multiple origins negates that definition and are inappropriate. Since many of these names that I've looked at are not uniquely Czech (for exmaple), but seem to be held by people of Slovak, Polish, Bosnian, Croat, Austrian, Australian, Argentine, and American nationality, there is nothing more Czech about them than there is Slovak, Polish, Bosnian, Croat, Austrian, English, Spanish, or whatever. And now that we're doing this by language - many of the so-called Irish names will now be English-language ones as most of the articles say that Mc-, Mac-, and O'- names are Anglicisms of some Irish (Gaelic) original. Start re-categorizing folks until you're tired of trying to pigeon-hole people and their names by ethnic and linguistic categories that probably meant little at the time the names were first introduced. But, WP needs to categorize this way to keep the racialists happy, I suppose. To me, it's a worthless endeavor with nothing productive coming out from it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Forget "nationality" - these categories have moved away from that, as supported by you I think. Some Slavic names, especially in anglicized spelling, may be both Czech and Slovak (the same nationality until 20 years ago), Serb & Croat (ditto), or more widely shared. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I missed the debate where "language" was added to the categories. I say leave alone and get those who speak the relevant languages to sort this one out. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep - This supercategory is an important part of our categorization system. It is important that we not allow our eminently logical and essential surname categorization system (which is based on the best sources) to be broken by extremists who wish all 14,000 surname articles to be placed in a single category without first coming up with a logical substitute, as they actually did last week. Badagnani (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There isn't any issue with POV here if the names are correctly sourced. Orderinchaos 15:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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 per nom. While I strongly believe that more categories and articles need to more fully describe the location in the titles, this is not the place to make that policy change. So given that the only issue appears to be, to include or not include Harvard, I read this as consensus for the proposal. If anyone believes that there is a policy that would support including Harvard in the name, they can renominate this at any time indicating the appropriate policy or guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Kennedy School, Harvard to Category:John F. Kennedy School of Government

Nominator's rationale: Rename to the proper name of the school, rather than a colloquial abbreviation. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 08:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment "Harvard" should be retained in the title; otherwise I would not know where it is. I assume that this is a university department. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard - I agree with Pk. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rename to match the title of the parent article. The folks in the real world of articles have selected this name, as has the University, and there appears to be no confusion there. Having the category title unnecessarily differ from the title of the parent article only creates added confusion. Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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 (ratify merge). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest merging Category:Traditional fishing villages to Category:Fishing villages

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Appears to have been merged out of process by Geronimo20. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies if this was out of process. In practice nearly all fishing villages are "traditional". If Category:Fishing villages was going to have a sub category, it would make more sense if it was for "non-traditional" fishing villages. But really that's not needed either. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - but why is Category:Fishing communities not a parent of Category:Fishing villages? Occuli (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, & to Occuli someone has added it now. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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: Do not delete. Looks like a misunderstanding/typo more than anything else. Could be renominated for a rename per Occuli's suggestion. I've added one parent category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Atlantic Records - Speedy Delete

Nominator's Rationale - this seems to me to be an attack on Atlantic, but no sources are provided Ian Cairns (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Perfectly logical category. How is this an attack? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The category creator had for some reason inlcuded the phrase "Labels distrusted by Atlantic Records." on the category page. I've deleted it and this nom can now be withdrawn. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems to be an honest typo instead of an attack. If you see the creator of the category be sure to point them to Wiktionary: distribute. Jafeluv (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Rename perhaps to Category:Atlantic Records Group per Atlantic Records Group where these seem to be listed. It doesn't have any parents at present; perhaps someone can remedy this. Occuli (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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 21:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:World Federation of Great Towers - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. If I understand the main article, this is for towers that belong to an association. In any case this is not defining. Currently has a single entry. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – it is odd that there is only one as there are many listed in World Federation of Great Towers. An alternative name might be Category:Buildings or structures with a public observation deck. Occuli (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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. --Xdamr^talk 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sandstone buildings - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not convinced that this is a defining characteristic for these buildings. I actually found this category on a settlement article since it contained sandstone buildings. For many of the others included, there is only a mention of that fact that the building used sandstone, nice for the article, but not notable for the building or defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reflect – there doesn't seem anything fundamentally wrong with Category:Buildings and structures by construction material (except it is not constructed). I would say that the material used is a defining characteristic of a building. 'Stone' is defining; whether the type of stone used is defining is less clear. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I might go along with that, and the materials would seem to include [timber, stone, brick, steel, concrete, mud, snow ..], but the category also needs to be clearly defined. Many modern building are steel with a cladding (which could be sandstone); does that mean a category of 'composite'? Do concrete blocks count as bricks or concrete?. Are sun-dried mud-bricks different from mud? Probably too many uncertainties to form a useful category(?). Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes there are quite a number of questions here. Another one is how do you classify a building constructed with those panels that get filled with concrete and then covered with other materials on the outside shell. If they use stone and wood on the outside and steel framing on the interior walls is it then a foam-concrete-steel-wood and stone building? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I might say that the type of material could be defining, but to some extent it is more a product of the time when it was built or the type of structure. Clearly all of the old Greek buildings are made from stone. Prior to around 1920 or so, stone was still a major building material. Steel made high rises possible. Now poured concrete is a major force. So as has been pointed out, this could be defining in some cases, but we should proceed with caution and a well considered set of criteria. Simply being made of sandstone is not going to work. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per difficulties above, or rename to Category:Sandstone buildings in Australia where it may be more distinctive & where all these are. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and use for similar buildings--the article Sandstone has a gallery of them. And see the good definition in Sandstone Universities-"buildings constructed primarily of sandstone." DGG (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again an Australian term. The gallery mentioned has about 4 buildings; we must already have thousands of articles on sandstone buildings, though relatively few will actually say so, and there is the issue of whether the sandstone is just a decorative cladding, or really the primary material, which is not just an issue for modern buildings. What is the point of this global category? Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that sandstone states sandstone a common building and paving material, why is this a notable factor for a building? Also what is a 'sandstone building'? Is it a building made completely of sandstone? Of is it a building that uses a decorative sandstone exterior over a frame built using another material? All-in-all, it is really rather ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep What about Brownstones? The use of sandstone as a an exterior material lent its name to an entire class of buildings. Definitely a defining characteristic. Admittedly grouping buildings by construction material creates huge categories, but it is a useful way of categorizing because of the importance of the concept. Besides brownstones, think wood (Thorncrown Chapel, Gamble House (Pasadena, California), steel (Tour Eiffel, bricks (Louis Kahn), concrete (Auguste Perret). You can't separate material from architecture and this category is important. Drawn Some (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The class of buildings is notable as an architectural style, but is every one of those buildings notable for being build using sandstone? I don't believe that articles about these buildings make much note of the material used or why that makes the buildings notable. However they probably do make at least a mention of the brownstone architectural style. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Category:Limestone buildings, which currently contains one Australian prison, but if properly populated would contain thousands of articles including most of the historic buildings of Europe, should also go, for the same reasons. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- This is a legitmate characteristic. However "Brick buildings" and "concrete buildings" would not be becuase the use of these materials is too ubiquitous. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • How is sandstone not ubiquitous, especially in certain periods of time or for certain locations? Most, if not all, of the early Vegas buildings that were not wood were made of sandstone which is what was available. That is not defining or notable. The same is probably true in most parts of the world. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Vernacular stone construction is not ubiquious; abundance in one town and one period does not call for such a generalization. I'd take your argument against Category:Log cabins or Category:Mud huts, but this category is actually manageable in size. NVO (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? It may be with the current 18 buildings, 17 Australian, but if fully populated it would include probably thousands of buildings we already have articles on. The ridiculously unrepresentative nature of the category as it stands, and the improbability of it ever being populated with more than say 1% of the actual number of sandstone buildings we have articles on, are further reasons for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How many articles for Category:Log cabins or Category:Mud huts do we have? Those may well be defining based on rarity. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The primary building material used is a defining characteristic for any structure. As these categories grow and as additional categories are added, braking this down by country would be an effective means of organization. That we don't have every such building in existence listed appears to be a rather poor argument for deletion of any category, any more than we would delete Category:African Americans or Category:LGBT people because we may have missed a few. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Punk film to Category:Punk films

Nominator's rationale: To match all other subcategories of Category:Film genres by music genre. Niggling, yes, but someone's got to do it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rename – category contains films, not articles about Punk films. (Should Category:Film genres by music genre not be Category:Films by music genre?) Occuli (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Occuli, I do think you're right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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 user 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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who own a geodesic dome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by ownership" category, which have a unanimous history of deletion as not supporting collaboration. See here. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree Debresser (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• delete; trivial grouping. - Altenmann >t 19:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, trivial, doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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 user 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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Users with no Barnstars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - First of all, this uses the improper naming convention of "Users" and improperly capitalizes "Barnstars", but additionally I would argue for deletion as this category doesn't support collaboration. This is a "not-based" category in that it categorizes users by something they don't have, a type of category that has unanimous deletion (see here). Additionally we have deleted similar categories, including Category:Wikipedians who would like to earn a Barnstar (see here) as well as various "Wikipedians by barnstar earned" categores (see here). VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia:User categories specifically advises to avoid creating "not-based" categories like this. Jafeluv (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-category and non-productive as well. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this would be enormous. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: the CfD tag on this category was removed, and as a result it was re-nominated for deletion on 2009 July 2. The second nominator's comments there should be considered here as a vote for deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I am the second nominator Good O' refers to above and I believe it should be deleted as not benefiting the encyclopedia. MBisanz ^talk 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Some "mine is bigger" bragging is always inevitable, but labeling hundreds of thousands of users as underdogs really makes no sense. NVO (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless and unmaintainable. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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) 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:User ain't (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Linked to a userbox proclaiming "This user believes that ain't is a proper word to use in place of a contraction of a be verb and a pronoun. Ain't that right?" - This is an innapropriate categorization of users in that it doesn't support collaboration and improperly uses the babel naming convention, which is at least grounds for renaming. There is no benefit to grouping such users in a category. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree Debresser (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This category ain't appropriate per Wikipedia:User categories, because it has serves no purpose in improving/developing the encyclopedia. Jafeluv (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Does not support collaboration. No reason to specifically seek out self-proclaimed unpleasant Wikipedians. Possibly a joke category? Does not benefit the encyclopedia in any way. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Overtly general, subjective and unhelpful to building the encyclopaedia. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete although I can suggest a few names. Occuli (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Give me a break/Keep: Really? This is worth anybody's time? My suggestion: keep this around for a few weeks, and see how many editors join the category. I think it's a real description and many WPers will self-describe, given the chance. Check back and review in September. When I created the userbox, the category showed up on its own. All I really wanted was the userbox. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I have more to say. I am an unpleasant Wikipedian. That doesn't mean I'm not helpful or productive. See my contributions. But letting people know up front that I am known to be unpleasant is a reasonable courtesy. It helps to put my comments and edits into a context:

Hi editor: don't get too upset by my unpleasant comments about your edits: I'm unpleasant with everybody. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Self-identification is important in any social group. On the other hand, we could hardly allow people who are in potential trouble with Wikipedia:Civility to form a group and thereby obtain semi-legitimacy. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• This discussion contains proof that an editor can be a pain in the ass and still be civil.

• What's wrong with my suggestion to give this some time? This category is clearly a self-classification only. In order to define the need or utility of this category, some examples might help, no?
• Just because you don't like the classification doesn't mean that unpleasant editors don't exist.
• Why do you feel the need to forbid editors from classifying themselves this way? Or finding others similarly afflicted? Or warning the newbies of their nasty dispositions?
• This category could scarcely be as doubtful re: WP-correctness as say [this]. Yet look how big that category is.

There. Nothing uncivil, and nothing very pleasant either. Give it a rest and or a little time. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. A joke category of no benefit to creating an encyclopedia; could be applied to other editors pages as a personal attack; appears to encourage uncivil behaviour, which god knows we have too much of already. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind: Please kill. As self-identification, it's moderately amusing. Considering that this category could be applied to other editors without their self-identification, however, I agree that it has no business in WP. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I've put a Speedy deletion tag on it, accordingly. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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 user 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 Tiptoety ^talk 03:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians with a shoutbox tool (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Seems to be a "Wikipedians by template use" category in order for someone to track who is using a template they created. Unanimous precedent to delete such categories, see here. Doesn't seem to be any encyclopedic benefit to specifically seek out users with this template. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It's not doing any harm. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 03:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:HARMLESS. And on the contrary, keeping such a category sets precedent to keep other "Wikipedians by template use" categories, which sets a double standard that flies in the face of past discussions on similar categories that I've linked to above, so it in effect does in fact "do harm". Additionally, keeping this category violates Wikipedia:User categories in that it does not meet the requirement that "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". Can you explain how grouping users who decide to use this template on their userpage would benefit the encyclopedia? What possible encyclopedic purpose would one have to go searching for users in such a category? I can't even think of a non-encyclopedic use for doing so considering the existence of the "what links here" function to find out who is using a particular template. Also, where would we draw the line at keeping such categories? I can see it now: Category:Wikipedians with Userxyz's userbox #216. I don't want to open that can of worms, and there should be no need to as it is a cut and dry unencyclopedic category that past consensus has time and time again witnessed and come to the correct conclusion of deletion. VegaDark (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete per the examples listed by VegaDark. If someone wants to keep track of people who use a template, they can look at "what links here". Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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.