Login
Login

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 6

width = "100%"
style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | < May 5

! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | May 7 >

= May 6 =

== Category:Icon albums ==

: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) 07:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Icon albums to :Category:Icon (band) albums

:Nominator's rationale: To disambiguate and match parent article, Icon (band). Current category name can confuse readers to believe these are iconic albums. — ξxplicit 23:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Rename per nom. This is a confusing category name. -- doorautomatica (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2010 (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.

== Category:Icon films ==

: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) 07:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Icon films to :Category:Icon Productions films

:Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Icon Productions. Current category name can confuse readers to believe these are iconic films. — ξxplicit 23:57, 6 May 2010 (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.

==== Category:Igbo footballers ====

: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, no merge. For rationale, see ''Category:Igbo Players of American football, below. Herostratus (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Igbo footballers to :Category:Igbo sportspeople

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. Mixture of ethnicity and occupation. TM 23:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep, as these categories are part of the greater category scheme, {{Cat|People by ethnicity and occupation}}. — ξxplicit 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Upmerge as per nom. 'Sportspeople' is still an occupation, so scheme is not disturbed Mayumashu (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • :Why selectively upmerge four of the six subcategories? I don't see what makes {{Cat|Igbo boxers}} and {{Cat|Igbo athletes}} any different. Additionally, subcategories for Fooian sportspeople are used throughout the {{Cat|People by ethnicity and occupation}} category tree. I would oppose merging similar categories, like the ones seen in {{Cat|Basque footballers}}, which is part of {{Cat|Basque sportspeople}}, as it's currently holding 262 articles. We'd just be making Fooian sportspeople large and harder to navigate. I don't think WP:OC#SMALL applies here. — ξxplicit 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ::The only difference is that I didn't get to tagging them. If we deleted and upmerged {{cl|Nigerian American sportspeople}}, I don't see how this is any different. This is actually worse; most of the articles don't actually state Igbo ancestry; the assertion is generally given due to their location of birth or the perceived ethnicity due to their name.--TM 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per nom. I think taking these down to the level of "Igbo sportspeople" is enough. I would support upmerging any other categories that combine ethnicity with a particular sport. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2010 (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.

==== Category:Igbo volleyball players ====

: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, no merge. For rationale, see ''Category:Igbo Players of American football, below. Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Igbo volleyball players to :Category:Igbo sportspeople

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unwarranted mixture of ethnicity and occupation. TM 23:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep, as these categories are part of the greater category scheme, {{Cat|People by ethnicity and occupation}}. — ξxplicit 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Upmerge as per nom. 'Sportspeople' is still an occupation, so scheme is not disturbed Mayumashu (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per nom. I think taking these down to the level of "Igbo sportspeople" is enough. I would support upmerging any other categories that combine ethnicity with a particular sport. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2010 (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.

==== Category:Igbo basketball players ====

: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, no merge. For rationale, see ''Category:Igbo Players of American football, below. Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Igbo basketball players to :Category:Igbo sportspeople

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unwarranted mixture of ethnicity and occupation. TM 23:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep, as these categories are part of the greater category scheme, {{Cat|People by ethnicity and occupation}}. — ξxplicit 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Upmerge as per nom. 'Sportspeople' is still an occupation, so scheme is not disturbed Mayumashu (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per nom. I think taking these down to the level of "Igbo sportspeople" is enough. I would support upmerging any other categories that combine ethnicity with a particular sport. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2010 (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.

== Category:Igbo players of American football ==

{{Delrevafd|date=2010 May 27}}

: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 denied.. My reasoning is this: although the category "Igbo Players of American Football" might at first blush seem very similar to (say) the category "Canadian Players of American Football", they actually are quite different and have different parentage. "Canadian Players of American Football" is a child of "Players of American Football by Nationality" which is part of the grouping of sports people by nationality. "Igbo Players of American Football" is not a part of this lineage, instead it traces to "Igbo Sportspeople" which is part of the grouping of people by ethnicity and occupation.

Think of it this way: If there were a category "Players of American Football Who Are Over Six Feet Tall", how would this affect the category "Canadian Players of American Football"? It wouldn't. Same thing here.

Now, it is true that the category "Players of American football by nationality" should therefore not include the category "Igbo Players of American Football", since Igbo is not a nationality. And it doesn't. If it ever did, someone has removed it.

To go further down this path: Nigeria is a political, not ethnic, entity. Properly, I suppose that "Nigerian Players of American Football" should really be "Players of American Football who are Nigerian Citizens", or something. (I'm not actually recommending this.) I would think that a person who was not born in Nigeria, has never held Nigerian citizenship, and perhaps has never even been to Nigeria cannot properly be termed "Nigerian". Yet that same person could certainly be termed Igbo if his parents are Igbo.

Now, to finish: Certainly many articles will presumably be included in both "Nigerian Players of American Football" and "Igbo Players of American Football". But of course many articles are in two or more categories. It is proper to include an article in both of these categories, as they are at the same "level" and drill up through entirely different paths.

As to the objection that "Igbo Players of American Football" is too fine a distinction and should just be upmerged to the next highest category ("Igbo Sportspeople"), that is a different issue and was not part of the rationale for the nom. If someone wants to nominate the category for upmerge based on this reason, they are free to do so. I do note that the category has 10 articles, so its not really that sparsely populated.

As a final note: it would be defensible to make that case that "Igbo Players of American Football" should (along with its other parentage) be a direct subcategory of "Players of American football" since 1) there is no "Players of American Football by Ethnicity" category to serve as a buffer between these two categories, and 2) it does seem a bit odd that "Igbo Players of American Football" does at no time devolve up to "Players of American Football". I am not making this case, as this would introduce non-parallelity to the category levels, which could be confusing to editors (although it would probably benefit readers). But if someone wants to make that case, they would have a reasonable argument. Herostratus (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Igbo players of American football to :Category:Igbo sportspeople

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. {{cl|Players of American football by nationality}} should only include nationalities, not ethnicities. We shouldn't be categorizing by ethnicity and sport. TM 23:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep, as these categories are part of the greater category scheme, {{Cat|People by ethnicity and occupation}}. — ξxplicit 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Upmerge as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per nom. I think taking these down to the level of "Igbo sportspeople" is enough. I would support upmerging any other categories that combine ethnicity with a particular sport. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2010 (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.

== Category:Chronic illness ==

: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. — ξxplicit 08:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Chronic illness}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - Similar to :Category:Terminal illness (Cfd), diseases are not categorized by whether they are acute or chronic. Many diseases are chronic, and categorization as such does not provide much utility. The 5 articles currently in this category are a random assortment, as this category does not have a clear purpose. Scott Alter (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:*Delete - in the majority of "illnesses" (diseases/disorders/conditions would be all be better words) the distinction of acute vs chronic is meaningless. For example, Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease, but some diabetics will present acutely with complications that may have an acute course (DKA for example) while simultaneously suffering from chronic microvascular complications. Looking at a different example, chronic tonsillitis is the same thing as recurrent acute tonsillitis. This means that this category is not a useful way to categorise human disease. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::*Delete - agree with your rationale entirely. -- doorautomatica (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2010 (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.

== Category:Vascular disorders ==

: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. — ξxplicit 08:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Vascular disorders}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - Does not conform to the standard ICD-10 categorization schema, which is the basis for disease categorization within :Category:Diseases and disorders. The only contents are Cluster headache and Cluster headache treatments, which already are also in correct categories by ICD-10 classification. Categories for vascular disorders already exist and are better categorized within :Category:Cardiovascular diseases by arteries and veins. Scott Alter (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:*Delete - per the nominator's arguments. Additionally, the two articles in the category are also categories in :Category:Ailments of unknown etiology - if the aetiology is unknown then there can't be a vascular cause as that is known. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2010 (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.

== Category:IntelliCAD based software ==

: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. — ξxplicit 08:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:IntelliCAD based software to :Category:Computer-aided design software

:Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. There's no need for a cat with just two articles that has no room for expansion. Plus :category:Computer-aided design software is the only parent for this cat. Wizard191 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::Support I think that merging these two categories is fine. Time will tell if a category for IntelliCAD based CAD packages is needed. There are actually a really large number of CAD packages based on the IntelliCAD kernel, but they are almost all quite small players in the market. --DuLithgow (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2010 (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.

== Category:Computer-aided manufacturing software ==

: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. — ξxplicit 08:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Computer-aided manufacturing software to :Category:Computer-aided manufacturing

:Nominator's rationale: While this category contains mostly CAM software packages, I think it makes sense to widen this to :category:Computer-aided manufacturing so that CAM related articles that aren't software can be properly organized. Wizard191 (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Why not simply create :Category:Computer-aided manufacturing as a parent category? That way, the software articles can remain available to those browsing the software tree.- choster (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but the parent cat will only have a few articles while the sub-cat will have significantly more. Wizard191 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • leave as is The category was missing a parent that I have just added :Category:Application software. This adds another category tree structure and requires this category keep the 'software' in its name. Its contents are indeed software packages, not something else.Hmains (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose if you want a broader category, make a parent category. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2010 (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.

==Category:Internet radio in the United States==

: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 change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:User:Nopetro at 09:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC) seemed to want to move this category to :Category:Internet radio stations in the United States. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2010 (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.

====Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe====

: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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe to :Category:Rugby league governing bodies.

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge into its parent; :Category:Rugby league governing bodies, which consists of only five pages and two subcategories; the aforementioned :Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe as well as :Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Oceania. :Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe is an extra level of navigation and over-categorization of :Category:Rugby league governing bodies. There are only 14 pages in :Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe and several of those are not actual articles about the governing body. There seems no reason to maintain both categories, which only make article pages harder to find.

:N.B. This discussion is linked to the WP:CFD Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 9. (Category creator and others involved in previous discussion notified using Template:Cfd-notify) Daicaregos (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:Concur --Snowded TALK 12:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::Nothing prevents the article Rugby League European Federation's inclusion in :Category:Rugby league governing bodies. Pages in :Category:Sports governing bodies in Europe are European sports governing bodies, rather than sports governing bodies that happen to be in Europe. :Category:Rugby league in Europe does not contain pages relating to sports governing bodies. Its pages are made up of national teams. Neither, therefore, are parent categories of :Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe. Categories exist to enable readers to navigate to similar articles. :Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe does not assist this goal. Please reconsider. Daicaregos (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::* This is simply false. There is :Category:Sports governing bodies in Europe by country which is manifestly not for Europe-wide bodies. There is :Category:European Handball Federation, ditto. :Category:Rugby league in Europe does and should contain any articles about Rugby League in Europe, including ones about governing bodies. Both this cfd and the previous one seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the category system. Occuli (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Occuli is being disingenuous. Regarding :Category:Sports governing bodies in Europe by country and :Category:European Handball Federation, as you can quite clearly see, I said: “Pages in :Category:Sports governing bodies in Europe are European sports governing bodies, rather than sports governing bodies that happen to be in Europe.“ not subcategories. So it is not quite simply false at all, is it? Including :Category:Rugby league governing bodies as a subcategory of :Category:Sports governing bodies in Europe is an anomaly, shared only with Handball, Ice Hockey and Football, none of which need to be included as subcategories there. As to :Category:Rugby league in Europe: I was not aware it was common practice to include each sport's governing body's page along with the sport in Europe and I am not convinced that is the case. Nevertheless, if required all 14 pages on :Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe could be added to :Category:Rugby league in Europe and the subcategory deleted. Further, I don't think I misunderstood that 'Categories exist to enable readers to navigate to similar articles.' And the current categorization does not assist that goal. Daicaregos (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - perfectly legitimate category. Also, no note has been placed at relevant category to invite those interested in discussion. Daicaregos, once someone has cast their vote, it is not really fair to try and bully them into changing mind Djln--Djln (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are no doubt dozens of Rugby League governing bodies in Europe which could have a page at some point. So worth having the category there Cls14 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep (unless of Oceania equivalent is also upmerged). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2010 (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.

==Category:American Professors of English==

: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:American academics of English literature. After going through some of these, I'm not finding any linguists, but of course any that belong in {{Cat|American linguists}} can be moved. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:American Professors of English to :Category:???

:Nominator's rationale: This is categorized under :Category:American academics, but this is narrowly about professors specifically and not broader English academics. I'm not sure what the best name is, but it's certainly not this one (if for no other reason than its improper capitalization.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:00, 6 May 2010 (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.

== Accidental deaths ==

: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. — ξxplicit 08:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming: (see drop-down box)

{{collapse top|nominated categories}}

{{collapse bottom}}

:Nominator's rationale: Rename all. In categories, when "deaths" is used, it is usually understood that we mean "human deaths" unless otherwise specified: {{cat|2010 deaths}}, not {{cat|2010 human deaths}}; {{cat|Road accident deaths in New York}}, not {{cat|Road accident human deaths in New York}}. I see no reason for these categories to use "Accidental human deaths" rather than just "Accidental deaths". The parent categories are {{cat|Accidental deaths by location}} and {{cat|Accidental deaths}}. These were named as they were for the sake of conformity, since the first few that were created used the word "human". And if a notable chimpanzee happened to die in an accident somewhere, I see no reason it could not even be included in one of these categories. (Eventually, perhaps the subcategory contents of the {{cat|Death by country}} tree could also be renamed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support seems to make sense, notable animals would surely have their species qualified or mentioned in title eg JoJo Chimp of xxx dies at xx SatuSuro 04:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. __meco (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom. No need for the word human in any of these categories. Lugnuts (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. jonkerz♠ 18:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. -- doorautomatica (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2010 (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.

== Category:Members of ESM ==

: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. — ξxplicit 19:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Members of ESM to :Category:European Sports Magazines or :Category:European Sports Magazines members or delete

:Nominator's rationale: This is a category for members of European Sports Magazines, an "association of football-related publications". If it is kept, it should be renamed to expand the abbreviation; at the same time, it could be repurposed into a topic category (:Category:European Sports Magazines). However, as there is already a list in the main article and only 4 of the 8 magazine articles even mention ESM, perhaps deletion is the best option. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete; doesn't seem to be that important in context of the individual magazines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2010 (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.

== Category:People by borough ==

: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 to delete. — ξxplicit 20:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

:{{Lc|People by borough}}

:Nominator's rationale: This single-entry container category does not appear to be a useful intermediate layer of categorization. An entire sub-tree for only one city seems unnecessary, and the sole entry can be reached from :Category:People by place via the following path: {{c|People by place}} → {{c|People by city}} / {{c|People by country}} → {{c|People by country and city}} → {{c|People by city in the United States}} → {{c|People from New York City}}. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think it is intended for only one city. Seems to me that it's a way to group people-by-borough categories from all cities, additional sibling categories to come. If so, it's a bad idea: a non-defining characteristic and not a way that users would reasonably search. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep given that borough is a specific type of populated place. Clearly it is common, :Category:Boroughs in New Jersey. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I doubt that this level of categorization will be applied to the two Norwegian cities which have boroughs, I can see that it would be appropriate for New York City, and I could foresee some other mega-cities in the Western world also using it (e.g. London, Paris). In any case I think the category is appropriate in that it fits into an existing hierarchy scheme. __meco (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • But we're not discussing deleting :Category:People by New York City borough nor any similar people-by-borough-by-city category. Not badgering, want to make sure we're discussing the same thing. I think NVO makes the case quite succinctly below. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. It sets an unconvenient precedent of promoting regional naming schemes to a global level. "People by county", "People by wilayah", "People by ulus", "People by chak", "People by khet" should not coexist on global level - they belong to their national or regional entities (i.e. :Category:People by New York City borough). NVO (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete – the name varies too much between (and within) countries for a global scheme. In the UK, Londoners are reasonably divided into boroughs (:Category:People from London by borough) but other cities are also boroughs (eg City of Leeds). Occuli (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to have potentional for growth as term 'borough' is used in a few different countries Mayumashu (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not think this makes a satsifactory parent. The better tree will be to look by Country, then State (province, etc), then county, then settlement (city, borough, district), then (sometimes) locality. In England we have London boroughs, metroplitan boroughs (which are unitary authorities), and districts (some of which have borough status). This is all too diverse for a satisfactory parent of this kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Then what do we do with :Category:People by city or :Category:People by town? If we are going to stop parenting those at a much lower level, then we need to make it clear and apply it to everything. I can support that discussion and we can throw in :Category:People by continent for good measure since I suspect that a few people wind up under 3 or 4 branches there. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • keep celebrate locality, celebrate diversity, do not homogenize everything into universality; reflect facts in the real world. Hmains (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • :Except that, in this case, the "facts in the real world" include that borough has different meanings in different jurisdictions—in effect, we are grouping different types of entities by shared name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2010 (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.

== Category:Major League Lacrosse weekly award winners ==

: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) 07:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Major League Lacrosse weekly award winners}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete: Weekly awards is over-categorization and this category could be added to myriad Major League Lacrosse players who happen to have one good week. It doesn't mean they've earned anything particularly special, like a major yearly award (e.g. Defensive POY). Jrcla2 (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yearly awards yes, weekly, no, per nom. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Listify and delete as we always do for minor award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Listifying would require actually knowing which award was won by which player on which week. Resolute 20:16, 14 May 2010 (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.