Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 9

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 and delete. Otto's suggestions should be implemented here. A similarly-named category for the same purpose may be created if it's determined division by decade is desirable and it's part of a larger scheme being implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer Role-Playing Games of the 1990s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, already an article with a chronology of computer roleplaying games. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made this category and I still like it. No harm in keeping it around. That said there have been only three additional entries made since I first created the category. So, it's a toss up. Delete it if you must, but I'd prefer it if you didn't. Vranak (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -
  talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Upmerge per Otto4711. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. Per Otto4711. — Σxplicit 04:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Television spin-offs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Andy Griffith Show spin-offs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:All in the Family spin-offs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Happy Days spin-offs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete -

talk) 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment – surely they should be upmerged to
  talk) 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete these are or should be linked, not cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: do not merge. Because of the intervening DRV, this can be interpreted as overturning the previous CfD. Changes that were made to implement the previous merge may be manually reversed by editors. (Full disclosure note: I did make a comment at the DRV but did not take sides in the substantive issue. I've closed this discussion because it's been open for over two weeks now and multiple requests have been directed at me to close this discussion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer to Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 2, which overturned the previous CfD and called for a relisting. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose. To me, "Songs written by X" means that X wrote both lyrics and music.

To repeat comments I made elsewhere: "Some persons have objected to having three categories for one songwriter: 'Songs written by X,' 'Songs with music by X,' and 'Songs with lyrics by X.' While I would think this to be the most accurate way of handling this, I would accept the idea that for people like Johnny Mercer who wrote primarily either music or lyrics there should be two categories: 'Songs with music by X' and 'Songs with lyrics by X,' with the very small number where a person wrote both being put into both categories. Where a songwriter primarily wrote both, I think a 'Songs written by X' category is appropriate, with either 'Songs with music by X' or 'Songs with lyrics by X' used where appropriate for any where he wrote only one or the other. And for someone like Frank Loesser, who was a major lyricist but also wrote both lyrics and music for a lot of songs, yet another treatment might be appropriate.

To satisfy Alansohn's comment that 'While there are many music aficionados who would appreciate the nuances of splitting a single artists songs based on what component they created, there are many more amateurs who would only be baffled as they navigated through categories trying to understand why a song they associate with Johnny Mercer isn't listed under songs written by but is instead in songs with music by' there only needs to be a cross-reference such as was done in Category:Songs with lyrics by Tom Lehrer. -- BRG (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This isn't a relist, but a different nomination. The original nomination was to merge category:Songs by Johnny Mercer, Category:Songs with music by Johnny Mercer and Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer into Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer as Johnny Mercer not only wrote music but even composed the music for at least one song he had had #1 hits singing. For somebody of Mercer's stature the solution is to listify which I have started at User:Richhoncho/mercer. To separate again into 3 different categories with the possibility of the creation of categories like Songs written by Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer is overcategorization to the nth degree.

The original nomination was chosen to get a concensus to merge people like Tom Lehrer, Hy Zaret, Frank Loesser and other people who wrote both or either music and lyrics, to avoid editors creating 2 categories for anybody who wrote both words and music, (i.e. David Bowie, Bob Seger, Mitch Murray, Roger Cook, etc.) whether singly or in a partnership and a general tidying up of the whole of Category:Songs by songwriter. If somebody only wrote lyrics or music then the category should and can reflect that (and I have created some categories accordingly). The problem arises when a writer like Mercer is notable for lyrics and/or music.

I do agree a concensus was not really apparent last time and hope a concensus can be reached this time. Please comment everybody. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a brand new issue raised here, which hasn't been mentioned up to now. To my knowledge, nobody has recommended categories like Songs written by Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer. I would put such a song into "Songs with music by Harold Arlen" and "Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer" -- and the fact that the song is in both would be categorization enough. -- BRG (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no reason that the list that you're making supersedes the category. See

  WP:CLN. -- BRG (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Absolutely no reason whatsoever. I would agree. Also, if it was only JM we were talking about I wouldn't have raised the matter here at all. My point is that with Mercer and some others, you could categorize by co-writer, by complete songs written, by lyrics, by music composition, by foreign songs with new lyrics by, and even songs where we don't know who contributed what and probably half-a-dozen other categories, in some other instances "songs credited as written by" have been suggested by other editors. This whole discussion is not about Mercer, but about Wikipedia and how it handles the whole of the songwriter categories. In an instance like Mercer categories are either overcategorization or a blunt instrument - which why I now advocate a list with a single category under "songwriter" - which would interlinked. The real question is do you want overcategorization throughout the songwriter categories with people who have only written one or to notable songs have 2 or 3 categories because the might contributed lyrics on one song, music on another and actually written one notable song by themselves, or do you want useful navigation? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – there are
  talk) 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename, though I must say that the name is wholly incomprehensible to someone unfamiliar with the topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and Turkish beyliks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to

• Support per nominator. Aramgar (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Lakes of Ireland. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Irish loughs to Category:Loughs of Ireland Category:Lakes of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename Merge. Just to make it consistent with all the other categories e.g. Lakes of xxx, Lochs of Scotland etc. Probably best considered with next entry. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – but how does this compare with
  talk) 17:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment Good point. BBC Radio weather reports for inland waters says "Lough", e,g, "Carlingford to Lough Foyle" (these are issued by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on behalf of the Met Office, but I was thinking more of the pronunciation). Is it being unneccessarily obtuse against "Loch" (wrong) and "Lake" acceptable? I am also thinking e.g. of Glendalough and wonder if there are others like that, that have such spelling in their name. SimonTrew (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. FWIW, "Lakes of Scotland" is only for things named "Lake X" or similar - everything else is in "Lochs of Scotland". I suspect the same sort of thing should be done here. BTW - does this category contain both the RoI and NI? Its current name suggests it might. If so, this is more a "Split between Category:Loughs of Ireland and Category:Loughs of Northern Ireland" than a direct rename. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just discovered Category:Straits of the British Isles I am going to carry out a complete review of these. I would prefer all freshwater bodies to be lakes, but it does not cause me any offence to have English lakes, Scottish Lochs, and Irish Loughs. The salt water features need to be separate from fresh water, but are estuaries different from sea lochs? And fjords have to be considered [see comments in cfm for Loch Eriboll]. I am aware of the polical/geographical differences so Ireland (to me) means the island, and RoI and NI need to have their own precise category. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Lakes of Ireland unless someone can definitively and objectively state how a lough differs from a lake. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator changing rename to merge. Having looked a bit further I agree it should be merged. Lough is linguistic and is no different from lake. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sea loughs to Category:Sea loughs of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All the entries are Irish and the category should reflect that. It is also makes it consistent with Category:Sea lochs of Scotland. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::Keep. They're freshwater loughs, not sea lochs, aren't they? SimonTrew (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. Sorry, my bad; having checked they are all sea loughs. I was a bit trigger happy, my first time here today. Comment above about loch/lough/lock should stand I am making a different point there (i.e. comment on whether just to say "lake") SimonTrew (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep

talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The categories Category:Iranian prisoners sentenced to death and Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by Iran seem basically tautologies and contain the same, few members (six). One should be deleted, I think. Please excuse me if I have not followed form I have checked as many notes as I could find but this seems slightly out of the bounds of all the rules (speedy rename, speedy delete etc)

I found this while cleaning up Delara Darabi. SimonTrew (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Fooian Boos" refers to the nationality of the person and "Boos by Foo" refers to the country. So "Iranian prisoners sentenced to death" would include all Iranians sentenced to death regardless of the country that issued the sentence and "Prisoners sentenced to death by Iran" would include everyone who Iran sentenced to death, regardless of the nationality of the person.
  talk) 16:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - these are in different category trees and in general will be different.
  talk) 19:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To make clear, this is not anti-Iran: the same probably applies for other countries; I just happened to stumble across an Iran-related article. I was going to live there once but the 1979 revolution intervened. SimonTrew (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also

talk) 23:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per Otto and Occuli. Totally different categories, not tautologies—even if in practical terms there is majority overlap. Wasn't this discussed once in the context of a pair of "Executed Fooian people" and a "People executed by Foo" categories? It seems familiar but I can't find the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto and Occuli. There was a long series of CFDs, DRV etc related to categories like this a few years, which all got v tangled as we tried to unravel a jumble of "Fooian Boos" and "Boos by Foo", and AFAICR it all got rather heated :( We now seem to have both, which may be a slightly cluttersome compromise, but at least it's stable ... and for countries the distinction really is important. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Iranians may be sentenced to death by someother country other than Iran; similarly non-Iranians may be sentenced to death by Iran - 2 different (potential) concepts, 2 cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs with lyrics by Charles Newman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another one entry can with no corresponding article. Richhoncho (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs with music by Edward Farley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only 1 entry in cat and no corresponding article. Richhoncho (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs composed by Matty Malneck to Category:Songs with music by Matty Malneck

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To harmonise with others in the category. Richhoncho (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As stated, to conform with other similar names. -- BRG (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Jessie Mae Robinson to Category:Songs written by Jessie Mae Robinson

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To rename to harmonise with others in category. Richhoncho (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I inadvertently created a lot of "Songs by X" as well as "Songs written by X" categories, and I agree that consistency is desirable. -- BRG (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Friedrich Hollaender to Category:Songs with music by Friedrich Hollaender

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with others in category. He is a composer. Richhoncho (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, conditionally. If the nominator's statement is correct that he is purely a composer, this is in accordance with my own comments re Johnny Mercer (where the same argument applies, though the nominator in this case disagrees with my position). -- BRG (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article suggests he is a composer, the single song listed in the cat he was a composer, if there was mix and match in respect of lyrics and/or music I would have chosen Category:Songs written by Friedrich Hollaender as the target category. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Was empty at close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Revolutions of 2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale:

Soxwon (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment – we just seem to have 3 other years with their own revolution categories:
  talk) 14:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom; the 1989 category seems dubious too. I imagine we have better categories covering this. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; there doesn't seem to be enough "revolutions" to warrant a whole category. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:21st-century revolutions and cleanup. Category:21st-century revolutions is the correct parent for several of the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Occuli and Vegaswikian. The article Revolutions of 2009 is at AfD. The article, this category and the one below were created only a few days ago by what appears to an SPA pushing a particular view of recent world events. I don't see any sign of 2009 turning out like 1848. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - give it a few more days and its only contents will be
  talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Unecessary, totally

Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep we have a 20th-century revolutions category, so it follows to have one for this century.Mimzy1990 (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)— Mimzy1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck out my SPA note as editor has made extensive edits in other topics since. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, that would make the list empty, and we should probably give it a little time before we just start deciding things were revolutions.
  Soxwon (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and weed out non-revolutions (unless it is then empty).
  talk) 15:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, as it would be. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Revolt and remove the non revolutions. Keep as a container category and part of a series. Then look into Category:Revolutions of 2009 which could be OK, but it is rather small. Clearly articles need to qualify as a revolution to be included. We should also consider the need to create Category:Technological revolutions, if we can create a non ambitious inclusion criteria, which would not roll up into this series. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete; ...until there are enough events to justify the category. Does its existence entice people to stretch the definition of revolution just to fill the category with events? Creating a category with intent to potentially fill it seems harmless, but I prefer to leave the creation until it is necessary and warranted. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being part of a series kind of says ignore the too few article argument. Now, if you can show that we will not have any revolutions in the next 91 years... Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a form of
  talk) 02:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - First, it is not clear whether political or technological or some other type of revolution is meant. If all types of revolution are meant, then it is not clear that they have enough in common wiht each other to be thrown into one category. Second, the century just started. It would be
  WP:SPECULATION to decide at this early date what will later be considered a revolution. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post-Cold War era (1991-2009) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Arbitrary, open-ended category. This makes as much sense as having a category for pre-Cold War era issues. Above all, entirely unnecessary.

PasswordUsername (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. There is a distinct Post-Cold War period making up either the time prior to 9/11 or prior to the late 2000s financial crisis.Mimzy1990 (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands it is too vague. I agree that the ending of the Cold War was a significant event but the entries appear to have no relevance to that event. Best left for sevearl years until we can see how history was affected. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Arbitrary to split at 1991, pre-cold-war era presumably is the beginning of time till 1991? And why stop at 2009? And what about 1991 itself? SimonTrew (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I guess someone considers that the cold war is back on as of this year - I guess I must have missed that in our current events section. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete

talk) 21:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Living anarchists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't divide categories for living and dead people into occupations, political beliefs, nationalities, etc. (The categories for living and dead people are primarily administrative categories, and don't need further subdivision.) Similarly, we don't divide people by occupations, political beliefs, nationalities, etc. into living and dead people. Cf. [1] [2]. No need to upmerge to Category:Anarchists since the articles are already divided amongst the subcategories of Category:Anarchists by nationality (and they are in Category:Living people as well). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per

PasswordUsername (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. We don't divide people cats by living/dead except for the living people cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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