Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 23: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:49, 23 April 2012 editBrownHairedGirl (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →Category:History of Albania during Ottoman administration: Wouldn't a reverse merge be better?← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:18, 23 April 2012 edit undoOd Mishehu (talk \| contribs)107,223 edits →Category:Sports in the Marshall Islands: relist discussion from Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 15#Category:Sports in the Marshall Islands Next edit →
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====		==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====
	<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->		<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->
			==== Category:Sports in the Marshall Islands ====
			:'''Propose merging''' ] to ]
			:'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Merge'''. Merging two existing categories; unification with the other categories in ]. ] (]) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
			:'''support''' speedy close if possible. this one looks like a no brainer. --] (]) 19:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Certainly merge''' -- preferable as nom, since most sibling categories are singular. If not reverse merge. ] (]) 20:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Speedy merge, close, delete''' per nom. -- ] (] - ]) 21:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Speedy''' support. ] (]) 21:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Reverse merge''' As a former possession of the United States, the Marshall Islands use the "sports" form.] (]) 05:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Reverse merge'''. As an associated state of the United States, the Marshall Islands uses American English, as JPL points out. The change to "sport" for this country was ] and rejected. ] is a recent mis-creation. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Reverse merge''' as per JPL and GOF. ] (]) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Reverse merge and leave a soft redirect''' so this doesn't happen again. ] (]) 02:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
			*Clearly a '''reverse merge''' based on the comments supporting this. ] (]) 17:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
			<hr style="width:55%;" />
			:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br />
			:'''Relisting comment:''' Consensus seems to be leaning towards a reverse merge; tagging target and relisting to make sure that users viewing that category will be aware of the discussion and be able to give their opinions. ] ] 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
			:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] ] 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
			<hr style="width:55%;" />


	==== Category:Reed aerophones ====		==== Category:Reed aerophones ====
	:'''Propose merging''' ] to ]		:'''Propose merging''' ] to ]

Revision as of 14:18, 23 April 2012

< April 22	April 24 >

April 23

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Sports in the Marshall Islands

Propose merging Category:Sports in the Marshall Islands to Category:Sport in the Marshall Islands

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merging two existing categories; unification with the other categories in Category:Sport by country. Gumruch (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

support speedy close if possible. this one looks like a no brainer. --KarlB (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly merge -- preferable as nom, since most sibling categories are singular. If not reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Speedy merge, close, delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Speedy support. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Reverse merge As a former possession of the United States, the Marshall Islands use the "sports" form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Reverse merge. As an associated state of the United States, the Marshall Islands uses American English, as JPL points out. The change to "sport" for this country was discussed in 2008 and rejected. Category:Sport in the Marshall Islands is a recent mis-creation. Good Ol’factory 05:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Reverse merge as per JPL and GOF. Mayumashu (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Reverse merge and leave a soft redirect so this doesn't happen again. LeSnail (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a reverse merge based on the comments supporting this. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be leaning towards a reverse merge; tagging target and relisting to make sure that users viewing that category will be aware of the discussion and be able to give their opinions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Reed aerophones

Propose merging Category:Reed aerophones to Category:Reedpipes

Nominator's rationale: In the Hornbostel–Sachs classification system, 'reed aerophone' is a synonym of 'reedpipe' and both they are designated as 422. Tijd-jp (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Revere merge per head article reed aerophone. I know little about the topic, but a quick peek at the relevant Misplaced Pages articles confirms that the two terms appear to be synonymous, so a merger is justified ... but the category name should match the title of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:History of Albania during Ottoman administration

Propose merging Category:History of Albania during Ottoman administration to Category:Ottoman Albania

Nominator's rationale: Merge (or reverse merge) I believe the two categories have the same intended scope. There's no consistency within Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by country so I'm proposing a merge to the oldest and the most populated of the two Albania categories. Pichpich (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: Wouldn't a reverse merge be better? "Ottoman Albania" could be a geographical category, but the current title clarifies that it it is a historical category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old Westminsters

Propose renaming: Category:Old Westminsters to Category:People educated at Westminster School, London

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC and note below) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Misplaced Pages is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.

The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. Since 305 "Old Fooian" categories have been renamed in 82 separate CfDs, this convention is now used by by all but 11 of the ~1,045 people-by-school categories in the UK. It adds a geogrpahical disambiguator to distinguish the London school from the many other similarly-named schools listed at Westminster School (disambiguation).

Westminster School is one of the most prominent public schools in the United Kingdom. However, the term "Old Westminsters" is highly ambiguous. Westminster (disambiguation) list many different meanings, and an "old Westminster" could refer to all sorts of things, such as an old Westminster car or an old Westminster helicopter. The ambiguity is demonstrated by the fact that a Google News search for the singular form "Old Westminster" throws up masses of false positives. As shown by the table below, the plural term "Old Westminsters" is much less widely-used than the the Old Fooian terms for the two most prominent schools, Eton and Harrow.

Articles	Category	CER	School	GNews hits school name	GNews hits "Old Fooian"	Notes	GNews hits "Old FooianS"	Notes
360	Old Carthusians	C R	Charterhouse School	703	97	Abbout 35 of these hits refer old Old Cathusian monks, Old Carthiusian monsateries etc	76	Some of these hits are for the eponymous sports club
285	Old Cliftonians	R	Clifton College	1240	36		28	Hits mostly relate to the eponymous sports club
2437	Old Etonians	C E	Eton College	7930	4290		1210
738	Old Harrovians	R	Harrow School	2980	417		78
188	Old Malvernians	R	Malvern School	287	7		27	At least 13 of the 27 hits are for the sports club
354	Old Marlburians	E	Marlborough College	2370	27		12
113	Old Radleians	R	Radley College	562	8		16
445	Old Rugbeians	C R	Rugby School	3730	26		20
208	Old Salopians	C R	Shrewsbury School	1630	38		10
646	Old Westminsters	C E	Westminster School	11,000	4210	Masses of false positives for "Old Westminster" and "Westminster school"	37
602	Old Wykehamists	C R	Winchester College	1420	38		20

In previous discussions, some editors have expressed a preference for retaining "Old Fooian" category names for prominent schools. However, there has been a consensus to rename such categories where the "Old Fooian" terms is obscure or ambiguous, including:

24 renamed categories for Old Fooians from prominent schools

Articles	Category	Old Fooian term	School	CER	CfD
112	People educated at Ampleforth College	Old Amplefordians	Ampleforth College		CfD 2012 March 19
76	People educated at Bradfield College	Old Bradfieldians	Bradfield College	R	CfD 2012 March 31
61	People educated at Bryanston School	Old Bryanstonians	Bryanston School	E	CfD 2012 March 31
170	People educated at Cheltenham College	Old Cheltonians	Cheltenham College	R	CfD 2012 February 29
152	People educated at Christ's Hospital	Old Blues	Christ's Hospital		CfD 2012 April 2
100	People educated at Downside School	Old Gregorians	Downside School		CfD 2012 February 21
250	People educated at Dulwich College	Old Alleynians	Dulwich College	E	CfD 2012 April 7
104	People educated at Fettes College	Old Fettesians	Fettes College		CfD 2012 March 19
215	People educated at Gresham's School	Old Greshamians	Gresham's School		CfD 2012 April 14
104	People educated at Highgate School	Old Cholmeleian	Highgate School	E	CfD 2012 February 22
148	People educated at King's College School, Wimbledon	Old King's	King's College School	E	CfD 2011 August 17 and 2010 November 29
193	People educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood	Old Merchant Taylors	Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood	C	CfD 2012 February 11
111	People educated at Millfield	Old Millfieldians	Millfield		CfD 2012 March 19
24	People educated at Monkton Combe School	Old Monktonians	Monkton Combe School	R	CfD 2012 March 31
50	People educated at St Edward's School, Oxford	Old St Edwards	St Edward's School, Oxford	R	CfD 2012 February 11
74	People educated at Oundle School	Old Oundelians	Oundle School	R	CfD 2012 March 31
245	People educated at St Paul's School, London	Old Paulines	St Paul's School, London	C E	CfD 2012 February 26
107	People educated at Stowe School	Old Stoics	Stowe School	R	CfD 2012 February 9
75	People educated at The King's School, Canterbury	Old King's Scholars	The King's School, Canterbury	E	CfD 2012 March 6
144	People educated at Repton School	Old Reptonians	Repton School	R	CfD 2012 March 31
122	People educated at Sherborne School	Old Shirburnians	Sherborne School	E	CfD 2012 March 31
122	People educated at Tonbridge School	Old Tonbridgians	Tonbridge School, Kent	E	CfD 2012 February 28
185	People educated at University College School	Old Gowers	University College School, London	E	CfD 2012 February 25
135	People educated at Uppingham School	Old Uppinghamians	Uppingham School	R	CfD 2012 March 31

^ C = "Clarendon Group" of schools reformed by the Public Schools Act 1868; E = Eton Group; R = Rugby Group

Note that in previous discussions of "Old Fooian" categoiries, some editors who appear not to have read WP:NDESC have claimed that the full phrase "People educated at Foo School" must be sourced. This is incorrect: WP:NDESC explicitly says that such titles "are often invented specifically for articles", and that is the case here, where a plain English phrase is combined with the WP:COMMONNAME of the school. (A further paragraph of NDESC refers to the use of non-neutral terms in titles, which does not apply here). However, if editors do want sourcing despite the lack of a requirement for it, then please note that a Google News search for the phrase "Educated at Westminster School" throws up 87 hits, which is more than twice as many as the 37 Gnews hits for the jargon term "Old Westminsters".

Descriptive titles are used in tens of thousands of Misplaced Pages categories, including the closely-related example of the heavily-populated Category:People by city. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (Old Westminsters)

Category:Yes (band) Yessongs

Propose deleting: Category:Yes (band) Yessongs - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a pointless category for one album, which is un-needed because the relevant articles are already adequately interlinked.
See also the related discussion further down this page about Category:Yes (band) Yessongs songs. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep The category includes a subcategory of the notable media (cover, and 4 Roger Dean paintings) and a subcategory of songs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete – I am sure that the 'songs' subcat is redundant, whether in jest or not, and I would probably upmerge Category:Yes (band) Yessongs album covers as well. (All these names are wrong and should simply be Category:Yessongs etc, as the album is Yessongs.) Oculi (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
As noted below, the title reflects the category creator's desire to indulge in what he described as "horseplay" with category names. The WP:POINTiness may be grounds for speedying the deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Johann Strauss II

Propose deleting: Category:Johann Strauss II - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories are discouraged--only contains main article and one subcat. Why does this exist? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Watches (specific model)

Propose renaming Category:Watches (specific model) to Category:Watch models

Nominator's rationale: Natural disambiguation, matches category:Watch brands. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with the nominator in principle, but the proposed rename could be easily misread as "model watches". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Model watch" as in "model aircraft"? I'm not even sure those exist so the probability of confusion seems pretty slim. Pichpich (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  - It seems that model watches do exist. A Google search for "model watch" mostly returns results relating to the fashion models, but a search for "model watch mechanism" throws up lots of results.
    How about a rename to Category:Models of watches? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Supergroups

Propose renaming Category:Supergroups to Category:Supergroup (music)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article and remove ambiguous current name. I also wonder how subjective the inclusion criteria is? So deletion could be on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Supergroups (music), per nominator but with the noun pluralised because this is a set category of supergroups, rather than a topic category articles on the topic of supergroup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Slovene painters

Propose merging Category:Slovene painters to Category:Slovenian painters

Nominator's rationale: Merge.

This was an opposed speedy, and raises an issue that could become confusing. The copy of the speedy nomination should be read for full context of the nomination. This particular category is for ethnic Slovene painters; the suggested target is for painters of Slovenian nationality. The merge was opposed on the grounds that we need the distinction because the concept of a Slovenian nationality did not emerge until the 1840s. However, it was countered that in WP categorization, we categorize Dante Alighieri as "Italian" even though there was no Italian nationality at the time, and the same goes for most other nationalities. I agree with this basic approach when it comes to categories, which is a relatively blunt instrument to describe someone's national/ethnic background and group it with others. The difficult subtlties are best dealt with by actual article text, not by categories with extremely fine distinctions.
At the time of the speedy nomination, this was an isolated issue, with only one article being categorized as "Slovene", but following the discussion below, the user who opposed the merge created a fairly expansive new structure of "Slovene FOOs" categories, which sometimes involved the emptying out of corresponding "Slovenian FOOs" category. So this is a bit of a test case to get a broader view of what we are going to do with this new Slovene/Slovenian dual categorization scheme. Right now, the parent categories for both are Category:Ethnic Slovene people and Category:Slovenian people.
Adding further complication to the issue is the fact that most dictionary definitions of "Slovene" include a definition that is equivalent to the meaning of "Slovenian" on Misplaced Pages, and in many cases the two different words are simply treated as synonyms. Good Ol’factory 04:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

copy of speedy discussion
Category:Slovene painters to Category:Slovenian painters – per C2B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Oppose: I disagree. There was no 'Slovenian nationality' in the time when Franz Caucig (member of category) lived, the concept of Slovenia emerged only in 1840s. He was a Gorizian painter by nationality and Slovene painter by ethnicity (this is notable, because he achieved the highest position of them). He is not the only one, because there were numerous Slovene painters before 1840s. In addition, there are minority members in Italy and Hungary that I feel reluctant to include in the category by nationality. --Eleassar 10:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Comment - there was no Italian nationality when Giotto or Dante Alighieri were around, and no British nationality when Chaucer and Shakespeare were around, but you will still find those people in Italian and UK cats/subcats. Whether or not we ought to is a question for another day! --Mais oui! (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Given that Franz Caucig is the only article found in the entire Category:Slovene people tree, it's probably the type of thing we should just merge to the Category:Slovenian people tree. Good Ol’factory 04:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Or we should populate the category. Per WP:CAT: "Categorization must be verifiable" and "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial." So because 'Slovenian painters' (by nationality) is controversial and unsourced, if this category is deleted, only 'Gorizian painters' remains, and this introduces bias, because a main characteristic of the subject is ignored. I also don't see anywhere written that a category must have a minimum number of members (except for being empty). --Eleassar 10:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I'd be more inclined to just treat the Slovenian nationality as we tend to treat other nationalities in categorization, per Mais oui's comment above. I don't think doing so would be broadly controversial. Good Ol’factory 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC) From the point of view of experts (historians), it is controversial (as may be seen e.g. from my talk page regarding the nationality of Trubar), and it is unsourced. --Eleassar 09:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC) I think when we say "controversial", we mean controversial within WP among the consensus of its editors, not controversial in a group claimed by a WP editor. I doubt it would be controversial to the former. Good Ol’factory 03:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Historians participate here too. --Eleassar 11:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I realise that. My point is this: I don't think merging it as proposed will be controversial to the WP community as a whole. Good Ol’factory 02:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC) I disagree, per stated above: historians participate here too. --Eleassar 22:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Er, yes ... didn't you write that immediately above? That was the same comment I was referring to. Or is this a competition as to who can say present their argument the most times, or last? Good Ol’factory 06:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC) He could be included in the “Slovenian” category, as many countries are regarded as existing before their unification/creation, with Australia having an article and category for 1788. Many present-day countries were only unified in the 19th century (Canada, Germany, Italy) or 20th century (Australia, South Africa). Hugo999 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC) In light of the large issues involved here, I strongly suggest that this decision take place pursuant to a Full CFD discussion that includes the entire category tree. Cgingold (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC) That wouldn't be too difficult a nomination to start, as the "tree" consists of one article categorized amongst four categories in total. Good Ol’factory 04:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC) If you want this to happen, it should happen soon, or this speedy nomination will be closed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

copy of speedy discussion

Category:Slovene painters to Category:Slovenian painters – per C2B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: I disagree. There was no 'Slovenian nationality' in the time when Franz Caucig (member of category) lived, the concept of Slovenia emerged only in 1840s. He was a Gorizian painter by nationality and Slovene painter by ethnicity (this is notable, because he achieved the highest position of them). He is not the only one, because there were numerous Slovene painters before 1840s. In addition, there are minority members in Italy and Hungary that I feel reluctant to include in the category by nationality. --Eleassar 10:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - there was no Italian nationality when Giotto or Dante Alighieri were around, and no British nationality when Chaucer and Shakespeare were around, but you will still find those people in Italian and UK cats/subcats. Whether or not we ought to is a question for another day! --Mais oui! (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that Franz Caucig is the only article found in the entire Category:Slovene people tree, it's probably the type of thing we should just merge to the Category:Slovenian people tree. Good Ol’factory 04:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Or we should populate the category. Per WP:CAT: "Categorization must be verifiable" and "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial." So because 'Slovenian painters' (by nationality) is controversial and unsourced, if this category is deleted, only 'Gorizian painters' remains, and this introduces bias, because a main characteristic of the subject is ignored. I also don't see anywhere written that a category must have a minimum number of members (except for being empty). --Eleassar 10:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to just treat the Slovenian nationality as we tend to treat other nationalities in categorization, per Mais oui's comment above. I don't think doing so would be broadly controversial. Good Ol’factory 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

From the point of view of experts (historians), it is controversial (as may be seen e.g. from my talk page regarding the nationality of Trubar), and it is unsourced. --Eleassar 09:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think when we say "controversial", we mean controversial within WP among the consensus of its editors, not controversial in a group claimed by a WP editor. I doubt it would be controversial to the former. Good Ol’factory 03:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Historians participate here too. --Eleassar 11:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I realise that. My point is this: I don't think merging it as proposed will be controversial to the WP community as a whole. Good Ol’factory 02:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, per stated above: historians participate here too. --Eleassar 22:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, yes ... didn't you write that immediately above? That was the same comment I was referring to. Or is this a competition as to who can say present their argument the most times, or last? Good Ol’factory 06:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

He could be included in the “Slovenian” category, as many countries are regarded as existing before their unification/creation, with Australia having an article and category for 1788. Many present-day countries were only unified in the 19th century (Canada, Germany, Italy) or 20th century (Australia, South Africa). Hugo999 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In light of the large issues involved here, I strongly suggest that this decision take place pursuant to a Full CFD discussion that includes the entire category tree. Cgingold (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be too difficult a nomination to start, as the "tree" consists of one article categorized amongst four categories in total. Good Ol’factory 04:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want this to happen, it should happen soon, or this speedy nomination will be closed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - not only was there "no Italian nationality at the time" of Alighieri, there was no "nationality" (in the legal sense) full stop. To take another slant, yesterday I was horrified to discover that Misplaced Pages was describing the Roanoke Colony as a "British colony" (sic) in its Infobox and categories (although thankfully not in the actual article text). Now this was122 years prior to the establishment of the British state, and over 350 years prior to the legal invention of UK citizenship. So, how on earth those poor men, women and children could ever be called "British" colonists is totally beyond my comprehension. Misplaced Pages is, I'm afraid, jam-packed full of such idiocies. I blame the very early Users who first decided to categorise by nationality alone, and not by citizenship too. Please note that our wiser colleagues at WikiMedia Commons have Category:People of the United Kingdom, cat:People of the United States etc. This is a very intelligent and useful scheme and ought to be adopted here, in addition to our categorisation by nationality. For example, Bermudan people are British, but are currently excluded from all our British biography cats. Now, they ought to be excluded from all our UK biography cats, but never from our British cats. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Orders with sash worn on the left shoulder

Propose deleting: Category:Orders with sash worn on the left shoulder - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems like a trivial characteristic. Good Ol’factory 03:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom as a classic piece of trivia, which should be added to WP:OC#TRIVIA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Yes (band) Yessongs songs

Propose merging Category:Yes (band) Yessongs songs to Category:Yes (band) songs

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I believe that we have had consensus in the past not to subcategorize songs by particular album. This is an example of such a subcategorization—Yessongs is a particular album. I suggest upmerging to the parent category that contains all songs by the band. Good Ol’factory 03:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Upmerge – one of KW's little jests, I suspect. Oculi (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Upmerge per nominator, and per WP:SMALLCAT's warning against "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". The exception of categories which "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" does not apply here, because there is no Category:Songs by album.
Since the creation was clearly WP:POINTy, this could be speedied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep There are notable images in the album's other associated category. Please reduce the AGF violations and hypocrisy, BrownHairedGirl and Oculi. I discussed these categories within the last fortnight with G.O. Factory, after he too quickly (as he admitted, but perhaps justly, as I'll admit for fairness) deleted another category, as patent nonsense. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:AGF, I am required to sustain the assumption of good faith in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Your intentions in respect of these categories were made very clear on your talkpage on 5 April, when you wrote I can propose redundant categories as a rhetorical ploy to make the proposer of the Yes-renaming a bit uncomfortable, or one hopes to smile at the occasional absurdities consequent upon consistent application of a WP heuristic. The "Yes (band) (band)" suggestion was horseplay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Artists' muses

Propose deleting: Category:Artists' muses - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Calling someone a "muse" for an artist or writer is often a subjective call. We've deleted categories very similar to this in the past: Fashion muses; Muses of famous writers, but the discussions have not been heavily participated in. I'm wondering where we should go with this type of category. Good Ol’factory 03:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Television series by HIT Entertainment

Propose renaming Category:Television series by HIT Entertainment to Category:Television series by Hit Entertainment

Nominator's rationale: Correcting capitalization per WP:MOSCAPS. Trivialist (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per company name, which uses "HIT" (all caps). The logo capitalises the last letter of "HiT", but not the middle, but that does not reflect the company's own uses in text. The head article should be renamed to HIT Entertainment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Note. I have opened a move discussion on the head article, at Talk:Hit Entertainment#Requested_move, proposing to move it to "HIT Entertainment". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)