Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7

< January 6	January 8 >

January 7

Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition

Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#Award_winners. There is already a list at Leeds International Pianoforte Competition, and no sign of any evidence that this is a particularly significant prize. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:: I don't think WP:OC#AWard-winners applies here, as winners of competitions (for example Category:Miss America winners or Category:Wimbledon champions) are not the same as winners of awards such as Nobel Prize etc. And it is a major music competition (winners include Dimitri Alexeev, Mitsuko Uchida, Murray Perahia, Radu Lupu and Rafael Orozco).--Karljoos (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The range of winners from different nationalities and their subsequent careers show it is a significant prize. Cjc13 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Karljoos, & the undoubted prominence of the competition - one of the top 3? in the world for pianists. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- just about prominent enough not to be struck donw by the usual answer to award categories -"listify and delete". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Karljoos--Pianoplonkers♫^(talk) 16:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. This clearly meets the requirements. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. This clearly meets the requirements. If there is a list , there should also be a category for this sort of thing; they serve different purposes in navigation. The list can give more information, such as dates of awards and country, but the category is more likely to be routinely added. I think WP:OC needs revision and so Ijustdidit, to reflect what I suggested above. Perhaps we can have a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's striking how many of the most important pianists of our day have been prizewinners in this competition. To Karljoos's list I would also like to add the very notable András Schiff. Opus33 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing alert. This discussion, and several related discussions, have been extensively and canvassed by the category creator (Karljoos (talk · contribs)) in these edits. I have left a notice here. At least three of the "keep" !voters here were amongst those canvassed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the messages were pretty neutrally worded, and were a good faith attempt by the category creator to alert people with expertise in the subject area to this discussion, which is a good thing. It would have been more appropriate to leave a single message at the relevant project(s), e.g. WikiProject Classical music, but I very much doubt that the response here would have been any different. As for my !vote, I'll remain Neutral, but this is certainly a major competition, and there's a good argument that these are equivalent in the classical music world to major sports competitions. It would be a good idea for the the relevant projects to address the lack of referencing and brevity of the articles about the competitions themselves. Voceditenore (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Additional comment On the whole, I think it would be beneficial for nominators to (neutrally) notify relevant projects of the discussion as soon as it's opened. I always do that in AfDs, e.g. [1]. I've seen too many decisions based on !votes from editors who haven't a clue about the subject matter. Voceditenore (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketers by century

Nominator's rationale: Delete, for much the same reasons as the rugby footballers nomination below. There are still largely unpopulated categories which seem to be one the latest descendants of Category:People by occupation and century. Whatever the merits of these categories in other parts of the category tree, it's a bad idea with cricket, for a number of reasons:

cricket players are already categorised by team, which groups players who had some connection with each other
if fully populated, these categories will be huge; too huge to be useful for navigation
splitting them further either requires creating a huge collection of triple or quadruple intersections such "20th century bowlers from India". That will be a maintenance nightmare
Even if split as above, many of the categories will still be too big to be useful. One solution is to split them by decades creating for example "1960s bowlers from Pakistan" ... but sportspeople's careers don't fit neatly into decades, so most players would end up in two or more by-decades categories, creating category clutter

I can't see any way of making these categories work, and it seems best to delete them now before someone goes to a lot of work populating them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it makes very little sense to nom a category for deletion, and say simultaneously that it is underpopulated and that it might become too large. If it does grow as it ought, it can be subdivided, as any other category, by any of several possible criteria. (I agree with BHG that decade does not seem sensible for exactly the reason she gives) This is the sort of articles that people are very likely to want to browse. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian soccer team categories

Propose renaming the following:

Category:Canadian soccer clubs in the MLS to Category:Canadian teams in Major League Soccer (original nomination)
Category:Canadian soccer teams in the American Professional Soccer League to Category:Canadian teams in the American Professional Soccer League (added as umbrella nom)
Category:Canadian soccer teams in the North American Soccer League to Category:Canadian teams in the North American Soccer League (added as umbrella nom)
Category:Canadian soccer teams in the United Soccer Leagues to Category:Canadian teams in the United Soccer Leagues (added as umbrella nom)

Nominator's rationale for MLS: Rename. (1) Expand abbreviation. (2) Match parents of Category:Major League Soccer teams and Category:Canadian soccer teams by league. — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale for other categories: Rename to remove redundant "soccer". Per Mayumashu's comment on original nom, I'm open to other suggested names that avoid the duplicate "soccer". — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Canadian soccer clubs in Major League Soccer. A 'Canadian team' could mean a national team. An alternative could be, as well, Category:Major League Soccer teams based in Canada. Mayumashu (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm open to the above change. If anyone has anything better, have at it! :) — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Addition to comment: Of Mayamushu's two changes above, I prefer "Major League Soccer teams based in Canada". — Dale[reply]

Polytechnic University of Madrid

Propose renaming Category:Polytechnic University of Madrid to Category:Technical University of Madrid

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was renamed in September 2009 (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 23). However, the rationale used to make such a renaming was wrong. The issue here is that, although the literal translation of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid is Polytechnic University of Madrid, they choose to do it as Technical University of Madrid (see copyrigh notice in here, at the bottom), possibly because in English, a "polytechnics" may refer to "a secondary education school focused in vocational training" (see Polytechnics) --Ecemaml (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not rename: Its current name is closer to the name of the university in Spanish is "Universidad Politécnica de Madrid".--Karljoos (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not being closer or not to the Spanish name but to the English name that the University has chosen. We shouldn't be a primary source. --Ecemaml (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The English version of the uni's website says Technical University. I support rename. --Karljoos (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian states

Paraná (state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating this category and its subcategories in a consistent way. There are other meanings of the word Paraná. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acre (state)

Propose renaming Category:Acre to Category:Acre (state)
Category:Cities, towns and villages in Acre State to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Acre (state)
Category:Rivers of Acre to Category:Rivers of Acre (state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose standardizing this category and its subcategories to match main article Acre (state). There are other meanings of the word Acre. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must be renamed to keep references to acre (a land measure) being added to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rio de Janeiro (state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest standardizing the names for this category and its subcategories to match the main article Rio de Janeiro (state). There are already some subcategories that use this format; these are the odd ones out. All categories refer t to the state, not the city. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

São Paulo (state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest standardising this category and subcategories to match main article São Paulo (state). Right now they are a mix-mash of naming formats. All categories refer to the state, not the city. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby footballers by century

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Still largely unpopulated categories which seem to be one the latest descendants of Category:People by occupation and century. Whatever the merits of these categories in other parts of the category tree, it's a bad idea with rugby, for a number of reasons:

rugby players are already categorised by team, which groups players who had some connection with each other
if fully populated, these categories will be huge; too huge to be useful for navigation
splitting them further either requires creating a huge collection of triple or quadruple intersections such "20th century rugby union forwards from Fiji". That will be a maintenace nightmare
Even if split as above, many of the categories will still be too big to be useful. One solution is to split them by decades creating for example "1960s rugby union forwards from Fiji" ... but sportspeople's careers don't fit neatly into decades, so most players would end up in two or more by-decades categories, creating category clutter

I can't see any way of making these categories work, and it seems best to delete them now before someone goes to a lot of work populating them. Note that the male categories are already the subject of a separate nomination below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the nom as usual provides a coherent multi-point rationale. I too don't see how these are going to work. I might possibly support the retention of Category:Rugby union players by century but certainly nothing more specific. (There is Category:Cricketers by century which suffers from the same characteristics; and no doubt we have Category:Male cricketers by century waiting on the production line.) Occuli (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Rugby union players by century and its immediate sub-cats but merge the specific ones by sex (male) and by position. The tree above is Category:Sportspeople by century, so a straight delete would only disrupt and not solve Mayumashu (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. That's not really a reason to keep, unless you presume that rugby players are going to be categorised by century, and it's merely a question of how specific a category to put them in. What is the purpose of categorising them by century? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as a means of navigation across this defining characteristic. Further subdivision should be considered. Alansohn (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Alansohn, have you considered the consequences of sub-division, and how many new categories would be created as a result? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Keep I think it makes very little sense to nom a category for deletion, and say simultaneously that it is underpopulated and that it might become too large. If it does grow as it ought, it can be subdivided, as any other category, by any of several possible criteria. (I agree with BHG that decade does not seem sensible for exactly the reason she gives) This is the sort of articles that people are very likely to want to browse. Doing this will take work, but there are forunately very many Wikipedians interested in this field. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operalia

Category:Operalia - Template:Lc1

Category:Operalia prize-winners - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for the Operalia competition for young opera singers. Currently contains the head article, it's founder, and a sub-category of prize-winners which fails WP:OC#Award-winners. There is already a full list of prize-winners in the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Operalia prize-winners:: I don't think WP:OC#AWard-winners applies here, as winners of competitions (for example Category:Miss America winners or Category:Wimbledon champions) are not the same as winners of awards such as Nobel Prize etc.--Karljoos (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree competitions are not awards. Unsure how defining this is - most bios mention it, but some, like Ainhoa Arteta, do not. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. It is not clear to me whether this does or does not meet the requirements. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State

Propose renaming Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State to ~~Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas State (Brazil)~~ Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas (Brazilian state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguation is needed since there is also Amazonas (Venezuelan state). (I would actually prefer Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas (Brazilian state) in order to match Amazonas (Brazilian state), but all the categories of settlements by Brazilian state seem to use "Cities, towns and villages in FOO State", when the names of the states don't really include the word "State" in them. This could be followed up later if necessary.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas (Brazilian state) per Good Ol’factory.--Karljoos (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amazonas (Brazilian state) to match title of parent article for state. Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I've realized that changing to the amended form was probably speediable under criterion #6 or #4. I'm OK for an admin to process it speedily at their discretion. I've speedily nominated the other categories in Category:Cities, towns and villages in Brazil. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment why would these be named anything other than 'settlements in foo', which is the WP standard collective name for 'cities, towns, villages' and other places where people live. Hmains (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cities, towns and villages" seems to be a common format for many of the African and South American countries at least. It might be a good idea to change them sometime. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, there is already a thinly populated Category:Settlements in Brazil which parents this category. Perhaps, instead of having these cats tagged and renamed when "Settlements" was being popularized, contributors found it easier to create the umbrella to tie in Neighborhoods and Metropolitan areas categories.- choster (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Settlements in Amazonas (Brazilian state). This is the normal solution and this does roll up into Category:Settlements in Brazil. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stuck in the Sound

Category:Stuck in the Sound - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: 'Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Eponymous category for the French indie rock band Stuck in the Sound. There's only one article on any of their music, which doesn't need its own albums category, and the the two articles (band & album) are already adequately interlinked. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the album should be in an albums subcat which I have created. (An album should be in Category:Albums by artist.) Occuli (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. I know that Category:Albums by artist is an established category, but even so is it worth creating a single-article category? I know way WP:OC#SMALL says, and I know that there are other single-article sub-categories of Category:Albums by artist (which I do not intend to propose for deletion!), but why is the single article-category useful? Surely anyone looking for the band's work will find it easier to directly to the article on the band? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that someone looking in Category:Albums by artist will find any album. There is Category:Novels by author which is similar. 'Album by Stuck in the Sound' is a defining characteristic, after all. (Via this I came across Category:Shoegazing albums which does seem highly dubious.) Occuli (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you think that's useful. And it sounds like Shoegazing Kids should be in Category:Shoegazing albums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fish nervous system

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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fish nervous system - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't know much about biology, but this doesn't sound like sort of language used by biologists. I will notify the relevant wikiproject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WikiProject Fishes and WikiProject Neuroscience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this category as a place to put Mauthner cell -- I'm a biologist (a neuroscientist, specifically), and I can assure you that the term is widely used -- searching Google Scholar or Google Books for the phrase "fish nervous system" will confirm this. The fish nervous system has a number of special features that make a distinct category appropriate, including the lateral line system and electrosensory system. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. In that case I'm surprised that fish nervous system is a redlink. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be forever -- right now I'm working on improving nervous system beyond Start class; that should give you an idea of the state of our neuroscience articles. I guess the question is whether to put things in a proper category from the start, or to have to recategorize things after article space is fleshed out. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to allow expansion of this appropriately-named category by the experts. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and consider re-nominating in the unlikely event that expansion does not occur. I can vouch for the fact that neuroscience pages are currently undergoing a lot of expansion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and on the basis that nominator admittedly doesn't "know much about biology" whereas the category creator does and thinks this is an appropriate category. Ill-advised nomination and this could probably be speedily kept to save time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I nominated this category because it had some of the characteristics of an ill-considered category: only one article, an implausible-sounding name, and no parent categories. It's good to have expert input, and to veify that I followed Looie596's suggestion, and checked Google Scholar and Google Books. The phrase does check out, so it's clearly a suitable encyclopedic topic. I have parented it for now under Category:Fish and Category:Nervous system (which may need refinement) ... but does it have any reasonable prospect of expansion in the near future? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to interfere with an ongoing CfD, but if this is settled, I'll at least add the things I mentioned. I think it should parent under "Fish anatomy" rather than "Fish", though, if that makes sense. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that sounds sorted. I'll withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition

Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition - Template:Lc1

Category:Prize-winners of the Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete Un-needed eponymous category for a music competition, which contains only the head article Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition and the prize-winners category, which itself should be deleted per WP:OC#Award_winners. The main article already includes a list of winners. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:: I don't think WP:OC#AWard-winners applies here, as winners of competitions (for example Category:Miss America winners or Category:Wimbledon champions) are not the same as winners of awards such as Nobel Prize etc.--Karljoos (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you may have noticed, neither of those two examples (Wimbledon and Miss America) are artistic. The overriding objective of a professional sportsperson is to win competitions, and the same applies to beauty queens; without any wins, they are nothing. But many of the people regularly listed as being among the world's greatest artists never won a prize for anything, and plenty of them never entered for a competition. Prize-winning is incidental to a musician's career: some win prizes and some don't win, and many never even enter.
  Prize-winning is simply not a defining characteristic of a musician; it's merely a bauble. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that it is not incidental to a classical musician's career. It is now a days probably the only way for a young soloist to make a name and get concert engagements.--Karljoos (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is nonsense, Bhg! Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Karljoos. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. This appears to meet the requirement--it's not as easy to tell as some, because many years no first prize was awarded. If there is a list , there should also be a category for this sort of thing; they serve different purposes in navigation. The list can give more information, such as dates of awards and country, but the category is more likely to be routinely added. I think WP:OC needs revision and so Ijustdidit, to reflect what I suggested above. Perhaps we can have a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing alert. This discussion, and several related discussions, have been extensively and canvassed by the category creator (Karljoos (talk · contribs)) in these edits. I have left a notice here. At least one of the "keep" !voters here were amongst those canvassed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition

Category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition - Template:Lc1

Category:Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#Award-winners. Categories are needed only for he most significant awards, and this does not appear to be one of them. There is already a list at List of Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition prize-winners.
The parent category Category:Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition contains only two articles (the competition plus the list), so it can be deleted per WP:OC#SMALL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition: This competition is a major music competition. It doesn't harm to have both a list and a category.--Karljoos (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence of its importance? The only reference in the article Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition is to the website of the foundation which organises it. There are 31 competitions listed at List of classical music competitions#Piano.2Fkeyboard, but nothing which asserts that this one is particularly important. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining accomplishment for the winners. Alansohn (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly is the evidence that this is a defining accomplishment? You say "defining" in response to almost every proposal to delete a category, so the unreferenced assertion doesn't carry much weight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not necessary to listify as we already have List of Paloma O'Shea International Piano Competition prize-winners. Lists do this job much better than categories. The creation of awards categories (except for very major awards, like nobel prizes) is discouraged. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alansohn--Pianoplonkers♫^(talk) 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far this seems like any other music competition. We have 172 of these plus likely hundreds more listed by sub categories. To claim that they are all defining seems to be stretching the limits of common sense. Not every one of these is defining enough to fall under the protections in WP:OC#Award-winners. The keep arguments seem to be arguing the point that any completion that a player wins should be a category since they are all defining for that person. I don't think that follows WP:CAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. This apparently meets the requirements. If there is a list , there should also be a category for this sort of thing; they serve different purposes in navigation. The list can give more information, such as dates of awards and country, but the category is more likely to be routinely added. I think WP:OC needs revision and so Ijustdidit, to reflect what I suggested above. Perhaps we can have a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization (For those who want to go by "defining," I interpret that as means it would be included in a brief description in a program guide. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing alert. This discussion, and several related discussions, have been extensively and canvassed by the category creator (Karljoos (talk · contribs)) in these edits. I have left a notice here. At least two of the "keep" !voters here were amongst those canvassed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Streets in Esfahan

Propose renaming Category:Streets in Esfahan to Category:Streets in Isfahan

Nominator's rationale: Per head article Isfahan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about suburbia

Category:Films about suburbia - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Firstly, suburbia is hardly a defining a characteristic of films over the last few decades. The category's intro says that it is for "films that pertain to suburbia to at least some degree", which is so broad that it could include any film with a few scenes set in suburbia. Any more precise definition would fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It cannot be denied that suburban existence is the central driver of The 'Burbs or Revolutionary Road, and I think it is indeed useful and informative to keep them linked. But other listings are not about suburbia so much as set there, or lazily equate suburbia with any bourgeois lifestyle or existence (including those in small towns or cities). But it is generally true that "Media by topic" categories get cluttered very quickly. Is the real star of Good Will Hunting the mathematics? Is the main theme of The Crucible capital punishment? Was Broken Arrow made to capture the essence of aviation, and is Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle commonly characterized as a martial arts film? There is cleanup required to be sure— not every film set in the suburbs is about suburbia, just as not every film with drugs is a drug-related films, if this entire branch in every medium is to be kept distinct from Category:Films by genre.- choster (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about The 'Burbs and Revolutionary Road, but wouldn't it be better to have a list, where the inclusion criteria could be references saying that films are actually about suburbia, rather than just set in it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm quite open to changing the description on the category page (I'm not entirely happy with it myself, and definitely did not intend it to include all films set in suburbia as that would be utterly unhelpful), which is of course something that can be discussed there. One possible model would be something along the lines of what we have at Category:Surrealist films (perhaps the only other category I've ever edited), the wording of which stemmed from a discussion of what makes a film "surrealist" or not (resulting in the phrase "significant surrealist elements"). It's not actually completely straightforward to say that a film is "about" suburbia, but I don't think it need be as obvious as The 'Burbs, or that "suburbia" be the primary or only topic of the film. For example The Ice Storm is a complex, layered film that is about a lot of things, including childhood and adolescence, marriage, the 1970s, sexual mores, etc., but "post-war suburbia" is clearly central to the film as well. I'm not sure how limited or capacious the category should be in scope, but again that can be discussed on the category talk page and adjusted as needed as more films are added. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this category, and admit to being perplexed by this deletion nomination, so forgive me for some lengthy thoughts. This category was just created, and I'm quite open (as I noted on the talk page) to altering the title and obviously the standards for inclusion, etc. etc. The fact that "suburbia is hardly a defining a characteristic of films over the last few decades" seem to me: A) A misapplication of the policy being invoked, as it seems to imply that the only categories we can have relating to films must be about defining characteristics of all films (which seems to simply not be the case when we have Category:Films about animals, Category:Films about chess, Category:Films about insects, and Category:Films about Halloween, among literally dozens of other similar cats, including Category:Films about cats (I took note of these before creating this new category—and obviously I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it's relevant that we routinely break films down into "about subject X" categories, including some unbelievably trivial ones); B) Not entirely true, as a number of the more well-regarded films of the last twenty years or so (including at least one best picture winner) are very much about the suburbs, and taking on the suburban milieu (often in an admittedly caricatured fashion, though that hardly matters) is a fairly common practice in contemporary film, particularly among American directors. I don't profess to be an expert on these category discussions, and my only other experience with one was frankly unpleasant, but categories should fundamentally be here to help readers, and if they can do that without misleading them then we should keep then. I created this category because I was looking for one like it. I'm teaching a college class on urban history this coming semester and was hoping to find a category that dumped me into a list of films made pertaining to suburbia which could be used in a writing assignment. At the very least, there are hundreds of people teaching urban and suburban history all over the U.S. who would find such a wiki category useful (as well might their students). The entries I included in the category are all films that are either patently about suburbia on the face, or which appeared on a couple of "best films about the suburbs" lists I found online (I can't find the source again at the moment, though it was just a way to kick some ideas into my head). The fact that "media by topic" categories get cluttered also seems not relevant to me, as one could spend days listing out "cluttered" categories. Categories need to be culled from time to time and/or the inclusion standards revised (or sub-categories created), but that fact is hardly cause for deletion. I would also note that this precise subject matter, films about suburbs, has been the topic of at least one (and I'm quite sure more than that) academic work, the abstract for which can be seen here. When we have a thirty page article in a peer-reviewed journal regarding films about suburbia (which itself pretty strongly suggests that defining the nature of the category need not be "arbitrary" as the nominator suggests), I think we can stomach one measly category, particularly given that there will obviously be people who find it useful if they, like me, are interested in looking up films which deal with suburbia. Unlike a lot of the categories on Wikipedia, which are often frankly completely useless and/or ridiculous, there's real scholarly and utilitarian underpinnings to this one, and questions about scope and what to include or not include can easily be resolved via the editing process and on the category talk page. If anyone has a serious argument that a category like this does not help make the encyclopedia more useful and navigable for readers than I'm all ears, but I don't find the narrow, somewhat policy wonkish arguments presented so far remotely convincing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the nominator's blanket statement, suburbia is a defining characteristic of films over the last few decades, and the films listed in the category scratch the surface of the topic that has been covered widely in popular and scholarly writing. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been so many suburban films that it's more of a common characteristic than a defining chaacteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an assertion BHG, and I don't think an accurate one, at least the way I'm defining "suburban films." Again, this category (as I see it), is definitely not about "any film set in the suburbs" (indeed we could/should mention that fact on the category page). Instead it would be for films "about suburbia", "pertaining largely to the suburbs," "incorporating significant thematic elements relating to suburbia," etc. (the precise wording is something that could be worked out). The latest Jennifer Aniston romcom or Judd Apatow funny manchild flick that happens to be set in a town with a bunch of malls but otherwise is just about the characters' love lives and/or wacky adventures most certainly do not belong in this category. Also as Alansohn says and as I pointed out with one quick link above, this is a topic of serious scholarship (hence an article in Urban Affairs Review subtitled, "The Suburb and Its Representation in American Movies"—the best thing about this discussion for me is coming across that article!), and that rather belies the assertion that "films about suburbia" is a too general characteristic, akin to "films set in the 20th century," or the like (no academic paper would ever be presented on "films set in the 20th century"). If the topic is appropriate for targeted scholarly analysis (as is clearly the case), it does not seem credible to me to suggest that we cannot have a category about it. Indeed if we wanted to be extreme/uber cautious, we could limit the category only to films which have received scholarly (or semi-scholarly) treatment as films about suburbia. I don't think that's really necessary, but it would be just one option in terms of limiting scope. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Addendum: Just a quick quote and explication from the article I mention above which is germane (incidentally I don't think the article is freely available online, but if anyone is interested I can e-mail them a copy as I've saved it—just send me an e-mail): "In fin de siècle American moviemaking, the suburbs emerged as a cinematic fixation." The article lists a number of films that fall under the suburban category, including some I've never heard of (e.g. Judy Berlin) and some obvious ones I forgot (e.g. The Truman Show) and as such if this category is retained I will be adding more movies to it. The authors also propose the terms "suburban set" ("suburban movies [that] could have been set elsewhere, usually in a small town...") and "suburban centered" (where "suburbia is so essential to a film's nature that it could not take place elsewhere without being fundamentally altered"—American Beauty, Pleasantville, and The Truman Show are among the examples). The "suburban centered" films are the ones I have in mind with this category and indeed that might be a useful phraseology (or even category title) to use to limn the category's scope (plus we could even cite it!). It would be very easy to write a full-blown article on this topic, but I'm not going to dive into that anytime soon and even with such an article a category like this would still be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are not presenting an argument to keep Category:Films about suburbia, but rather indicating that a "suburban film" is a distinctive genre. And I'm fine with that, but in that case this no longer belongs in Category:Films by topic, but Category:Films by genre, and it will be hard to fend off deletion in the absence of a reliably sourced main article that outlines its distinctions. I as a layman don't understand why Grosse Pointe Blank belongs here, for example; being unfamiliar with Detroit geography, when I saw the former for the first time I assumed that Grosse Pointe was a small town, to no detriment. Because there's no way to attach citations to a categorization, it must be in some sense natural, either explained in the article or constructed in a way non-experts can understand. But many of the articles listed in the category don't mention a suburb, the suburbs, or the notion of suburbia at all; a suburban school or home is simply the setting, and that doesn't make a film "about" something. I'm not questioning your intentions or knowledge, but I am saying that this may be one of those cases where categorization should have waited until a main article and list could be written.- choster (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure where you're getting that I'm arguing that "suburban film" is a distinctive genre. It isn't (to my mind at least, but I'm not a film expert), and I'm certainly not arguing that. The academic article I cite above is indeed arguing that suburbia has been a topic covered in films, not that there is some sort of "nouveau suburbia" genre per say (indeed it makes the point that suburbia is a topic covered in different film genres—horror, comedy, drama, etc.). So you're simply mischaracterizing or misreading the argument here. I agree that there might well be some films which should not be in the category without specific mentions of suburbia in the article text (which is the second half of your argument), but that is obviously not a reason to delete the category (and you yourself support keeping it above, as does everyone except the nom). Frankly I don't understand how the fact that you do not know that Grosse Pointe is a suburb (a rather famous one incidentally) has any bearing here. Obviously categories "must be in some sense natural", but I'm really not sure what that means to you. Grosse Pointe Blank is set entirely in a suburb and deals in significant measure with residents of and life in that town (apparently, I've never seen it). If a reader at that article did not know Gross Pointe was a suburb, they could click on the town article and figure that out pretty quickly (I could also easily add the word "suburb" to the article on the film), and the plot description makes it clear what the film is "about." It's debatable as to how much one needs to discuss a given subject in an article in order to warrant a category being applied, but this is an issue for all categories and not just this one. I would agree that a general article on this topic would be good, but it would not help much in terms of the category since it would discuss a general phenomenon more than specific films. Similarly the existence of a list article would not prevent inappropriate films from being added to the "films about suburbia" category. Improper use of categories (and categories being created which are useless) happens all over Wikipedia, and I would argue that considerably more thought has actually gone into this one (I've added 15 films to the category since this discussion began, all of which are discussed in an academic article on films about suburbia). I still see no real argument for deletion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I essentially agree with the nominator, and even think that most of the "films about" categories are problematic for similar reasons. "Films that pertain to suburbia to at least some degree", is so broad so as to be meaningless. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, and as I mentioned above, I'm completely willing to rework the phrasing "films that pertain to suburbia to at least some degree" and indeed agree it's too broad (it's a new category, and that was just the initial effort at characterizing it). "Pertaining largely to the suburbs" and "incorporating significant thematic elements relating to suburbia" (I think the second would be better) were mentioned above as possible alternative formulations for the text that would describe the scope of the category. Actually I would have changed it by now, but figured it was worthwhile to let this discussion continue so that people could respond to the above suggestions or propose their own alternative language. The point though is that it would be fairly easy to limit the scope of the category simply by altering the description on the category page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed definitions are too subjective for my tastes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The general subject of a movie is a defining characteristic, and any such category that makes any reasonable amount of sense should do. The old title is good enough. Quibbling about the exact title & definition for a category where there is unlikely to be reader confusion is not the best use of time. there have more important things here (such as the critical problem of trying to find sources for unsourced BLPs) than removing possibly ambiguous and totally harmless categories like this. Perhaps the standard for deletion should be like user names: they have to actually harm the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Keep" because there's better things to worry about? That's a new one to me! If we did work that was only "the best use of time" that is focused on "critical problems", we'd shut the entire project down. So says the rest of the world. I suppose this comment isn't that new though—to me it seems like a rephrasing of WP:HARMLESS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni by university or college in Ireland

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename per WP:CFD/S#Speedy_criteria C2.4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming 2 sub-categories of Category:Alumni by university or college in Ireland, as listed below:

Nominator's rationale: - To match the other sub-cats with the standard Alumni of [Institution Name] formulation. Snappy (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: per nom.--Karljoos (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renames to match the "Alumni of Foo U" standard used in the parent category. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition

Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition - Template:Lc1

Category:Besançon International Music Festival - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete the prize-winners per WP:OC#Award_winners and the convention that lists are adequate for all except the most notable awards. Thee is already a list at International Besançon Competition for Young Conductors. With that category gone, the parent Category:Besançon International Music Festival contains only two articles, both alreadyy interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see any need to delete this category. It gives good access to a complete list of winners--Karljoos (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply but there's already a full list at International Besançon Competition for Young Conductors, and that article will presumably be linked from each article on a prize-winner. What extra does the category do? It's just a bare list of names, which gives less info than the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Listify and~~ delete -- the usual solution for awards categories, but list already exists. Lists do the job much better than categories as they list the winners in chronological order. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify My criterion for these is whether many of the winners have gone on to become notable, as judged by their having Wikipedia articles or clearly qualifying for them. This clearly does not meet that requirements. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing alert. This discussion, and several related discussions, have been extensively and canvassed by the category creator (Karljoos (talk · contribs)) in these edits. I have left a notice here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zeebo games

Propose renaming Category:Zeebo games to Category:Zeebo-only games

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Xbox 360-only games and Category:PlayStation 3-only games –xeno^talk 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Category:Xbox 360-only games is a subcat of Category:Xbox 360 games, so Category:Zeebo games seems to me to be an equivalent of Category:Xbox 360 games. I don't see anything to indicate that Category:Zeebo games consists only of games solely for the Zeebo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. BHG is correct - indeed Street Fighter Alpha is not a Zeebo-only game. The correct procedure would be to create the subcat Category:Zeebo-only games and populate it accordingly. (Nothing to do with cfd.) Occuli (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to reflect standard of other games by platform. Alansohn (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male rugby footballers

Propose

Delete Category:Male rugby footballers - Template:Lc1
Merge

Nominator's rationale. As the articles Rugby union and Women's rugby union make clear, rugby union has historically been overwhelmingly a male game, and despite the growth in women's rugby over the last few decades, it remains so. That means that there is a good case for creating Category:Female rugby union players, even though it currently contains only 4 articles. Per WP:Cat/gender, a female category does not need to be balanced directly against a male category where the vast majority of people in the group are male. All these male categories do is complicate the category tree, with no benefit to readers. In this case, these categories have not been heavily populated: so far as I can see, these 8 categories currently contain only 3 or 4 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rugby union and WikiProject Rugby league both notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete as necessary. While breaking out the women in a male-dominated area like rugby indeed makes sense, the reverse accomplishes little but cluttering up the category tree. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sentiments as soon as I saw the branches yesterday. Male dominated sport in which the categories offer little insight. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete as necessary G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 09:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This isn't relevant to this discussion so much as to whoever is closing this debate, but I checked the categories again, there actually only 2 articles (Aaron Carpenter & Al Charron) in these categories. If the male categories are removed from those two players, then the category tree is empty ... so there's no need for any merges. Just delete all the nominated categories. --12:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge/Delete as necessary. Mayumashu seems to be making a cruel jest, ruthlessly combining 2 unnecessary ideas ('by century' and the male/female thing). Occuli (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are done, I suggest deleting the rugby-players-by-century categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By-century categories now nominated above: see Rugby footballers by century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete as necessary per above comments. BTW, make that 5 articles in the "Female rugby union players" category... I'm surprised that Farah Palmer wasn't in that category until I added her! — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historic constituencies in Ireland

Suggest renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). Along with Category:Historic constituencies in County Galway, these were actually the only sub-categories of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) until I created the rest of the categories a few hours ago. Although the "convention" is one that I have just created, it seems best to standardise the names. All these categories wee created by me, except Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming Snappy (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- oversplitting does not really do any one any good. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment may I point out that User:Mrchris, the original creator of Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny has already emptied the category and has added the respective articles to Category:Historic constituencies in County Kilkenny. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support & Comment, as the original creator of Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny I aggree with comments made above, I see no disagreement on change. Sorry I emptied the category and acting before pending discussion. I bow to BrownHairedGirl when it comes to irish categorys. Mrchris (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parliament of Ireland constituencies in County Kilkenny

Suggest merging Category:Parliament of Ireland constituencies in County Kilkenny to ~~Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny~~ Category:Historic constituencies in County Kilkenny and Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of Ireland (to 1800)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need to split either category. There were only about 150 constituencies of the Parliament of Ireland, so they all fit neatly on one page. Category:Historic constituencies of County Kilkenny will only contain only 13 articles after the merger, so there is no need for it to be split. All Irish constituencies are interlinked by per-county navigation templates, so navigation is already well-provided for. Standard disambiguators are applied to constituencies for each of the three parliaments in Irish history (the pre-1800 Parliament of Ireland, the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801-1922, and Dáil Éireann since 1919), so anyone reading the category lists in the historic-constituencies-by-county constituencies can see which parliament each constituency article relates to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging Snappy (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- oversplitting does not really do any one any good. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Note. Category has been depopulated by the category creator, apparently per the proposed merger. See the discussion above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]