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.
Nominator's rationale: (expanded rationale added later) Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consensus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstrated at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople). Sportspeople are categorised in many other ways, such as nationality, and there is no navigational benefit to readers from taking all the articles dispersed over those categories and splitting them into two large groups.
The CfD for racehorse owners & breeders did not support the principle of retaining 20th and 21st-century categories even for those involved in much older sports. However, there is more support for 19th-century categories of sportspeople, so I have listed Category:19th-century tennis players in a separate nomination below. Note that per Tennis#History, the game only took on its current form in the 1870s; the first Wimbledon championship was in 1877, and other competitions began only in the 1880s, so we are looking in total at about 130 years of tennis. Splitting 130 years into three 100-year blocks makes no sense. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. Mayumashu's point about where to set the dividing line has been established in countless CFDs, and there is no benefit to anyone in simply dumping all the individual articles in Category:20th-century sportspeople before deleting it; that would just clutter up the edit history of the articles. I could of course have nominated Category:20th-century sportspeople and all its subcats in one huge group nomination, but there was very good reason for not doing so: that it would have been much harder to check that all the merge targets were appropriate, and much more difficult to discuss any glitches. Deleting these categories in steps like this is a way of ensuring that it is done accurately, not a way of postponing the final decision on whether to delete Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 3 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: : (rationale added later) The CfD for racehorse owners & breeders did not support the principle of retaining 20th and 21st-century categories even for those involved in much older sports. However, there is more support for 19th-century categories of sportspeople, so I have listed Category:19th-century tennis players separately from the 20th and 21st-century categories in the nomination above. Note that per Tennis#History, the game only took on its current form in the 1870s; the first Wimbledon championship was in 1877, and other competitions began only in the 1880s, so we are looking in total at about 130 years of tennis. Splitting 130 years into three 100-year blocks makes no sense; retaining the 19th-century category but deleting the others leaves us with a 19th-century a category containing the first 23 years of the game, effectively a category of "pioneer tennis players". This may or may not be a good idea, and I will remain neutral for now. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am voting against the retention of all the 20th/21st century categories, but I think that 19th century (and possibly a few 18th century) sports categories might usefully be kept. This is potentially illogical, but we are only likely to have articles on the most notable sportsmen of remoter eras. I therefore wonder whether we might not allow some kind of early 20th century category - either 1900-1950 or 1900-1940 i.e. pre-WWII. I am not a sports-fan, and so have no strong views. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 25 February 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per many recent discussions, there has been a clear consensus against categorising 20th- and 21st-century sports players by century ... and I see no reason to treat umpires differently. Baseball umpires are already categorised by league, and dividing them into 100-year blocks is not useful for navigation.
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.
Keep - Well-defined category with a very manageable total of people who fit the criteria. As far as records on umpires, it only extends the period from 1871 to 1899 (or into 1900s depending on when their career ended), on top of the fact that the vast majority of the time in the 1800s games were called by just one umpire.Neonblaktalk - 15:02, 1 March 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.
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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Since most sports biographies on wikipedia relate to 20th and 21st-century people, there is a clear consensus against categorising sports people by 20th- or 21st-century categories, as demonstrated at a dozen or more similar recent CFDs (e.g. cyclists, speed skaters, triathletes, canoeists, cricketers, ice hockey players, rugby players, and a dose of assorted sportspeople). Sportspeople are categorised in many other ways, such as nationality, and there is no navigational benefit to readers from taking all the articles dispersed over those categories and splitting them into two large groups.
Support --The 20th/21st distinction is far too like having "current" and "former" categories, which we do not allow. (unless we are going to have 18th and 19th century categories too). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 25 February 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Per many recent discussions, there has been a clear consensus against categorising 20th- and 21st-century sports players by century, ... and I see no reason to treat managers differently. Category:Baseball managers includes a long series of categories of mangers by club, which seems like a much better way of categorising these people. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 24 February 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per many recent discussions, there has been a clear consensus against categorising 20th- and 21st-century sports players by century ... and I see no reason to treat coaches differently. Coaches are already categorised by other factors such as nationality and team, and dividing them into 100-year blocks is not useful for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. Mayumashu's point about where to set the dividing line has been established in countless CFDs, and there is no benefit to anyone in simply dumping all the individual articles in Category:20th-century sportspeople before deleting it; that would just clutter up the edit history of the articles. I could of course have nominated Category:20th-century sportspeople and all its subcats in one huge group nomination, but there was very good reason for not doing so: that it would have been much harder to check that all the merge targets were appropriate, and much more difficult to discuss any glitches. Deleting these categories in steps like this is a way of ensuring that it is done accurately, not a way of postponing the final decision on whether to delete Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 3 March 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.
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.
In this case, the two by-century categories contain only one article (the same one in each case), so these 6-month-old categories do not appear to have been been found useful by the editors working in this area. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 24 February 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.
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.
Merge per nom. There is a way to redirect, but a merge will ensure that the two categories are glommed together safely (in case one article is in the former but not the latter). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)20:03, 24 February 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.
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.
No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. Mayumashu's point about where to set the dividing line has been established in countless CFDs, and there is no benefit to anyone in simply dumping all the individual articles in Category:20th-century sportspeople before deleting it; that would just clutter up the edit history of the articles. I could of course have nominated Category:20th-century sportspeople and all its subcats in one huge group nomination, but there was very good reason for not doing so: that it would have been much harder to check that all the merge targets were appropriate, and much more difficult to discuss any glitches. Deleting these categories in steps like this is a way of ensuring that it is done accurately, not a way of postponing the final decision on whether to delete Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 3 March 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.
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.
No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. Mayumashu's point about where to set the dividing line has been established in countless CFDs, and there is no benefit to anyone in simply dumping all the individual articles in Category:20th-century sportspeople before deleting it; that would just clutter up the edit history of the articles. I could of course have nominated Category:20th-century sportspeople and all its subcats in one huge group nomination, but there was very good reason for not doing so: that it would have been much harder to check that all the merge targets were appropriate, and much more difficult to discuss any glitches. Deleting these categories in steps like this is a way of ensuring that it is done accurately, not a way of postponing the final decision on whether to delete Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 3 March 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.
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.
Provisional oppose. I haven't yet checked fully what the categories actually contain, but the plain-English usage of the words offers a clear distinction: International competitions are those between national teams, and are a subset of Transnational competitions. Transnational events include competitors from different countries, and those may not be selected on a national basis. One example which comes to mind is the Fastnet race, where yachts qualify on an individual basis, and do not represent their country. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean that international competitions are just ones between nations or national teams – Not just specifically two i.e. "Nation A" vs "Nation B"? The Olympics being a key example of the former? the Formula One season is perhaps an obvious example of a transnational competition i.e individuals competing for company teams. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics!12:43, 25 February 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.
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.
However, baseball was a popular sport in the 19th-century, and Category:19th-century baseball players is a well-populated category with several well-populated sub-categories. This nomination would leave the 19th-century categories in place, but remove the 20th-and 21st-century categories, as well as the parent foo by-century categories (which all become superfluous when there are only 19th-century categories).
The overwhelming majority of biographical articles on baseball players relate to the 20th and 21st-centuries, and there is no navigational benefit to readers from splitting them into two large groups. The CfD for racehorse owners & breeders did not support the principle of retaining 20th and 21st-century categories even for those involved in much older sports, and this keep-only-the-19th-century-categories follows the same principle.
There seems to be little enthusiasm amongst editors of baseball articles for the 20th- and 21st-century categories: the most heavily-populated 20th- and 21st-century baseball players category contains 14 articles, and most contain less than 10 articles. That contrasts with over 1100 articles in Category:19th-century baseball players. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. Mayumashu's point about where to set the dividing line has been established in countless CFDs, and there is no benefit to anyone in simply dumping all the individual articles in Category:20th-century sportspeople before deleting it; that would just clutter up the edit history of the articles. I could of course have nominated Category:20th-century sportspeople and all its subcats in one huge group nomination, but there was very good reason for not doing so: that it would have been much harder to check that all the merge targets were appropriate, and much more difficult to discuss any glitches. Deleting these categories in steps like this is a way of ensuring that it is done accurately, not a way of postponing the final decision on whether to delete Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 3 March 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:WikiProject Mammals/Pocket pets work group articles
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 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.
This nomination removes all existing by-century categorisation of boxers. Since boxing goes back earlier, there may be a case for creating by-century categories for boxers from the 19th-century and earlier periods, but since the overwhelming majority of biographical articles on boxers relate to the 20th and 21st-centuries, categories for them appear superfluous. The CfD for racehorse owners & breeders did not support the principle of retaining 20th and 21st-century categories even for those involved in much older sports. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike some of the other sports under consideration, boxing goes back to the 19th century and is well populated across that span. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS I also wonder whether you checked the sub-categories of Category:Boxers by century before commenting. Whilst Category:Boxers is indeed well-populated, these 12 categories by-century are teetering right on the edge of deletion as empty; they were created 6 months ago, and between them they contain only 11 articles. That indicates that editors working on boxing articles do not find them an appropriate form of categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm supposed to be a mind reader and I'm being judged for the nominator's rather non-obvious failure to post a complete nomination. Regardless of the failure to do all of the work by the nominator before posting, I stand by my vote. Alansohn (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No mind-reading required, Alansohn, just a little text-reading: "'Delete. Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion" is a fairly-obviously incomplete nomination, and there is nothing unusual about group nominations being added in a series of steps. I thought that my usual please-hang-on notice might be superfluous, but evidently for some people it's not. Anyway, I responded in detail to your concerns, which were in any case addressed in the nomination (had you waited). Deletion discussions are not a vote, and simply saying "I stand by my vote" indicates an editor who thinks that this is a vote, so your "keep" which a closing admin probably should ignore, unless you want to explain how your concerns apply in view of the scope and rationale of this nomination which was actually made, rather than whatever nomination you presumed was going to be made. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're an admin. You've filed nominations before. The task of cutting and pasting is so utterly trivial as to make it hard to believe that your nomination was not complete. All it would have taken was to tag the nomination as in progress, a task so simple that you've already done it for other incomplete nominations. If you make further nominations in the future, simply don't screw up or do a half-assed job and problems will be avoided. I have explained my vote and stand behind its completeness and accuracy in this case. I don't care what you think of my vote and I find your insistence that my vote be disregarded as indicative of an irresponsible bias on your part. Alansohn (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, your incivility is unnecessary: an incomplete nomination is not a screw-up, and nor is taking 25 minutes to complete it. A quick look at the edit history will show that my other related group nominations over the last few days have been done in the same multi-step manner. Anyway, the reason I suggest your vote be disregarded is that it is based on a misreading of the situation. You say that "boxing goes back to the 19th century and is well populated across that span", but a) there is no category Category:19th-century boxers, and b) the 20th- and 21st-century categories are almost empty. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several other editors voted in CfDs that you had tagged as incomplete. Will they get the same bad faith harangue from you or is early voting acceptable if the vote is in the direction you want? Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, this is a discussion, in the course of which editors routinely ask questions of each other. I'm not sure why you call that process a "harangue", but I'm a lot more interested in discussing the substance than in discussing process. It's a great pity that you don't want to do that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, I have already made the argument for retention, but you have turned this into an argument about my supposed failure to read your mind and determine when you were adequately finished with your laundry list. Your harangue has largely revolved around your bad faith insistence that my vote be ignored because it was so blindingly obvious that any opposition must be rejected because it didn't adequately reflect the wisdom of your nomination. You have opened other CfDs this same day where you tagged the nominations as incomplete and individuals voted before you removed the tag. Remarkably you haven't given them a tongue lashing. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, I haven't given you a "tongue-lashing" or a "harangue", and all this heated talk of "harangue", "bad faith", "tongue-lashing", "screw-up", "half-assed job", "irresponsible bias", is a really bizarre diversion. All I wanted to know was whether, before posting, you checked the sub-categories of Category:Boxers by century, and whether you noticed that while Category:Boxers is indeed well-populated, these 12 categories by-century contain only 11 articles. Don't answer if you don't want to, but really -- I didn't firebomb your house and kill your children. I didn't steal your life-savings or send you to Guantanamo, and I didn't insult your family. I just asked you a question. No angry mastadons, eh? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both before and after I checked the subcategories before casting my vote. My conclusion was the same both times, that there are enough boxers to populate these categories going back to the 19th century. The lack of articles in these categories is not relevant, as there are more than enough articles to be added. Now it's your turn. When other editors voted in CfDs that you had explicitly marked as not having been completed, why didn't they get the same complaints? Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. Mayumashu's point about where to set the dividing line has been established in countless CFDs, and there is no benefit to anyone in simply dumping all the individual articles in Category:20th-century sportspeople before deleting it; that would just clutter up the edit history of the articles. I could of course have nominated Category:20th-century sportspeople and all its subcats in one huge group nomination, but there was very good reason for not doing so: that it would have been much harder to check that all the merge targets were appropriate, and much more difficult to discuss any glitches. Deleting these categories in steps like this is a way of ensuring that it is done accurately, not a way of postponing the final decision on whether to delete Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 3 March 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.
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.
Delete - but you have quite a fewmore of these to do... overcategorisation at its finest. There isn't (yet) a notable difference between most 20th and 21st century sportsmen, so no need to separate them.The-Pope (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – surprisingly, only 6 20th-century golfers have been found so far, but 8 already in the 21st - must be the Woods effect. Occuli (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do not upmerge to other by-century categories. There has been a consistent consensus at CFD to delete by-century categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, and upmerging to all those other categories will simply create horrible category clutter on the articles involved. If fully populated with individual articles, Category:20th-century sportspeople would be utterly huge and useless: a pointless category, of no use for navigation. Mayumashu's point about where to set the dividing line has been established in countless CFDs, and there is no benefit to anyone in simply dumping all the individual articles in Category:20th-century sportspeople before deleting it; that would just clutter up the edit history of the articles. I could of course have nominated Category:20th-century sportspeople and all its subcats in one huge group nomination, but there was very good reason for not doing so: that it would have been much harder to check that all the merge targets were appropriate, and much more difficult to discuss any glitches. Deleting these categories in steps like this is a way of ensuring that it is done accurately, not a way of postponing the final decision on whether to delete Category:20th-century sportspeople and Category:21st-century sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 3 March 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:Pages with at least one category including this one
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.
Nominator's rationale: Utter madness, this cat could basically have every single article in it, it adds no value to an article from an encyclopedic view point and is useless from a editing viewpoint Jac16888Talk00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from page creator - sorry, this was me demonstrating to a new editor how categories could be made and applied to things without any sort of administrative intervention. I'd intended to delete it when I was done but you beat me to it. Sorry, I should have used userspace or the sandbox for this demonstration, my apologies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:01, 24 February 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 7#Category:Sports competitions. postdlf (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)