Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:49, 9 July 2009

Template:Archive box collapsible

Speedy?

Category:Telecommunication companies of Yemen needs an 's'. In fact there are quite a few - Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Telecommunication companies. Occuli (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a speediable "error", or can it also be correct to use it in the singular? I'm not sure. If it could be correct, maybe we need a full CfD to standardise the naming for all of them. Good Ol’factory 21:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wedding chapels in Las Vegas‎

Do you really think that these are churches? While you need to have a congregation to officiate at marriages, as I understand it, you don't need to conduct services at the chapel for a congregation. So maybe the question is, if a building is only used to perform marriages, does that make it a church? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, good point. Perhaps not. You can take them out if you want. Just thought it was a good fit, but maybe not for places that are solely wedding chapels. Good Ol’factory 06:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Don Robey

You have amended the text of this category. However both BMI and AMG confirm he is the writer of these songs. Those that want to add this kind of wording have not been able to verify the accusation that Robey stole songwriter credits. As it is unverfied which songs, assuming the general accusation is correct, Robey wrote. I feel very strongly that WP:V should be applied to these statements. Care to reconsider?

BTW The nomination for deletion was withdrawn by the nominator. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I just adjusted what User:Sumori wrote, for clarity purposes. I don't want to be involved in the edit war that you've been engaging in on that category page. I don't care if what Sumori wrote stays or goes, but I think it should be discussed and worked out rather than the back-and-forth edits that happened earlier. Good Ol’factory 08:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment. But are you also saying that WP:V can be ignored too? which is the crux of my argument - if the other user had verified his statement then his edit would be correct. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't go that far. To be honest, I haven't researched the substantive issue enough to know if WP:V is being violated. If you're strongly convinced that it is being violated, then you have a strong argument. If you are running into a wall with neither side willing to give ground and no other editors contributing, just let me know. I'd be willing to put in the time to look at the issue myself and offer a third opinion on the matter. Good Ol’factory 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We have come up with a compromise wording. I never had any doubt that Robey, in common with other label owners of the period, didn't claim a little that wasn't his. My objection was that there was no evidence that the songs in the category wren't written by him. We will never know what a man and his piano get up to in private! It was your comment above that made me step back and thanks for that. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, glad to hear it was worked out. Good Ol’factory 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Surnames redux

Looks like we're crossing wires on the Chinese surnames category. Do you want it deleted or kept? If kept, it can be nominated for renaming, or I can delete it and you can just repopulate the Chinese-language one right now. Good Ol’factory 08:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I see you took care of the Jewish ones already. Look like 1 user is vigorously mass re-creating deleted categories. No idea whether the contents is language oriented, so delete them and let more cooperative editors populate them. And I'll bring him up at WP:ANI, this is really disruptive editing.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll delete any that are re-creations. The ones that didn't exist before I guess you'll have no choice but to nominate for renaming, as you've done. Good Ol’factory 08:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've a favor to ask. {{Surname}} needs to either be semi-protected, so I can edit, or swap in the code in the sandbox. I've asked politely at WP:RUP, and was denied; then tried {{editprotect}} on the Talk, and the next guy wants more information. (heavy sigh) Too slow. It needs to be done before the job queue load increases today, so the pseudo-categories propagate, and the old parameters (now red-link categories) can be found and removed.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done--changed to semi-protect. Let me know when you're done there and I can change it back to full protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Olfactory (talk • contribs)

Many Thanks!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for actually doing something productive with this. It's easy to complain here, but unlike others you've not done so, even though I probably didn't do what you would have thought was ideal. Good Ol’factory 11:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

True. Among other things, my ideal would have been to allow Category:Surnames by culture rename to complete, as I've a strong preference for CfD over just a category talk page for decisions. But it may have been for the best, as re-creating Category:Surnames by language in parallel probably saved a few days of griping.... We'll need to validate the decision at CfD later, or just let it fade away empty.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it appears to me that somebody (who shall remain nameless for now unless they complain) created Category:Surnames by culture and emptied Category:Surnames by language out-of-process, and the latter was db-c1. Are you able to undelete the complete history at Category:Surnames by language?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, looks like that happened. I've restored the full history. Good Ol’factory 21:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

user matthead

as someone who has dealt with the above user in the past, I was hoping you could look at the comment he left on my IP talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:119.173.81.176

119.173.81.176 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that his comment was a bit prickly and probably not ideal, but you do need to realise that sometimes people react in this way when they receive comments like this on their talk pages. Rest assured, though, that the comment has been noted by other users and Matthead has been approached about it. Good Ol’factory 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LDS MOS

Did you read the manual of style? You are incorrect in your usage of "(Mormon)".

Summary of naming conventions:

• Articles wholly pertaining to the Latter Day Saint movement should be parenthesized "(Latter Day Saints)", unless the article name is unambiguous without the parenthetical.
• Articles should not be limited to a single Latter Day Saint denomination, unless including the entire Latter Day Saint movement is impractical or awkward. For example, instead naming an article "Restoration (Community of Christ)" or "Restoration (LDS Church)", the article should be called Restoration (Latter Day Saints).
• In article names, references to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should capitalize the initial The and include a hyphen and a lower-case "d".

I will leave it up to you to change it back to "(Latter Day Saints)" per MOS. If you feel there is a MOS referring to individuals as Mormons, then I don't see it in the MOS. Perhaps it needs to be updated, but I see nothing in the MOS to warrant your revert. If I am in error, please let me know. I may just be missing something. Bytebear (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're just confusing bio articles with non-bio articles. The relevant point is found in the LDS-NC, which is referred to in WP:LDSMOS: "When a leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the same name as people outside the Latter Day Saint movement, the person may be disambiguated with the parenthetical (Mormon). See, for example, John W. Taylor (Mormon) and John Gould (Mormon)." I see there's a proposal below this statement to change this (proposed by you, it appears), but it hasn't been accepted. Good Ol’factory 04:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did a little digging and found Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Naming_church_leaders which clearly says "(Mormon)" is appropriate. but something needs to be said in the main MOS section on naming convention to clarify this exception. Bytebear (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

moves/MOS

Thanks, I don't understand it, and think that something else should be chosen, because when you wiki Mormon it says that that title applies to all sects to split off from the Church after the succession crisis, so it would make it confusing if there was a John Taylor as head of the FLDS for example. But, thanks anyways. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if there was an FLDS John W. Taylor then I suppose a more specific DAB could be appropriate. Thankfully I don't think we've run into this situation yet! I suppose if you're interested you could re-open the issue at Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints). Good Ol’factory 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (it's a learning process for me, as everybody who as met me knows). LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to move Kenneth Johnson (Mormon) to Kenneth Johnson (LDS Church), per the naming convention. Is that the correct move? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No. The convention is to use "(Mormon)" for LDS Church members. People are "Mormon"s but they are not "LDS Church"es. Good Ol’factory 05:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response, but I don't see what you see. The Naming unidenominational articles section seems to agree with me. The The term Mormon and its derivatives section says this, The term Mormon or its derivatives such as Mormonism are appropriate when referring to doctrines and practices that have a historical connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but no historical connection to other denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. The part that is in bold says that the term Mormon should only be used for the articles pertaining to the doctrines and practices of the Church. Or am I reading it wrong? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking specifically at Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Naming_church_leaders, which talks about naming the articles about people. "(LDS Church)" is used for unidenominational articles about things that aren't people. Good Ol’factory 04:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How did I miss that?! Maybe it was the tag at the bottom. Thanks though. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Jewish surnames

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish surnames. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Aborted removal of category from Kyle Broflovski

Your this edit of Kyle Broflovski that removed the Category:Fictional Jews with the explanation that its is "probably not defining--not even mentioned in lede" is clearly contradicted by the first sentence in the second paragraph which states that "Kyle is distinctive as one of the few Jewish children on the show", in addition to extensive discussion of his Jewishness and its function in defining his character later in the article. The justification you cited for the removal, that it was "mentioned in lede" is not a legitimate argument for removal of any category, nor is it a standard that is met in the majority of articles for most of the categories included. Despite the fact that you restored the category in your subsequent edit, the fact that you allowed your preconceived notions to involve your efforts at WP:STALKing my edits only demonstrates the extent of the clear problem that exists here. I'd love to have a conversation about these issues, but far too often it appears to me that your mind is already made up, even before discussion (or voting) starts, and the result preordained. Please convince me otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What is exactly your concern? I'm not clear on that since ultimately the category was not removed by my series of edits. If you're paranoid about stalking: I was not stalking your edits—it was a category that had been on my watchlist because of my past involvement with it, and I had seen that it had been re-created. (I hadn't even noticed that you were the creator, though I see that now. Users often get nervous about wikistalking when really all that's going on is a convergence of interests or watchlists.) I'm going to start attempting to patrol some of its contents so it doesn't become a "non-defining fest", as it was in the past. You may or may not agree w/my future assessments of "definingness", but that's essentially a question to be discussed on the talk pages of the articles once the cases arise. It's probably a bit difficult and not terribly useful for us to try to discuss the principle in the abstract, without an actual disagreement in a case to base the discussion on. Feel free to express yourself here, though. The fact that I'm not up for a "moot court" discussion doesn't mean you can't opine. I'm always on the look out for great quotes—thought-provoking, bizarre, or otherwise. Especially, you know, if they comment about me as a user, rather than content. Good Ol’factory

Alansohn, I'm not sure if you had anything to add here or if you were going to respond. I was about to archive this as June 2009 material, so if I don't hear from you on this in the next day or so I will be archiving this thread. Good Ol’factory 00:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to amusing e-mail message sent to me about 30 minutes ago

Oh, that was funny. But yes, after the laughter—I agree. Something to laugh about rather than worry about. (Sorry, my email won't send messages today for some reason. Hopefully you'll see my response here.) Good Ol’factory 23:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy rename House of Taillefer

Thank you for your quick work. Much appreciated. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Parsis

When you change the article from list of notable Parsis to list of Parsis, it doesn't make sense. You are saying this is a list of Parsis, which this isn't. A complete list of Parsis would include upto 110,000 to 210,000 adherents. It is a list of notable Parsis. Warrior4321Contribs 02:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In lists, we only include those with WP articles. The only Parsis with WP articles are the ones that are "notable". Thus, it's self evident that those on the list are "notable". I don't think anyone will think the list is intended to list every Parsi person who has ever lived. This is exactly how other lists are named. For example, it's List of Methodists, not List of notable Methodists. Good Ol’factory 04:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you post this on my talk page? It's much more easier for the other person to know when they get a reply. For the list, I understand that. Thank-You for your reply. Warrior4321 16:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I just thought since you posted here it would make sense to reply here. Good Ol’factory 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You get a notification when something comes on my talk page. It makes it easier, yet it's your choice. Thanks for the reply. Warrior4321 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer keeping discussions together. If you want someone to reply on your page, it's usually best to let them know up front in your initial comment. Good Ol’factory 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, I will next time. Thank-You. Warrior4321 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

TV series CFDs

Would a listing of eponymous categories for TV series be a welcome addition to your list? Lemme know and I'll add them as I find them. Otto4711 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it can't hurt. The ones I included were just the ones I had the energy to compile. I avoided doing most of the eponymous ones b/c there were so many. If you add them remember to add the "keep" and "no consensus" ones too so I don't get accused of maintaining a biased list. That page is getting rather long—I may need to break off some of the larger sections into separate pages soon. Good Ol’factory 21:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia officials

The category name sounds a bit odd to me, and when I look at the subcategories it appears to me almost if there were two special ICTs, one for former Yugoslav judges and one for former Yugoslav prosecutors. I'd suggest "Officials of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia", likewise for subcategories. GregorB (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just followed the naming pattern that existed there before with the prosecutors, judges, etc. A rename would require a CFD for all of them. Good Ol’factory 21:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

move protection

Could you please fully protect my user page from moves? I know this will stop me from moving my user page, but I do not anticipate ever having to move it, and I want to make sure that my page is not move-vandalized. Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let me know if you ever need it to be lifted. Good Ol’factory 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now I can go to bed knowing I won't be moved during the night. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Test

Does WestfieldWesleyan remind you of anyone, eg user:WestfieldIns? Occuli (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see .... adding categories on first ever edit: check. Categories are religion-related categories: check. Categories are not nonsensical but are of arguable utility: check. Anything else to add to the PW checklist? Good Ol’factory 03:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

'No edit summaries' was another, but then he is a master of disguise. Occuli (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:United Nations media

Hi. I've broadened the category definition somewhat to include independent works about the UN. Hope you have no objection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And having done so I noticed on the NFB collections page that the film I added to the category, Overture, was in fact created by the UN after all. So no change to the category was needed. Oh well. If you wish, please rollback my change to the definition. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Either one is probably fine for now. If we get a lot, we could separate the two types. Good Ol’factory 03:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles to be split

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16#Category:Articles to be split

Posted thank you to Vegaswikian, but thought you should be thanked for trying.... As to "Good Ol’factory's points about the headache", my interpretation is that it was really a WP:POINT nomination back on June 4th by Debresser (assisted by Farmbrough) to initiate his idea for mass renaming maintenance "dated subcategories", which is how he came to the attention of WT:CfD in the first place. He nominated it to fail, so that he could remove the Misplaced Pages requirement in the policy page, as he tried to do after Farmbrough early closed it. They're working in concert. (I was and still am confused by Rubin, who is usually more precise. This time, I think he was trying to be "even-handed" somehow, agreeing with both sides.)
-- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that clarifies it a bit when I remember that there was that whole brouhaha over the out of process rename for the admin categories. Without having researched the background, I was thoroughly confused. Good Ol’factory 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Invotation

Please let me have your opinion on my commentary in Category_talk:Surnames#Recent_CfD_of_all_the_Surnames_by_country_cats. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm flabbergasted (as I've written at that link), but the Misplaced Pages:Categorization rule disappeared – because it was removed by Debresser, without discussion. He also added the {{Category relevant?}} template, a template that should never be used, as there should never even be irrelevant categories that are unsupported by the text and verifiable reliable sources. (I'm wondering what the section title here means....)
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• The categorization rule was removed from where? From existence, or from a particular category? I have no idea what "invotation" meant, unless it was just a typo for "invitation" (or some kind of invitation–vote hybrid?) Good Ol’factory 11:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• From Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Categorizing pages. I'll also note that Debresser seems to surreptitiously remove rules without discussion after it's cited at CfD on the other side, as he recently tried to do with "Category:Misplaced Pages" in naming conventions after it was cited by KBDank. It's impossible to watch all these pages, and I mostly check my watchlist only on weekends.... We need a few more policy defenders.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Has it been restored? If not, I'm willing to restore it if you send me the offending diff. I'm going to bed right now but I would take care of it in my tomorrow. I'll also have a word with Debresser about this once I have a chance to look into a bit more. Good Ol’factory 11:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Donald Payne (soldier)

Hi Good, I've left a short note over at Talk:Donald Payne (soldier) explaining why I think he belongs in Category:International Criminal Court. Please let me know if you disagree, or else I'll probably add him back at some stage. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded there, thx. Good Ol’factory 22:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a completely different issue, but not worth a separate section: I responded on my talk page. Dc76\ 02:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Americans accused of spying for the United States

Hey there Good Olfactory, I noticed that Category:Americans accused of spying for the United States was tagged for CfD, but wasn't mentioned in the actual discussion, which lead to it not being deleted. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Regards. — Σxplicit 04:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I considered listing it now, but in light of the recent results on these categories, that would probably be nothing more than a formality and it's probably safe for us to delete it. Good Ol’factory 04:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Quick question: would these categories of accused spies fall under CSD G10, or would they have to be listed for a full CfD? — Σxplicit 04:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This would probably require looking at things on a case-by-case basis. I can imagine situations where creation of one of these categories could be considered a G10, but I'm guessing that the vast majority of ones that people will ever be inclined to create have now been deleted, so G4 will probably be the more likely speedy method of deleting them. We can speedy ones that have been deleted before even if they are re-worded and not identical to the deleted one. Since Category:Accused spies was deleted, there's even an argument that this deletion covers any subcategory type that could be created. If you see any that crop up again, I would nominate for a G4 based on Category:Accused spies being deleted and then do a full CfD if the speedy gets denied. Good Ol’factory 04:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I just tagged a category for speedy deletion and will bring it to CfD if it's declined. Thanks for the help. — Σxplicit 04:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Stray cat

I tagged Category:People from Pitsmoor but unaccountably omitted it from the list. I leave it in your hands. Occuli (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably safe to merge as were the others, since it was tagged. I'll do that. Good Ol’factory 04:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber", Dresden

I am sorry but I missed the discussion on the change of the name of this category. I created the category with the name Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber", whithout including the name of the city, for the reason that there's no other Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber" with such name, and the name of the city is not neccesary, as it would not be neccesary to read the following "Harvard University, Cambridge, Royal Academy of Music, London or "Juilliard School NY". I will nominate this category for renaming to "Academics of the Hochschule für Musik "Carl Maria von Weber"". --Karljoos (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Karljoos could nominate Category:Alumni of the Hochschule für Musik Carl Maria von Weber Dresden at the same time. Occuli (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered about this when I renamed the category, but no one had raised it in the discussion. I agree that a re-nomination could be appropriate here. Good Ol’factory 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Close of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16#Category:Sportspeople by city

Can you explain your close of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16#Category:Sportspeople by city as "Upmerge and delete", which appears to be in conflict with the discussion, which appeared to reach a consensus of keep or no consensus. The argument for deletion from User:Mayumashu in his nomination is the entirely non-policy based "not against the idea in principle but do not see it as necessary and wish to fell this tree while it s still a sapling", which amounts to WP:IHATEIT, let's get rid of these categories now before there are more categories I HATE. "not necessary" is not policy. User:Mike Selinker's argument had nothing to do with the other entries listed, but observed that Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio essentially overlaps with Category:Sports in Columbus, Ohio, without offering any other argument for deletion of any of the other categories and I essentially agree with what he appears to be saying which is that the Columbus category should have been deleted and the others retained, though you appear to have interpreted it in reverse. I'm not even sure that User:Vegaswikian's vote actually says anything. With a new CfD at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 6#Category:Sportspeople from Melbourne citing this close as precedent, we need to come to a resolution on the original CfD to see if the close is justified. Any input you can provide to explain your actions here could help eliminate the need for any further action on this matter. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see; just as a preliminary matter, the following is how I read the "bottom line votes" of each user:

1. Mayumashu (nominator): upmerge all
2. Postdlf: upmerge all, except Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio
3. Alansohn: keep all
4. Mike Selinker: upmerge all
5. Closeapple: keep all
6. Vegaswikian: upmerge all

In summary and as merely an indication of "vote count", the results (as I interpreted them) were:

• Upmerge Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio: YES 3–3 NO
• Upmerge the rest: YES 4–2 NO

The reason I read Mike Selinker's vote as "upmerge all" was for the following reasons:

1. His bolded vote said "Delete/upmerge"; and
2. He said, "I think categorizing the individuals by city is too specific," which I understood as applying to all the categories under discussion, because the statement was unqualified and all of the categories under discussion categorized individual sportspeople by city.

Maybe Mike Selinker could be consulted to see if I misinterpreted his comment; it is, of course, possible that I did, though on a second look I still don't think I did.

Leaving aside Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio, the following arguments are ones that I gleaned from the commenters:
From the "upmerge" side:

1. Not part of a larger categorization scheme (Mayumashu; Vegaswikian);
2. Categorizing sportspeople by city is too specific (Mike Selinker; Vegaswikian)
3. Overcategorization issues: categorizing people in this manner will lead to articles being in categories that are not defining for them (Vegaswikian)

From the "keep" side:

1. A wider scheme would be sustainable (Closeapple)
2. Categories are well-organized and well-populated (Alansohn, Closeapple)
3. A high proportion of articles in one of the parent categories are sportspeople (Closeapple)

My assessment of the arguments:
From the "upmerge" side: no. 1 is true and is relevant, though not determinative and should not to be given any great amount of weight. No. 2 is relevant but essentially a judgment call; however, it is one that was not really challenged by anyone else. No. 3 is significant and gets to the heart of the problem, and ultimately was the most convincing argument for me.

From the "keep" side: No. 1 is relevant but essentially a predictive judgment call, and is not a particularly weighty argument. No. 2 is true and relevant, though not determinative and should not be given any great amount of weight, since many well-organized and well-populated categories are deleted. No. 3 was true for one of the categories, but was not true for the others and would not necessarily be true for similar categories for other cities, as Vegaswikian pointed out.

My conclusions
It wasn't what I would call an in-depth discussion, and much of it focused on Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio, which I haven't discussed above and for which I saw no consensus. For the rest of the categories: on balance, the upmerge side had the stronger arguments by far. Both sides' no. 1 arguments essentially cancelled each other out and they didn't play a big role in my decision. However, neither the upmergers' no. 2 and no. 3 arguments, either of which could theoretically justify the deletion of the category on policy and guideline grounds, were not challenged. The keep side pointed out some virtues of the categories, but nothing that was particularly convincing or based on a policy or guideline. The strength of the arguments, combined with the 4–2 "vote count" in favour of upmerging (a fairly healthy ⅔ majority), led me to make the decision I did.

—Good Ol’factory 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:

Whoops, awfully sorry about that, I must have been mistaken about the nomination, thinking that it had been nom'ed for renaming the previous day to when it actually was as a result of not looking close enough. My mistake, won't happen again (fingers crossed), all the best Spitfire

No problem; thx for letting me know. Not a big deal in this case. Good Ol’factory 09:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lithuanian surnames

Colleague, your repeated deletion is misguided. The page in question is not recreation. It was created as a reasonable redirect, as an easy safeguard against recreation by unsuspecting novices, - a commonly used mechanism, pursuing exactly the same goal you (and me too) are favoring. - Altenmann >t 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There a possibility that a by-culture scheme for surnames could be created in the near future. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt this possibility by making this page a redirect. A by-language scheme is not the only possible meaning of "Lithuanian surnames". It may eventually become an appropriate DAB page. See the close statement at the relevant CfD for further information. Good Ol’factory 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your justification of deletion is invalid. What is more, when DAB will bepossible, then it will be turned into DAB. This happens all the time. Please stop unilateral actions without discussion finsihed. If you delete the page one more time without proper justification, you will be reported for abuse of admin privileges. - Altenmann >t 10:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like someone else is engaging in a wheel war. Power to you if you want to do that, but please don't project "abuse of admin powers" onto others. Good Ol’factory 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaints about Good Olfactory's close in the CfD for Category:Slavic-language surnames

Welcome; if you're here to complain about my close in Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_29#Category:Slavic-language_surnames, you have been expected! Please write your complaints below in a subsection. Replace "Subsection#" with your user name. If you start a new non-subsection section on this topic below this section, note I will move it here as a subsection. I will hold off responding to specific comments for a little while to allow time for more to comment here. After a period of time, I will respond to all the comments at once to avoid repetition, since repetition became a problem with the other surname closes. (In other words, I'm not ignoring you if I don't respond immediately.) Thanks. Good Ol’factory 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Subsection1

Subsection2

Subsection3

Subsection4

Subsection5

Subsection6

Roman Empire

I welcome your solution to the problem with categorising Category:People executed by the Byzantine Empire in Category:People executed by the Roman Empire. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Figured that was best, since apparently I was confused. I thought Category:Roman Empire was inclusive of Category:Byzantine Empire, but apparently not. But I thought we should link them somehow. Good Ol’factory 06:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One to watch

Tiramisoo? It might be a little early to tell. Katr67 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like the IP that edited Willamette Valley right before him/her originates from here. Katr67 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)