Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
 Skip to current discussions |
Purge the cache to refresh this page
[edit] Speedy renaming and speedy merging
Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified at Wikipedia:Category renaming and repeated below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made and to ensure that items are not listed here that do not meet the criteria.
Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense" or "recreation") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required for these.
[edit] Speedy criteria
Criteria for speedy renaming or speedy merging are strictly limited to:
- Typographical errors (such as, Brdiges → Bridges).
- Note that differences between British and American spelling (for example, Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors.
- Capitalization fixes (such as, characters In harry Potter → Characters in Harry Potter)
- Conversions from singular to plural, or back (such as, Steamship → Steamships)
- Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
- This should only be used where there is no room for any doubt whatsoever that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory. It should not be assumed that an incorrectly formatted "radio stations" category was intended to be a "radio" category, or that an incorrectly formatted "archaeological sites" category was intended to be an "archaeology" category.
- Expanding abbreviations for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country (for example, US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to United States, but this criterion specifically does not apply to renames between the terms "American" and "United States").
When proposing that the category name should be reformatted in addition to one of the speedy criteria, or two or more criteria apply, make a regular nomination rather than a speedy nomination.
Note: If the nominator decides to change a nomination based on comments, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one as long as it still meets the speedy criteria.
[edit] Add requests for speedy renaming here
If the category does not match one of the five criteria listed above PRECISELY, do not list it here, but list it in the main section instead. If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here. Use the following format:
Don't forget to tag the category with {{subst:cfr-speedy|NewName}}
Please add new entries at the TOP of the list and sign and datestamp your entries with ~~~~.
- Category:Fictional circus performer to Category:Fictional circus performers Otto4711 16:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Custom made instrument to Category:Custom-made instruments Pascal.Tesson 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Delta State (Nigeria) to Category:Delta State, as per article title (Delta State). Picaroon 20:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Telecommunication in Chile to Category:Telecommunications in Chile Haddiscoe 12:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:State University of New York at Purchase Alumni to Category:State University of New York at Purchase alumni for consistency of not capitalising "alumni" -- see Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States.--Vbd (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Airports of Kerala to Category:Airports in Kerala Jamie Mercer 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Visitor attractions in Hyogo Prefecture to Category:Visitor attractions in Hyōgo Prefecture - Macronization per WP:MOS-JA policy, and parent cat. - Neier 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves:
- Category:Scottish Malt Whisky → Category:Scottish malt whisky — In line with capitalization policy. —DangerDoctor 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC) DangerDoctor 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- This one's for WP:CFD, not for RM. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- And a speedy request at that. Vegaswikian 02:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- This one's for WP:CFD, not for RM. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Scottish Malt Whisky → Category:Scottish malt whisky — In line with capitalization policy. —DangerDoctor 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC) DangerDoctor 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:University of Wisconsin presidents to Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison presidents for specificity. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Problem is that the head of the University of Wisconsin-Madison has been called "chancellor" and not president since the early 1970s. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:American Internet celebrities to Category:American internet celebrities - capitalization. Otto4711 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Two issues: The category page states a rename to Category:American internet personalities and not as listed above. Secondly, Internet should remain first letter capped. RedWolf 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed the personalities/celebrities thing. Disagree that internet should be capitalized. Otto4711 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:SPEED albums to Category:Speed albums - More WP:MOSCAPS; these albums are by Speed (band). - Neier 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Bow Maker to Category:Bow makers Prove It (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Middle Ages WikiProject to Category:WikiProject Middle Ages Prove It (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Opéra bouffes to Category:Opéras bouffes Correction of French compound plural. - Kleinzach 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Opéra comiques to Category:Opéras comiques Correction of French compound plural. - Kleinzach 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:List of Registered Historic Places in Virginia to Category:Lists of Registered Historic Places in Virginia - (List > Lists) - criteria #3 - jc37 13:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:List of Melbourne Suburbs to Category:Lists of Melbourne Suburbs - (List > Lists) - criteria #3 - jc37 13:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:List of Grand Prix motorcycle racers to Category:Lists of Grand Prix motorcycle racers - (List > Lists) - criteria #3 - jc37 13:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:List of Argentine films to Category:Lists of Argentine films - (List > Lists) - criteria #3 - jc37 13:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:People executed in the US to Category:People executed in the United States Golfcam 01:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Natives of Innsburck to Category:Natives of Innsbruck - spelling. Olessi 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Should be Category:People from Innsbruck. Golfcam 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) derivatives to Category:Derivatives of Ubuntu (Linux distribution) - x of y. Atp627 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Young adult Authors to Category:Young adult authors - cap. —Cryptic 18:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Perhaps something less, um, cryptic (if you'll pardon the term)? Is this for authors who are young adults, or authors who write for young adults? Grutness...wha? 03:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The latter. It should be Category:Writers of young adult literature, which would be a fine speedy target. For whatever reason, all the other categories that you might expect to be titled "authors" are instead "writers". — coelacan — 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- While that makes sense to me, this now takes it out of "speedy", and it should be relisted? - jc37 10:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:WikiProject Strategy Games to Category:WikiProject Strategy games Prove It (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Strategy Games portal to Category:Strategy games portal Prove It (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Fictional Internet personalities to Category:Fictional internet personalities - capitalization Otto4711 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Internet is generally capitalized, as it is here in History of the Internet. My spellchecker still regards the lowercase as incorrect. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:CLAMP images to Category:Clamp (manga artists) images ; reduce CAPS to match parent cat Cat:Clamp (manga artists) - Neier 05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment that sounds really bad... perhaps it should be category:Clamp manga images. 132.205.44.134 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:CLAMP cast members to Category:Clamp (manga artists) cast members ; reduce CAPS to match parent cat Cat:Clamp (manga artists) - Neier 05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment that just sounds wrong. Perhaps Category:Clamp manga adaptations cast memebers. 132.205.44.134 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. No, this category is to be listified and then deleted (there is a notice on the page about this action). Therefore, no renaming is required/needed.RedWolf 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Puzzle computer and video games to Category:Puzzle video games As per the CVG to VG migration. Marasmusine 10:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think Category:Puzzle games would be better. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ready for deletion
Once the renaming has been completed, cut and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working.
[edit] Current discussions
[edit] April 8
[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS
[edit] Category:Eponymous comics
Delete - arbitrary inclusion standard. The comics have nothing in common beyond happening to be named after one of their characters. Otto4711 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Religion in Kurdistan
As per WP:CFD#Category:Airlines of Kurdistan and WP:CFD#Category:Sport in Kurdistan there really is no reason for this category.
Kurdistan is a controversial and ill-defined region (no defined borders). It neither has formal/dejure recognition (it isn't recognized as a country) nor has informal/defacto recognition (it doesnt claim to be a country).
Category currently has a handful articles with confusing inclusion criteria.
- Christianity in Kurdistan - Has only one article (related to Kurdish people)
- Islam in Kurdistan - Has only one article and one subcat (related to Kurdish people)
- Jews and Judaism in Kurdistan - Only has 12 articles and a subcat (related to Kurdish people)
- Confusing: living people, structures, and historic figures as far back as 55 CE are categorized together.
If necessary a list can be created and included under the main Category:Kurdistan.
The category should either be merged to something like "Category:Kurdish people and religion" (whatever the consistent convention is - if at all such categorization is done elsewhere) or should be deleted all together.
-- Cat chi? 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Eponymous television series
Delete - arbitrary standard for inclusion. The shows have nothing in common other than being named after someone who's in them. Otto4711 17:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:XTC
Delete - another eponymous band category without the requisite volume of material needed to justify it. The albums and songs subcats are in the "...by artist" category trees and the two articles are interlinked. Otto4711 17:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:X Marks the Pedwalk
Delete - category housed the band's article plus articles for its songs and albums. I created Category:X Marks the Pedwalk albums and Category:X Marks the Pedwalk songs, populated them and located them under the appropriate "...by artist" category trees. All albums and songs are extensively interlinked through the main article and each other. No need for this category. Otto4711 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Duff family
Delete - two entries, unlikely to get any larger, articles are interlinked. No need for the category. Otto4711 16:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not likely to grow in the foreseeable future, not needed for navigation. --rimshotstalk 17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Rimshots and Otto. Pascal.Tesson 17:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wrestling families
Delete all - As with a number of recent eponymous family category deletions, the members of these categories are better served by being interlinked through the various articles for various category members. In most cases there is very little material in the categories (2-4 members and in one instance a single entry). There is an additional issue with these categories in that a number of them are for people who are not actually related to each other; unsure, given the nature of professional wrestling, whether that's an argument against the categories. A number of the families already have articles about them which can be housed in Category:Professional wrestling families which is not up for deletion. Note that several of the categories currently have decent starts for articles in them (one is actually an article, not a category) and I encourage interested parties to transplant that information to article space. Otto4711 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Circus families
Delete both - as with the various recently completed CFDs for sports broadcasters, hockey players and baseball players, there is no need for these categories. The articles on the family members are interlinked and there is insufficient material to warrant the eponymous family categories. Should articles on the families be written they can be housed at Category:Circus families which is not nominated. Otto4711 16:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Universities and colleges in the European Union
This category was originally deleted after a March 26 debate. DRV overturned, with the consent of original closer, given new arguments raised at the DRV. Please review the DRV before commenting here. Procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep For the benefit of those who haven't looked at the deletion review, here's a quick summary of my thoughts on the original CfD discussion. I believe that a lot of reasons given for deletion were flat-out incorrect and that the arguments made in favor of keeping the category were never adressed. We have a category Category:Education in the European Union and it seems particularly relevant to have the university cat as a subcategory here since the sole involvement of the EU in education is in higher education. Through the Bologna process, the EU has pushed for increased uniformity among EU universities, leading to significant changes in many curriculums. The EU also provides significant research funding for universities and programs such as ERASMUS and SOCRATES. All these issues affect solely universities in the EU which I believe makes the category meaningful for browsing. The nominator's rationale in the first CfD was that The EU is just a regional body, and it does not run the university and college systems of its member states. This, of course, is entirely true yet of little relevance. Canada, the United States and many other federal countries do not run their universities, yet grouping the provincial or state categories makes perfect sense because of the common issues run at a federal level that affect the individual universities. A number of deletion supporters argued that the existence of this category is part of a Europhile conspiracy to overstate the role of the EU [1] [2]. The debate here should not be about the EU's importance in education but on whether this category can prove to be useful for organization and browsing. I should add that the category doesn't create any category clutter since it is solely a supercat for invidual country categories. Pascal.Tesson 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Friends TV show (1994)
- Delete, duplicate of Category:Friends. -- Prove It (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge the lone member to Category:Friends. --rimshotstalk 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge unnecessary subcat. Pascal.Tesson 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Scarface music
Delete - "Music by film" strikes me as a poor categorization scheme. The various articles are already appropriately categorized elsewhere. Otto4711 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:College Towns in Ohio
- Merge into Category:University towns in the United States, Rename to Category:University towns in Ohio, or Rename to Category:College towns in Ohio. -- Prove It (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- My preference is Rename to Category:University towns in Ohio (or, second option, to Category:College towns in Ohio). But I don't think merging is such a great idea as the parent category is becoming large enough to warrant the finer by-state categories. Pascal.Tesson 17:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Elvis Presley films
Delete - per strong consensus and precedent against categorizing films by actors. Otto4711 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, We already decided against Films by actor. -- Prove It (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep although I most certainly believe that categorizing films by actors is a bad idea, I believe this might be a reasonable exception. In many ways, Elvis films are almost a genre in themselves. Pascal.Tesson 17:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Bruce Lee films
Delete - per strong consensus and precedent against categorizing films by actors. Otto4711 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, We already decided against Films by actor. -- Prove It (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Malice Mizer singles
- Rename to Category:Malice Mizer songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist, and discussion of June 9th -- Prove It (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Peel Sessions artists
Listify and Delete - nominated once previously, closed with no consensus. In reviewing the arguments it appears that the delete contingent had the better argument. Yes, this is a very important guest appearance, but it is still a guest appearance and there is strong consensus against categorizing people by their guest appearances. We have deleted innumerable categories for film and television casts on this basis and there does not appear to be any justification for making an exception for the Peel Sessions. A list article would allow much greater flexibility in organization, allowing for articles arranged chronologically for example to assist interested parties in tracking trends in music through Peel's selection of guests. Or they could be arranged by genre, or cross-referenced by any number of factors that are much more useful than a simple alphabetical listing. Otto4711 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Brassaville albums
[edit] Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic
Delete - another eponymous category in which the main article and navtemplate serve as better navigational hubs. The subcats are all appropriately set in their respective "...by artist" trees and the articles are extensively interlinked. Otto4711 14:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Hitomi Yaida
Delete - as with many other eponymous categories, there is insufficient material to warrant it. The subcats are appropriately housed in their respective "...by artist" category structures and the articles in the category are appropriately interlinked with each other. No need for the category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 13:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Videos banned from MTV
Listify and delete - The categorization is relatively trivial and adds a bit of clutter to the songs so categorized, but the larger problem is that the word "banned" is not accurate. The category seeks to capture any video which had any play restrictions placed on it by MTV, from time restrictions to outright refusal to air. For instance, the video for Cher's If I Could Turn Back Time was not banned; it was restricted to rotation after 9:00 PM. A category is ill-equipped to capture those subtleties while a list article would allow for fuller explanations and attribution. Otto4711 13:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - could be regarded as a case of WP:OC#Subjective_inclusion_criterion, since, as the nominator says, the word "banned" is being used as a blanket term for numerous different situations. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:United States DVD releases
Delete - seeks to capture home video releases by year in the US, which is US-centric. The category itself is redundant to the Category:Years in home video category structure. No need for this category. Otto4711 13:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Despite the cat's intro line, I have no idea what purpose this is supposed to serve. Will just create category clutter as far as I can see. Pascal.Tesson 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Yanni
Delete - nothing in the category but subcats for albums and videos which are already better categorized as part of their respective "...by artist" category trees. No need for this category. Otto4711 13:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Yes (band)
Delete - another eponymous category for which the main article and navtemplate serve as a better navigational hub. There is insufficient material to warrant the category and all the material is easily interlinked. Otto4711 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Tata Young
- Propose renaming Category:Tata Young to Category:Tata Young albums
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename - all of the articles are for albums, so the category should be renamed to reflect that and placed in the appropriate Albums by artist category tree. Otto4711 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:The Yardbirds
Delete - there is insufficient material to warrant an eponymous category. Otto4711 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. Clearly not likely to grow into a larger category, and the subcats handle all necessary categorisation. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Will Young
Delete - as with many other eponymous categories, this one is unnecessary for navigation. Eponymous categories should be reserved for those which contain large amounts of material which can not be easily interlinked, which is not the case here. The main article, including the navtemplate, serve as a better navigational hub. Otto4711 13:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Video game music composers
- Propose renaming Category:Video game music composers to Category:Video game composers
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Saying "music" is redundant. None of the other categories phrase it this way either. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose rename - The word "music" is needed for clarity. Otherwise, it is unclear as to what the people are composing. The suggested name implies that the people may write the video game software. Dr. Submillimeter 11:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose rename - "Music composer" specifies the exact context, as opposed to someone who composes video games. --Scottie_theNerd 12:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose rename - As per the above discussion, "video game composer" has the capacity to imply many different occupations. Since this category is specifically regarding video game music composers (and not just people who compose things related to video games), the "music" moniker should remain. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Highlander people
This category contains only three people, the directors and producers of this series. Per previous decisions, we shouldn't be categorizing producers and directors by their creations. The category should be deleted. Samuel Wantman 06:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 12:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Villages in Hiroshima Prefecture
Empty cat. All villages in the prefecture have been dissolved recently. There is a new Cat:Dissolved municipalities of Hiroshima Prefecture that has already been created to hold all dissolved villages, towns, and cities. Neier 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per my nom. Neier 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Knot types
Delete. It is unclear how this differs from the parent category, Category:Knots. Knot type categories such as Category:Bend knots and Category:Hitch knots are currently subcategories of knots, not of knot types. If knot types were separated out, not much would be left. — Gwalla
- Delete - redundant. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge (just in case there are articles solely categorized as knot types) Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] April 7
[edit] Category:People treated for alcoholism
Delete, Non-defining characteristic, trivial, WP:OCAT, and possible violation of WP:BLP. Carlossuarez46 00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, definitely non-defining, even if it could avoid BLP issues. — coelacan — 00:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-defining. Piccadilly 09:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This type of biographical categorization leads to category clutter problems. Moreover, people are generally not notable for being alcoholics but instead for their other accomplishments. Dr. Submillimeter 11:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Reformed Theological Colleges and Seminaries
- Merge into Category:Reformed church theological colleges and seminaries, duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:People from Isle-of-Sheppey
Merge into Category:People from Isle of Sheppey, to match Isle of Sheppey.-- Prove It (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - I created this one based on an article name somewhere. Agreed the titles should match properly. Regan123 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and rename - the island is known either as "The Isle of Sheppey" or simply as "Sheppey"- never as "Isle of Sheppey", asd made clear in the article. As such, the category should be Category:People from the Isle of Sheppey. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge both into Category:People from the Isle of Sheppey, per Grutness. -- Prove It (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Heroic acts
- Delete, interesting, but suffers from subjective inclusion criterion. -- Prove It (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#Subjective_inclusion_criterion. "Heroic" is a matter of opinion. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Despite the category's name, this is being used to categorize people as heroes. This suffers from severe POV problems and should be deeted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- delete per nom and Dr. Submillimeter. Piccadilly 09:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --rimshotstalk 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Highlander cast members
[edit] Category:Holocaust deniers
Like the former Category:Anti-Semitic people, this category inappropriately labels people -- it is potentially libelous and is speculative; thus, it should be deleted. --172.164.111.115 15:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per WP:OC#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue, holding an opinion about a certain issue is not an appropriate criterion for categorisation. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak rename to something like Category:Holocaust denial researchers? Limit it to people who actually do scholarly research into Holocaust denial as opposed to random Neo-Nazis or whoever. Otto4711 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue is pretty clear. Do not categorize people based on their opinions. -- Cat chi? 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Split Rename one cat as per Otto above and another for Neo-Nazis and crackpots. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep The articles in the category indicate the person denies the holocaust. Is each article also going to be re-written to hide this fact? Hmains 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- If the information is given in an article, it can be explained. It can also, most importantly, be sourced. This possibility is not there when using categories. That is why categories are not usually used for this kind of information. The articles can and will still have it. --rimshotstalk 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Magnum, P.I. episodes - Season 7
- Rename to Category:Magnum, P.I. episodes, convention of Category:Episodes by television series. -- Prove It (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. --After Midnight 0001 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:June 26th Births
- Delete, per discussion of November 2nd. -- Prove It (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Detete per nom. Would speedy, but it looks like this date did not exist before now. --After Midnight 0001 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and prior. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not helpful category. Patstuarttalk·edits 02:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Terrier dogs
- Merge into Category:Terriers, or possibly the reverse ... duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:Terriers - The two categories are clearly duplicates. I suggest merging to "terriers" so that the category name will correspond to the title of the main article on this topic (Terrier). Dr. Submillimeter 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Terriers. This is more common than "terrier dogs", and as Dr. Submillimeter notes, it matches the article. — coelacan — 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Films featuring museums
And Category:Films about museums.
I'll be blunt. Is this something anyone really cares about? Seems like a really inane thing to have a category over to me. I feel it needs to be deleted. SeizureDog 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Films featuring museums - This category is being used to include every movie that has at least one scene in a museum, including the Indiana Jones movies. This type of categorization could quickly become inane if categories are created for every scene in every movie. I am undecided on Category:Films about museums. Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat chi? 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Who cares if a movie has a museum? its just random information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. DBZROCKS 19:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-defining. Piccadilly 09:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Subcategories of Category:Animal births by year
- Propose renaming Subcategories of Category:Animal births by year to Category:XXXX animal births
- Category:Animal births in 1777 --> Category:1777 animal births
- Category:Animal births in 1830 --> Category:1830 animal births
- Category:Animal births in 1844 --> etc.
- Category:Animal births in 1861
- Category:Animal births in 1949
- Category:Animal births in 1984
- Category:Animal births in 1991
- Category:Animals born in 1989 --> Category:1989 animal births
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Rename all these subcategories to Category:XXXX animal births to match naming convention for births of people and horses. After Midnight 0001 04:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nomination to make things consistent. Q0 15:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Polish blues rock groups
There is only one group in the category, and it is unlikely that there will ever be many more. All includes groups should simply be placed in the category Blues-rock groups. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#Narrow_intersection and/or WP:OC#Trivial_intersection. As the nominator says, it's unlikely that this category will ever grow very large. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] April 6
[edit] Category:Users who drives an Isuzu Axiom
Category made by indefinitely blocked user Real96 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as I doubt anyone but him actually drives one of these. Nardman1 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete this user who started this template was indefinitely blocked the same day he created this. AniMate 02:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Terrorists by nationality
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective_inclusion_criterion. Terrorist by nationality is entirely subjective. -- Cat chi? 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Baristarim 23:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all These people need to be grouped together, just like any other occupational group. AshbyJnr 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Convince me that this is an occupation. Vegaswikian 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all subjective category.--Jersey Devil 23:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep all The Category:Terrorists contains the WP definition of terrorist which can used for any article being placed in these categories.
Elimination of the categories will not make the terrorists go away, but it will sure help keep them undercover. Terrorists are well known in current affairs and need to be identified as such.Hmains 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)- Huh? The what? You can still mention who considers who a terrorist on there respective articles. Wikipedia is not Interpol. -- Cat chi? 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the articles are true and the contents of the aticles acceptable for WP, why not categories? In all cases in WP, categories have the purpose of grouping similar articles together. Why make exceptions here? Hmains 02:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also this is not about a belief or intent, it is about people categorized by their criminal action as seen by the criminal category to which this category belongs. Hmains 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep all - please, there is no need to be PC about this. This is a very useful category. One might argue that it's too subjective, but a perusal of the subjects shows no such problems. Patstuarttalk·edits 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as always. If these categories survive, I propose a two-month ban on nominations of these categories for deletion. We can't keep having no consensus result of the same debate every two weeks.--Mike Selinker 07:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all - per nom SatuSuro 09:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all as essential primary defining categories, as per all the previous discussions on these categories. Piccadilly 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Organisations in Gloucestershire
- Propose renaming Category:Organisations in Gloucestershire to Category:Organisations based in Gloucestershire
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, same reasons as item below, and to match Category:Organisations based in England. Hawkestone 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Organisations in Hampshire
- Merge in line with the convention that organisations are categorised by where they are based, not to all places where they operate. Hawkestone 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Prisoners currently under death sentence
- Merge. There are only 4 articles in the awkwardly-titled Category:Prisoners currently under death sentence, and any differences in the prisoners' legal status aren't readily apparent. Strangerer (Talk) 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. The user who made this probably just didn't know about the other category. — coelacan — 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with the same AGF Coelacan pointed out. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Theta Delta Chi brothers
Delete Another fraternity category for deletion as non-defining, per numerous precedents. Haddiscoe 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - We already decided not to use this categorization scheme. I can cut and paste my previous comments if necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Piccadilly 09:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Hawaiian culture
Rename to match the other subcategories of Category:American culture by state. Lesnail 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Hawaii culture - The category should be renamed to patch the other categories for culture in U.S. states. Note that "Hawaiian" in this case refers to the state and not the ethnic group, as the category contains articles that are indirectly related or unrelated to the ethnic group (e.g. List of films set in Hawaii, Society of Seven, and Honolulu Academy of Arts). (Someone wrote an article on Society of Seven? How tacky.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Hawaii culture, for consistency. — coelacan — 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Racehorse births by year
- Propose renaming Category:Racehorse births by year to Category:Racehorse births by century
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, since indeed this is not a category of births by year, but instead by century. Lesnail 15:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a subcategory of Category:Animal births by year and the precise categories are by year. The century categories are merely an intermediate means of organisation. Haddiscoe 17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Commment I don't think the proposal is correct, but I don't think it should stay the way it is. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The current scheme here is the same as that used in the Category:Births by year subcats.--After Midnight 0001 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Famous street furniture
This category is not NPOV – Ilse@ 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Street furniture. Lesnail 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but rename in the same way that Category:Famous animals is renamed - The term "famous" is a poor choice of words, but these individual articles are about "special" street furniture (e.g. Mojave phone booth). They should not be grouped with "ordinary" street furniture (e.g. phone booth). A similar discussion is being held on renaming Category:Famous animals (which is about "special" animals and not "ordinary" animals"). I suggest renaming this category in the same way that the other category is renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Merge for now. Most of the items in the parent are generic in nature. At least one in this category, Mojave phone booth, achieved a kind of cult status and should not be included in with the general terms. I suppose following the previous consensus and using Category:Individual street furniture could work. However it probably may not apply to the other two items in this subcat. I also find the parents name Category:Street furniture kind of odd. never heard that term in the US. I do support a Rename of some kind. Vegaswikian 19:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Roald Dahl
Delete -- Except in very rare cases, categories for individual people are not a good idea. I don't think this is one of those rare cases. Roald Dahl is not any more notable than hundreds of other writers. Lesnail 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCAT. -- Samuel Wantman 06:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No need for a category for the name article plus subcats that are already part of other, better category trees. Otto4711 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep useful supercat for the two subcats within it. And those subcats are useful as well. Patstuarttalk·edits 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neither subcat would be orphaned if this category were deleted. Books by author subcats usually don't get put in an eponymous category for the author. These categories add little or no utility. -- Samuel Wantman 07:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:UEFA Euro 2008 player
Delete. This category would be extremly useful from May 2008 onwards; at this point in time, however it should be empty and therefore redundant.
Given that squads for the finals are not confirmed until over a year from now, assuming any player will play breaches WP:Crystal. Current regular players for the two countires that have actually qualified, hosts Austria and Switzerland, have been added to the category, neglecting the possibility that future loss of form or injury may jeopardise their selection.
While the category itself passes WP:Crystal, it will not have any valid contents until May 2008 and so would qualify for speedy deletion. It would of course be re-created in a years time when squad lists are announced. Caledonian Place 14:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - until the rosters are set there is no objective criteria for inclusion. --After Midnight 0001 14:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is indeed a crystal ball category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lists of Celebrities (Chinese Zodiac) and subcategories
How is this a bad idea? Let me count the ways:
- Entirely redundant to the Category:Births by year hierarchy.
- The Chinese zodiac is entirely unrelated to nearly all of the people who've been categorized so far.
- Each subcategory purports to be populated by fully a twelfth of the "celebrity" articles on Wikipedia.
- Whether a person qualifies as being a celebrity is largely a matter of interpretation.
- As the subcategories don't make the celebrity requirement explicit in their titles, before very long at all editors will start placing them on all people articles.
- And they're miscapitalized. —Cryptic 14:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and discussion of May 22nd. -- Prove It (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because:
-
-
- I created this category (and subcategories) because it has been suggested in the Talk pages of the Chinese Zodiac signs to remove the Celebrity lists in these articles entirely and replace them with links to the categories. This is partly because the Celebrity lists in there got longer and longer, and because IP's added their favourite porn stars every five minutes. Categorizing it would combat vandalism on these parts.
- The categories aren't supposed to consist of ALL people born under the Year of ThisNThat, it's just a representation to give the reader some examples.
- Whether a Chinese or other Zodiac sign is fitting on a certain person or not is entirely subjective. It's just the fact you were born under that sign.
- Miscapitalized? Oops, sorry. Well, renaming them would be in order if we keep them.
- If you got a better idea how to organize this some other way, please tell me.
- I've adapted the celebrity list out of the Dog article so far, but I won't continue as long as this is contested. Teshik 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Strong Delete Another case of category bloat that adds next to nothing in the context of the article's subject. We don't have Category:Librans or Category:Pisceans for the same reason. Caknuck 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all - Despite the small offset between the Chinese and Western calendars, this is generally redundant with the Category:Births by year hierarchy. It also seems inappropriate to use any astrological system for classifying people (unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that the astrological system has some impact on the people in the categories). Note that it is not alway appropriate to convert lists into categories. Also, the discussion at Talk:Dog (zodiac) received hardly any feedback from anyone; no one agreed with creating categories for these people. Finally, note that, despite the creator's intentions, the category will be used for ALL people born under the given zodiacal sign. Each category will eventually contain 1/12 of all people in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 15:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (after 2 edit conflicts) - per WP:OCAT and per nom. Also, not only are the subcategories not capitalized correctly, the parent is misnamed, since this is not a collection of Lists, it should have been something like "Celebrity births by Chinese Zodiac" or similar. --After Midnight 0001 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is basically redundant, not a useful form of categorization, and no less susceptible to vandalism than the lists were. Someone reading Herbert Hoover might perhaps want to see a category of other people born in the same year, but they are extremely unlikely to want a category of other people born in the year of the dog ever. Relistify--at least with a list you can see on your watchlist when people add vandalism. Lesnail 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. No astrology-based categories for people, please.--Mike Selinker 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete all. This is trivia and is unencyclopedic. It makes a farce of categorization. Listify if you must; although I prefer never to see this again in any form. Majoreditor 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all Not defining on any rational analysis. Haddiscoe 17:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete them. Agreeing with everything said above, and most of these people don't believe in this Zodiac so it is very misleading to categorize them in this way. Most importantly, though, it's simply overcategorization, as this is a non-defining aspect of people. — coelacan — 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion (Celebrities Zodiac)
- Since I'm the only one who wants to have these articles, I admit my defeat ;-) . Delete them.
- And since hardly anyone seems to like the idea of Celeb List in the articles itself either, I invite you to get rid of those lists themselves, if you think they're not needed (but discuss it over there first). To be honest, I'd rather have those lists gone entirely, to cut down on vandalism maintenance. But as Dr. Submillimeter noted, the discussion threads are not really active. (12 zodiac signs, 12 totally different discussion threads, hardly read by anyone) Teshik 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion, Teshik. I have begun centralized deletion discussion at Talk:Rat (zodiac)#Let's remove all the celebrities lists. — coelacan — 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all What's your sign? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this would be a defining characteristic for East Asians only... the same way that in Japan, blood type would be a defining characteristic. 70.55.90.106 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all This is not a primary defining characteristic anywhere, and nor is blood group. Some people may have superstitious beliefs that they are defining, but those beliefs have no place in an encyclopedia built on reason. Piccadilly 09:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Brit Awards
- Propose renaming Category:Brit Awards to Category:BRIT Awards
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, BRIT is an acronym for the British Record Industry Trust as the main BRIT Awards page states. Every other instance includes BRIT as a capitalized word. This could also be confused with the shortened form of "British". Timclare (talk) (sign here) 13:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Brit Award winners to Category:BRIT Award winners
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, BRIT is an acronym for the British Record Industry Trust as the main BRIT Awards page states. Every other instance includes BRIT as a capitalized word. This could also be confused with the shortened form of "British". Timclare (talk) (sign here) 13:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Both The Beeb calls them Brit Awards, as do Amazon and many other sources. If it is not clear which version to use, normal capitalization rules should be followed. In this case, that means Brit Awards. As for confusion with a shortened form of British: well, that is obviously intended by the name's creators. Also, the Brit awards go by the longer name of Britannia Music Awards [3][4]. --rimshotstalk 16:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Characters in the Worm Ouroboros
- Propose renaming Category:Characters in the Worm Ouroboros to Category:The Worm Ouroboros characters
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Simpler category name. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename as per nom. and convention of Category:Characters in written fantasy. --rimshotstalk 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Films Depicting Non-Fictional US Presidents
- Propose renaming Category:Films Depicting Non-Fictional US Presidents to Category:UNKNOWN
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Aside from routine capitalization work, "United States" could probably be expanded, and there's got to be a better way to phrase this. And what about scope? (Currently one film in which a real president seems to only play a peripheral role is already included.) Unint 02:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is the categorization of films by character, which would appear to lead to category clutter. (Imagine an endless stream of similar categories: Films depicting non-fictional reporters, films depicting non-fictional businessmen, films depicting non-fictional actors, films depicting Santa Claus, etc) Moreover, non-fictional presidents are depicted so frequently and in so many different time periods (between the American Revolution and the present) that this category does not seem like it would bring together related films. For example, both 1776 (musical) and The Pink Panther Strikes Again could both be placed in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename/Keep. I'll probably be in the minority here but I think this is an interesting category for study, considering the profile of the subject matter at hand. As for the rename possibilities: Films depicting Presidents of the United States./United States' Presidents...hmm--Keefer4 | Talk 10:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - this category is hopelessly broad; taken literally, it would include not just biopics on presidents, but any film in which a depiction of a real president played a peripheral role, or even (conceivably) any film in which a president's voice was heard on the radio in the background. Alternatively, rename to something along the lines of "Biographical films about non-fictional Presidents of the United States". Walton Vivat Regina! 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Dr. Submillimeter . Haddiscoe 12:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above and also how large a role would be needed to "depict"? --After Midnight 0001 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Dr. S Lesnail 15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per S. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete we should have a category which says [[Category:Films depicting non-fictional characters]]. Real96 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat chi? 18:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:People with diabetes
A different nomination for this category, after Herostratus's recent close "with no prejudice against an immediate renomination to Delete". This was previously "Category:Diabetics" and the renaming was sensible, but I believe it is more sensible to simply delete. A plurality of !voters agreed last time, but there were three proposals on the table. Let's see if there's a consensus to delete, now. Rationale: This is not a defining way to categorize people. It's on the level with "people who have had heart attacks". Some medical conditions are particularly notable. Wilford Brimley's eccentric pronounciation aside, diabetes is not a defining aspect of what makes a person notable. As Dr. Submillimeter said before, "If people want a category for diabetes activists, then a Category:Diabetes activists would be appropriate." I believe this category is WP:OCAT. I am not proposing the subcategory for deletion; Category:Deaths from diabetes is also a subcategory of Category:Deaths by type of illness and so would not be orphaned, and I've made it a subcategory of Category:Diabetes already too. But this category, for people who simply have diabetes, is non-defining categorization and we should delete. — coelacan — 01:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Also, as I stated before, people are not notable for having diseases but are instead notable for other activities. Therefore, categorization by disease is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Therefore, also delete Category:HIV-positive people, although I haven't studied any possible previous CFDs on that one, if any.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC criterion 1 (non-defining or trivial characteristic). Diabetes isn't generally what makes a person notable, or a defining theme of their life. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- Having certain very rare diseases may make someone notable in itself, but having diabetes is not notable, nor is it a defining characteristic. Lesnail 15:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Having argued long ago in one CfD to delete this altogether, then settled for renaming during another CfD, I must support this nomination per above. The three-way argument (delete-rename-keep) kept it from getting deleted the first time when the the non-keep votes split to create no consensus. Doczilla 04:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:DNWAUC -- Cat chi? 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. DBZROCKS 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above, all categories of people by "disease", "condition", and "surgery" ought to go. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and as per Carlossuarez46 most disease categories should go. Half of them are for trendy pseudo-diseases anyway. Piccadilly 09:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --rimshotstalk 16:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] April 5
[edit] Category:Roman Catholic journalists
- Delete, as a non-notable intersection by religion. -- Prove It (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Religion usually has little impact on the careers of journalists. Therefore, this category is an arbitrary intersection of two unrelated characteristics, and it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed with Dr. Submillimeter. I could see "journalists of Roman Catholic publications" but this amounts to a trivial intersection. — coelacan — 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Overcategorization.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Coelacan. Might make sense if the category is reorganized for journalists whose catholic faith has been significant in their journalistic work. Otherwise useless. Pascal.Tesson 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 23:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Prolog Compilers
- Delete. The category is too small to be useful; it has only 2 entries and will likely never have more. It is redundant; its members are also members of Category:Prolog programming language family. Rwxrwxrwx 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Category:Prolog programming language family. Pascal.Tesson 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Sigma Pi brothers
Delete as non-defining per numerous precedents. Haddiscoe 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Similar categories for other fraternities were already deleted in WP:CFD discussions. In previous discussions, the consensus was that membership in the fraternities (or other college non-sports organizations) was generally not a major characteristic of the individuals in the categories; the people were often much more notable for achievements after college rather than during college. More details can be posted if necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per many precedents. Doczilla 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Dr. Submillimeter AshbyJnr 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Pro-choice movement
- Upmerge, POV-pushing is occurring in the parent category Category:Abortion debate. Articles such as Fetal pain, Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, and Post-abortion syndrome have been removed from Category:Pro-life movement and placed centrally in Abortion debate. Articles such as Reproductive rights are conspicuously absent from Category:Abortion debate, having been relegated to the subcategory Category:Pro-choice movement. Category:Abortion debate is susceptible to people categorizing only articles that favor their side of the issue therein, while neglecting to include articles relevant to the other side of the debate in Category:Abortion debate. The categories that are the subject of this proposed merge can be (and are being) used as hiding places.
- Many people hold intensely emotional convictions on both sides of the abortion debate. Editors have already shown themselves to be prone to misrepresenting the abortion debate towards their POV, by categorizing only those articles that represent their point of view in Category:Abortion debate, and neglecting to include those that represent the other side.
- Also an issue is the amount of crossover between these two categories. Are Crisis pregnancy centers really only related to the Pro-life movement, as they are currently categorized? A Congressional report was prepared by Senator Henry Waxman (D-CA), finding that CPCs receiving federal funding provide misleading health information to consumers.ref Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced a piece of legislation recommending a requirement that CPCs be held to truth in advertising standards.ref These actions make CPCs relevant to the pro-choice movement. Many, if not most of these articles are relevant to both sides of the debate. Clinic escorts only exist because of pro-life activism such as sidewalk counseling, yet the first is categorized in Category:Pro-choice movement, the latter two, in Category:Pro-life movement. They should be visible together.
- We have an opportunity to create a place where articles pertinent to both sides of the debate are accessible. It could increase understanding on both sides.
- Upmerge Category:Pro-choice movement and Category:Pro-life movement to Category:Abortion debate. Support keeping the four categories for pro-choice and pro-life activists and organizations. -- Joie de Vivre 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge, exactly as nom suggests, keeping the organization/activist categories and making them direct subcategories of Category:Abortion debate. It makes sense to categorize the organizations like that, but the various topical articles aren't "owned" by either side, and the reader can benefit from a much more comprehensive parent category that groups the topical articles together. — coelacan — 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is an excellent summary. Joie de Vivre 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Media of Cayman Islands
- Propose renaming Category:Media of Cayman Islands to Category:Caymanian media
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match convention of Category:Media by country. jwillburtalk 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Cayman Islands footballers
- Propose renaming Category:Cayman Islands footballers to Category:Caymanian footballers
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match convention of Category:Football (soccer) players by country. jwillburtalk 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Routes in Fairfield County, Connecticut
- Category:Routes in Fairfield County, Connecticut to Category:Transportation in Fairfield County, Connecticut
- Merge, since the parent isn't exactly overloaded with articles, and Connecticut state highways directly includes all routes. NE2 15:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I took a break from creating the Category:Transportation in Fairfield County, Connecticut category and found the notice for deletion when I returned about an hour later. I expected to add a link to "Lighthouses in Fairfield County, Connecticut" which I'd planned to create (11 lighthouses; some no longer used) and "Railroad stations in Fairfield County" (about 15). Railroad lines and railroad branches would also be added (add another four or five), and future articles on the Bridgeport ferry, planned Stamford ferry, major bridges would increase it a bit more. I don't have a strong opinion about merging all these into one category. This is part of a wider organization of articles I'm attempting for Category:Fairfield County, Connecticut. It would be more efficient, it seems to me, to ask editors who know more about organizing than I do whether the approach I'm taking is the right one. Or is there a better forum for these questions?
- I created "Routes in Fairfield County" because Category:Fairfield County, Connecticut was becoming too long at two pages (and growing -- at the present rate it will probably reach three pages sometime this year). First question: Is that too long or something I should not worry about?
- I've created subcategories by municipality for the larger municipalities (20-40 articles in "Category:Bridgeport, Connecticut" (42 articles), "Category:Stamford, Connecticut" (46 articles), "Category:Westport, Connecticut" (30 articles)), but that can't be done for smaller municipalities (I may have stretched it with "Category:New Canaan" and "Category:Darien" -- how small is too small?) and I worry that people searching for, say Bruce Museum may forget what town it's in, so this was the first step in adding thematic categories for the county (other themes would be high schools, lighthouses, train stations, museums, etc.). Second question: Was this the right solution (assuming there was a length problem)?
- As to specifically this category of Fairfield County routes, (third question)does the category make it easier or harder to find the article you want if you know what county the route is in but may not remember the specific route name? Or if it's easier, is it so much easier that it's worth having this more localized category? I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards or consensus on this, but I'd appreciate knowing more, either with comments here, or on my talk page. Noroton 19:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (self edit for clarity Noroton 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)) (self edit to fix links Noroton 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC))
-
- I have no problem at all with Category:Transportation in Fairfield County, Connecticut; there's just not enough in there to split into multiple subcategories. I personally added city and county categories (though very few into a separate transportation category) to all of Virginia's state highways. As for someone searching for a route, ideally List of State Routes in Connecticut should have at least a simple description of each route.
-
- Just a minor note - you should use a sortkey of either "Route 025" or "025", since Connecticut is not part of the name. You can see in Category:Accomack County, Virginia how the routes are sorted under "State Route". --NE2 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:History by ethnic group subcats
[edit] Category:History of the Kurds
[edit] Category:Roma history
[edit] Category:Bosniak history
[edit] Category:Basque history
[edit] Category:Khitan history
[edit] Category:Croatian history
[edit] Category:History of the Serbs
[edit] Category:Slavic history
[edit] Category:History of the Hungarians
[edit] Category:History of the Turkic people
- Propose renaming Category:History of the Kurds to Category:History of the Kurdish peoples
- Propose renaming Category:Roma history to Category:History of the Roma peoples
- Propose renaming Category:Bosniak history to Category:History of the Bosniak peoples
- Propose renaming Category:Basque history to Category:History of the Basque peoples
- Propose renaming Category:Khitan history to Category:History of the Khitan peoples
- Propose renaming Category:Croatian history to Category:History of the Croatian peoples
- Propose renaming Category:History of the Serbs to Category:History of the Serbian peoples
- Propose renaming Category:Slavic history to Category:History of the Slavic peoples
- Propose renaming Category:History of the Hungarians to Category:History of the Hungarian peoples
- Propose renaming Category:History of the Turkic people to Category:History of the Turkic peoples
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency. There is no sense of consistency among subcats of Category:History by ethnic group. I am taking Category:History of the Germanic peoples as a model. -- Cat chi? 15:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Query: I notice that some categories are "History of the ___ peoples", and others are "History of ___ peoples" (without "the"). Is there some basis by which a reader or editor would know whether to include "the" when searching for, or adding, such a category? -- Ben TALK/HIST 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: What are the "Hungarian peoples", the "Bosniak peoples" and the "Basque peoples" etc? As far as I know there is only one Hungarian people, one Bosniak people and one Basque people etc. The situation cannot be compared with "families" of ethnic groups such as the Turkic peoples or the Slavic peoples.--Domitius 12:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Some of these might be appropriate, but other are not. This matter is too complex to be handled by a group nomination. Consideration may be given to renominating some of these separately. Haddiscoe 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose without prejudice to relisting separately. I think renaming some of these makes sense, but not all. Lesnail 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is complex. AshbyJnr 23:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I couldn't any complexity. If anyone claims that some of these are not appropriate, lets be more spesific; which one/ones?Must.T C 10:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lesnail etc. Never mind complexity, what about accuracy? More intelligent use and non-use of the terminal "s" might have saved this nom. Johnbod 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- On relection I think each should be dealt with seperately, but they could be put up one after the other. I'm clear some should be singular; about others I don't know personally. Johnbod 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Category:Natives of São Paulo (city)
- Propose renaming Category:Natives of São Paulo (city) to Category:People from São Paulo (city)
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as convention and in line with the change recently agreed for the parent state here; and keep the old version as a category redirect. VSerrata 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename/redirect per nom. Haddiscoe 20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename/redirect Piccadilly 09:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Hamilton Bulldogs (1996-2002) players
- Merge, this was requested at the Help Desk by User:Chesterfield99. It appears that the MergeFrom category is redundant. I am not really into sports, so it may be a different team. I hope I am following proper procedure here, this is the first time I have done this. LuigiManiac 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Luigi,
It is the same team, is has been misrepresented as two teams - the players stats incorrectly divided. A previous wikipedia user chose to separate, but both the Team Records (Hamilton Bulldogs), and the League Records (American Hockey Leauge) recognize one consecutive team, with player stats being totaled. I have worked in sports for 12 years. Thanks,
Chesterfield99 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Chesterfield99 has been depopulating the MergeFrom category before this has been discussed. I had one of the pages on my watchlist when I found him removing the category (without explanation). I don't know how many other articles are involved. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is to separate franchises. The latter (ex-Quebec Citadelles) simply acquired naming rights from the former (became Toronto Roadrunners). ccwaters 12:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- ccWaters you are incorrect. Both the American Hockey League and the Hamilton Bulldogs recognize it as one franchise. In 2002 the Edmonton Oilers and Montreal Canadians, explicidly agreed that when Edmonoton put its affiliate in Toronto, and Motnreal put its affliate in Hamilton - that the Bulldogs franchise would remain 'un-interrupted'. There are numerous examples of other clubs changing NHL affiliates and ownership groups yet remaining one consistent club. In fact for one year the affiliation was shared. But dividing the two clubs you are changing history and are making a case inconsistent with the intentions of the Bulldogs, Canadians, Oilers and the AHL. I have been trying to merge the stats to reflect this reality
Chesterfield99 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I had this discussion over a year ago and actually referenced AHL press releases from that time frame (see Talk:Hamilton Bulldogs, someone even acknowledges them). Since then league redid its web site and removed news prior to 2005. I tried looking for them. Ultimately, I'd love to skim through archives from the Hamilton Spectator when this happened.
- I'm fully aware of the differences between a franchise and an affiliation. The 3 AHL Binghamton teams in the 80ies and 90ies were in fact one franchise that changed its name twice. The Fort Wayne Komets moved to Abany in the early 90ies before folding. The Rockford IceHogs' name and trademarks were sold and will be used when the old Utah Grizzlies franchise comes to town next season. Off hand there's been 3 incarnations of the Peoria Rivermen name.
- Let me remind you that according to the NFL, the Cleveland Browns never left for Baltimore. The NHL ceremoniously declared the Ottawa Senators reinstated after almost 60 years. Things do get "revised" in the name of PR.
- And yes, much like you did here with the category depopulation, I thank you for your expedient article merger. ccwaters 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- ccwaters. I agree with you in each of those instance your descibed (in Rockford it is in a different league, in Cleveland they took time off, for intance). Hamilton, however, is a different case to all the above: same name and logo, same league, same coach, same office staff, no time off, and even a joint affiliation during the transition. I agree that these true seemless transfers are rare, and pr often gets in the way, but not in this case, the Hamilton Bulldogs situation is legitimate.
-
Chesterfield99 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: there's more thorough discussion at Talk:Hamilton Bulldogs. 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Jewish Museum of Florida
- Delete, this is an article in category space. No objection to making it an article, but it needs cleanup and may have some copyright issues. -- Prove It (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Move to Jewish Museum of Florida - The museum is probably notable, but this truly is an article in category space. This seems to happen a couple of times a month. I will suggest creating a special procedure to move things like this from category to article space. Dr. Submillimeter 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#New procedure for moving articles out of category space. Dr. Submillimeter 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I see no reason for this museum to have a category. AshbyJnr 23:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Culture of West Virginia
- Propose renaming Category:Culture of West Virginia to Category:West Virginia culture
- Nominator's Rationale: this category should be renamed in to match the other categories in Category:American culture by state. A previous CfD led to this anomaly. Conversly, I would also be open to renaming all of the other categories to match the naming convention established for WV in the previous CfD. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:West Virginia culture, or make an umbrella nomination to make the others match Culture of Foo. Either way is good, but all the states should match. -- Prove It (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm inclined towards the "West Virginia culture" as either option seems to be of equal quality and efficacy and, quite frankly, it'd be easier and we could all get back to the business of building a world-class encyclopedia. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Stereolab singles
- Rename to Category:Stereolab songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist, and discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Series broadcast by Hero TV
- Rename to Category:Hero TV shows, convention of Category:Television series by network, or Delete. There is already a list article. -- Prove It (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is the categorization of TV show by international broadcaster. It generally is an infeasible system, as many TV shows (particularly from USA, UK, and Japan) are exported to multiple countries and shown on many different "foreign" networks. This particular cateogry lists many Japanese TV shows that are shown on a Filipino network. Dr. Submillimeter 09:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Nature reserves of Costa Rica
- Propose renaming Category:Nature reserves of Costa Rica to Category:Nature reserves in Costa Rica
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, convention of Category:Nature reserves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per convention of Category:Nature reserves. -- Prove It (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Planned or proposed arenas
- Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed arenas to Category:Planned or proposed indoor arenas
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity and to match Category:Indoor arenas. AshbyJnr 12:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Animal births by year
This category is heavily underpopulated and there's not enough famous animals born in the same year to make such a categorization useful. I suggest this category and it subcategories are deleted and that any articles in it are recategorized in the regular births and deaths categories. Mgm
- I think that's a reasonable point. No need to promote systemic bias for humans, we may have dolphin editors at some point. Silliness aside, merge as overly small. >Radiant< 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Animal births should be kept separate from human births, just as are the "births" of books, buildings, albums and everything else that is not a person. LukeHoC 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Undecided All three options seem bad. Keeping these ridiculously small categories seems pointless. Merging to births of human beings isn't a great idea as it seems absurd to use the same cat for animals. On the other hand, I see no reason to delete the info completely... How about reorganizing the category (for now) by merging decades or even centuries (for the 18th and 19th century)? At least we get categories with more than a single entry... Pascal.Tesson 14:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't see what's wrong with merging birth years of non-human animals with human animals. It keeps the information, and when you're looking at a non-human animal's article page, you don't mistake them for a human, so there's no confusion here. Just go ahead and merge. — coelacan — 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: The categories are small now because they are new. As time goes on, the categories will be populated and will be larger. Q0 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All articles that aren't about general concepts need a category that tags its year of creation. For people, it's year of birth. For works, it's the year the work was created. For events, the year it took place. And so on. Anything that has a specific identifiable year of origin should be categorized as such. In the case of notable individual animals, therefore, "Animals births by year" is the natural, obvious counterpart to "Births by year" (which is specifically for people). Dugwiki 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing that says the "Births by year" is specifically for people. Animals are already categorized in the Category:Famous Animals (which is up for some form of renaming) or one of its subcategories so it's already clear they are an animal even if you put them in "1066 births". - Mgm|(talk) 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There are lots of racehorses that could be added for one thing. Haddiscoe 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Racehorses seem to have their own categorization at the moment. Either they need to be lumped in with the rest of the animals into general cats (1990 animal births) or (if the racehorses keep their own cats) someone needs to show that those other categories can contain more than 3 entries. It's pointless to categorize if each category has 1 or 2 entries. - Mgm|(talk) 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but the subcategories need to be renamed for consistency's sake. -Sean Curtin 05:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, This category just completed a Keep and Rename less than 2 weeks ago. --After Midnight 0001 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Non-human animal births by year -- People are animals too, so as the category stands it would be appropriate to categorize George Washington in it. Lesnail 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, deliberately ignoring the PC point above. AshbyJnr 23:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is a whole page of Presidential Pets that are famous, these all are candidates for this category, so that totally cancels out the "not enough animals" argument.Mastrchf91 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Satellite Earth Stations in...
- Category:Satellite Earth Stations in Malaysia to Category:Earth stations in Malaysia
- Category:Satellite Earth Stations in Singapore to Category:Earth stations in Singapore
- Propose renaming, in accordance to earth station, which states either a satellite earth station or teleport can be regarded as an earth station. Both categories list satellite earth stations and teleports. Also proposing renaming to eliminate capitalisation, per writing of earth station. - Two hundred percent 10:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Early Middle Japanese texts
Category:Old Japanese texts already exists. It is a category of texts written in Old Japanese. Recently Category:Late Old Japanese texts was also created. Texts for other linguistic periods needed a proper category. So I created Category:Early Middle Japanese, Category:Late Middle Japanese, and Category:Early Modern Japanese. In my haste, I accidentally neglected to word "texts". Thus, the move proposal to bring them in line with the other two. The intention of each category is to sub-categorize the various texts into their appropriate linguistic periods. Without the "texts" suffix, the categories are fairly vague.
- Propose renaming Category:Early Middle Japanese to Category:Early Middle Japanese texts
- Propose renaming Category:Late Middle Japanese to Category:Late Middle Japanese texts
- Propose renaming Category:Early Modern Japanese to Category:Early Modern Japanese texts
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, See above. Bendono 03:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:United States Virgin Islander people
- Category:United States Virgin Islander people to Category:People from the United States Virgin Islands or the other way around
- Merge, I created United States Virgin Islander people without realizing the other category already existed. They should be merged, but I'm not sure which one is in the correct form. jwillburtalk 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy merge per nom. Doczilla 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy merge to Category:People from the United States Virgin Islands.--Keefer4 | Talk 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:People from the United States Virgin Islands. -- Prove It (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] April 4
[edit] Category:Organisations in Somerset
- Propose renaming Category:Organisations in Somerset to Category:Organisations based in Somerset
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with the convention that organisations are categorised by the locality where they are based, not to every locality where they happen to operate. Hawkestone 23:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename. Per Hawkestone. Thx.--Keefer4 | Talk 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 23:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Organisations in West Sussex
- Merge,in line with the convention that organisations are categorised by the locality in which they are based, not to all localities in which they have a branch. Hawkestone 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, per Hawkestone above, and as opposed to the Cornish nomination which could incorporate language and cultural organizations which are based elsewhere. There is no similar concern here to speak of. And besides the "in" is already in the cat. title here, so...--Keefer4 | Talk 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. AshbyJnr 23:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Narnia templates
This category has no text and few entries, the entries should be moved to a broder category. -PatPeter 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] United States Navy territory-related ships
- Propose renaming
- Category:American Samoa Related Ships to Category:United States Navy American Samoa-related ships
- Category:District of Columbia Related Ships to Category:United States Navy District of Columbia-related ships
- Category:Guam Related Ships to Category:United States Navy Guam-related ships
- Category:United States Virgin Islands Related Ships to Category:United States Navy Virgin Islands-related ships
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to conform with the MOS. See the rename proposal for United States Navy state-related ships here, and failed deletion proposal here. jwillburtalk 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Cub Wikipedians
[edit] Category:Something of the Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China
- Category: Economies of the Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China
- Category: Banks of the Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China
- Category: Companies of the Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China
Useless categories. Category: Something of Hong Kong and Category: Something of Macau can be placed right below Category: Something of the People's Republic of China, given Category: Something of mainland China exists whenever necessary and appropriate. There is no Category: Companies of the insular areas of the United States or Category: Companies of the British overseas territories. - Privacy 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. - Privacy 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - A real mess, and seems to require an overhaul in cat. structure from a higher level down.--Keefer4 | Talk 08:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, unless the following categories are also deleted:
- There are long-standing disputes over the use of the term Mainland China in more formal contexts, such as in article titles and category names, and the status quo has been a preference for the country name of the People's Republic of China. User:Privacy has ignored this, and unilaterally created the above categories, unleashing a new round of disputes. One primary contention over the creation of the above categories as sub-categories of the PRC, is that places "Mainland China" on par with "Hong Kong" and "Macau", a presentation which is highly politically sensitive. The above three categories helps mitigate this issue to some degree. Ultimately, there is little reason why entries in the Mainland China categories cannot exist simply in the PRC article, for that is precisely where they are in, and that is where they are primarily identified with.--Huaiwei 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Category:economy of mainland China was recently voted to be undeleted and kept. (And therefore please justify " unilaterally ".) Refer to the evidence that I have presented earler at Wikipedia talk:categorisation, and see if it is as " politically sensitive " as you have imagined to place mainland China together with Hong Kong and Macao.
" Ultimately, there is little reason why entries in the Mainland China categories cannot exist simply in the PRC " - They can exist in Asian categories too, because, to use your own words, " that is precisely where they are in ". — Instantnood 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Category:economy of mainland China was recently voted to be undeleted and kept. (And therefore please justify " unilaterally ".) Refer to the evidence that I have presented earler at Wikipedia talk:categorisation, and see if it is as " politically sensitive " as you have imagined to place mainland China together with Hong Kong and Macao.
- Delete. - All 6 should go, IMO, as POV Forks, but the 3 nominees should be deleted on their own demerits and not be tied to the other 3. "X of Macau" and "X of Hong Kong" should be subcats of "X of PRC," "X of mainland China" is nonsensical per Huaiwei because the "mainland" qualifier is strictly geographical and superfluous to the subject. I disagree with Huaiwei however, that "X of SAR of the PRC" mitigates anything, and instead contributes to making a confusing category scheme. Instead of trying to maneuver through a political minefield, I think we should aim to be as user-friendly as possible. These are issues that should be hammered out on talk pages, not through category wars and forks. bobanny 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. All three were created out of POV motives. — Instantnood 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very humorous, but delete all six per Bobany. There are 33 (34 with claimed Taiwan) first level administrative divisions of the PRC[11], not two or three, or whatever strange combo this situation creates. Deleting the extra three that Huaiwei mentions is just as important as deleting those nominated, it is different sides of the same POV dispute. SchmuckyTheCat 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessary intermediate categories. AshbyJnr 23:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Reformed theologians
Merge, the terms are basically synonymous, and while some (including me) have drawn a fine distinction between the two, there are no commonly agreed upon criteria for doing so. Flex (talk|contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)- Merge, The terms are basically synonymous, and while some (including me) have drawn a fine distinction between the two, there are no commonly agreed upon criteria for doing so. Therefore, we ought to include all who are commonly called Calvinists, perhaps trying to find better subcategories (e.g., Category:Confessional Calvinists, Category:Neo-orthodox Calvinists, Category:Conservative Calvinists, or whatever). I have proposed that we keep "Calvinists" rather than "Reformed theologians" because the former is less confusing when trying to decide if, say, a notable but run-of-the-mill pastor qualifies as a theologian proper. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly rename: They're not quite synonyms. Calvinist or Reformed theologians are a subset of Calvinist or Reformed people, which is what Category:Calvinists covers. A.J.A. 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with renaming it to Category:Calvinist theologians, but it doesn't seem like Category:Calvinists contains only non-theologians (e.g., James Petigru Boyce, to pick a semi-random example). So while that cat could be used to mean "Calvinist people" and the theologians cat could be used for those who write, speak, or teach on the subject professionally as you suggest, that's currently not how they're being used -- everyone in there is a professional Calvinist, but they're divided up as either Calvinist or Reformed. The issue for me is when people say that some Calvinists are not Reformed in some sense, while many use the terms basically synonymously. I want to abolish this distinction due to lack of consensual definitions. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good points. There are a few in Category:Calvinists who couldn't be included in a theologian category (a lot of Hungarian politicians, for some reason), but generally the distinction isn't being made. For the sake of better classification there should be a sub-cat for theologians. (Obviously a person can fall into more than one sub-cat, which as far as I know is fine.) A.J.A. 05:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with renaming it to Category:Calvinist theologians, but it doesn't seem like Category:Calvinists contains only non-theologians (e.g., James Petigru Boyce, to pick a semi-random example). So while that cat could be used to mean "Calvinist people" and the theologians cat could be used for those who write, speak, or teach on the subject professionally as you suggest, that's currently not how they're being used -- everyone in there is a professional Calvinist, but they're divided up as either Calvinist or Reformed. The issue for me is when people say that some Calvinists are not Reformed in some sense, while many use the terms basically synonymously. I want to abolish this distinction due to lack of consensual definitions. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep & sub-cat Calvinists under Reformed. Zwingli, Arminius, Barth, Amyraut, and Baxter are all "Reformed theologians". None of them, except by exaggerated equivalence (some more exaggerated than others), should be called "Calvinists". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- So by "Keep" you actually mean that we should reverse the existing cat/subcat relationship? As we discussed at some length at Template_talk:Calvinism, I believe WP:NPOV requires that we use the terms Calvinist and Reformed theologian descriptively rather than prescriptively. That is to say, because there is no general agreement on the distinction between the two (you have proposed one, the existing scheme represents another, others were proposed in our former discussion, etc.), we must apply them how they are commonly used, which is rather broadly and inclusively, rather than applying our own theological perspectives to prescribe how they ought to be narrowed and used (cf. your "should be"). To return to the example of Karl Barth, even though you and I don't like to consider him a Calvinist proper, he ought to be categorized as such because he is commonly considered one in reliable sources such as the Harvard Theological Review ("...Calvin and Barth, as Reformed theologians, ..."[12]) and the Scottish Journal of Theology ("Barth [is] Calvinism's greatest theologian since Calvin"[13]). In short, we need to come up with a better, more neutral categorization scheme (cf. the discussion above), and as a first step I am proposing we merge these two cats and work from there. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep! We also want articles on Calvinist musicians, Calvinist painters and Calvinist scientists... StAnselm 07:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Members of the Hillcrest Round Table
Delete - this is sort of like the fraternal organizations categories and sort of like the honors and awards categories too. Strikes me that the existing list at Hillcrest Round Table is the superior organizational scheme here. Otto4711 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is categorization by an informal social organization. The people in this category (such as Groucho Marx are not primarily defined as belonging to the group. This is already listed at Hillcrest Round Table. Dr. Submillimeter 06:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. LukeHoC 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Dr. SubmillimeterAshbyJnr 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Cable magnates
Delete in the absence of any objective definition of what constitutes being a "magnate." Otto4711 19:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC section 3 (subjective criterion for inclusion). "Magnate" is a subjective term. Alternatively, rename to Category:People in the cable industry. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would weakly support a rename to something like Category:Cable executives (tighter definition than the vague "people in...") if it is determined there is encyclopedic value in the categorization. Otto4711 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete subjective cat. Doczilla 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Synesthetes
- Propose renaming Category:Synesthetes to Category:People with synesthesia
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename for medical accuracy and for consistency with the majority of other listings under Category:People_by_medical_or_psychological_condition, such as People with acromegaly, People with schizophrenia, People with multiple sclerosis, etc. The category's own definition does not call them synesthetes, but rather specifies that it is for people with the condition known as synesthesia. Doczilla 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. According to the American Psychological Association conventions on "person-first" language, this is also the appropriate decision. Edhubbard 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and Ed. The new name is also clearer, too, for people who are not familiar with synesthesia, they can at least look at the phrase "people with something" and grok that it is a category of people. "Synesthetes" sounds like it might be a brand of home appliances. — coelacan — 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment :-) That's a brand I'd buy! Edhubbard 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename and send me a Synesthetes toaster. Pascal.Tesson 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Are you sure you want one? The toast always tastes blue to me. — coelacan — 20:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment/Question: This might be out of order here, but reflecting on this proposal has also made me think that the Famous synesthetes page should be moved, perhaps to Famous people with synesthesia. Any comments would be greatly appreciated on the talk page for Famous synesthetes. It should only take a few minutes to move the page, but should I then also go and change the links on the pages that link to it? Edhubbard 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: Edhubbard moved it already to list of people with synesthesia, per that talk page discussion, so there's no need to chime in there unless you disagree and prefer a different title. — coelacan — 22:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Principals
- Propose renaming Category:Principals to Category:School principals and headteachers
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity and geographical neutrality. Postlebury 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename Agree with renaming. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename - "Principal" can have other meanings outside education, e.g. (in security parlance) the person guarded by a bodyguard. The rename will also reduce systemic bias. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Movie moguls
Delete both in the absence of any objective criteria for what constitutes being a "mogul." Otto4711 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both as subjective per nom. Doczilla 18:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Movie company owners or Category:Movie studio owners. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per TonyTheTiger. The term "mogul" is an entirely subjective criterion. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Problem with the suggested rename is that the people in the categories are not all owners of film studios (any rename should use "film" as opposed to "movie" per naming conventions). Some are studio executives with no ownership interests, some are owners or executives of production companies and so on. It also opens the door to including people who own stock in film studios but who otherwise have no role in studio operations, which would be a miscategorization. If there is an interest in categorizing film studio executives or owners it would probably be best to start from scratch with newly-created categories. Otto4711 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm still not sure here. Looks like the articles that might define this are not where you would expect with a lot of redirects. So we do have some definitions for these types of classifications. I'm not sure how clear and objective they are. The definitions do include examples, so clearly those individuals should be acceptable in the category. The question is about everyone else. Not sure if a listify would be a better choice yet. Vegaswikian 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- What articles do you mean? Would you link them here? Otto4711 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Business magnate seems to be where everything is kind of defined. You can also check out Media proprietor. Vegaswikian 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- What articles do you mean? Would you link them here? Otto4711 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Neutral (rename to ??) - Needs to be recategorized as something else, but not sure at the moment what it should be called, considering the issues raised by Vegaswikian.--Keefer4 | Talk 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose unless someone can come up with something better and means the same thing. These categories are reflect the personality driven nature of the early studio system. LukeHoC 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Category:Film studio executives is better and, while it doesn't mean precisely the same thing, has the advantage of being objectively defineable where "mogul" is not. Note that the category does not limit itself to the early days of the studio system, as it includes contemporary people like Jeffrey Katzenberg, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. Those in the category who are not studio executives may be categorized as producers, directors and what-not, which are also objectively defineable. Otto4711 19:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or rename as proposed by Otto4711 and isn't a studio mogul the movie guy one just snowboarded over? Carlossuarez46 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note that I'm not proposing a rename. I'm proposing deletion and, if there's an interest in categorizing film studio executives, starting fresh with newly-created categories rather than renaming one or the other of these. Otto4711 18:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Catholic comedians
- Delete, or Rename to Category:Roman Catholic comedians, convention of Category:Roman Catholics by occupation. -- Prove It (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Roman Catholic comedians Rename to match the convention. As with other profession-by-religion categories, though, it should be restricted to comedians whose Catholic beliefs directly influence their career. Also, I wonder if Father Guido Sarducci falls under this category? He's a fictional character who is catholic, and a lot of his humor is directly tied to Roman Catholic references, but the comedian Don Novello himself might or might not be Catholic (I'm not sure). Dugwiki 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is a "Catholic way to do comedy". — coelacan — 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 18:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Doczilla. Clear case of overcategorisation - Catholicism has nothing to do with success or failure in the comedy profession. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as overcategorization. Otto4711 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No other categories exist for comedians of other religions, and the comedians' religion probably has little or no influence on their careers. This category is therefore inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're forgetting Category:Jewish comedy and its subcategory Category:Jewish American comedians. Dugwiki 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. LukeHoC 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I see some comments above that a "comedian's religion has little or no influence on their careers." However I would argue that is not necessarily true. For example, there are a fair number of Jewish comedians such as Jackie Mason and Mel Brooks who are well known for incorporating their Jewish heritage into their humor (see Category:Jewish comedy for other examples). And I think one could reasonably argue that radio personality Garrison Keillor could be called a "Lutheran comedian" based on the amount of Lutheran references he reguarly uses in his own material on A Prairie Home Companion. Now maybe Catholics as a rule don't poke fun at themselves as often as Jewish comedians, but I wouldn't discount the possibility out of hand that notable comedians exist who are not only Catholic but who also incorporate that Catholic heritage into their repertoire. Dugwiki 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Before you made this comment, I reviewed my own comments and realized that I should have been more explicit. Some comedians do incorporate religion into their humor (as is the case with the examples cited above). However, the vast majority do not incorporate religion into their humor. Stephen Colbert, Chris Farley, Bob Newhart, and Conan O'Brian are good examples of this, as I would not have guessed that any of these people were catholic based on their performances, nor would I have ever thought about these people's religious beliefs. This is why categorization by religion is inappropriate here. Dr. Submillimeter 21:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If there are a few cases where religion is relevant, that is not sufficient to justify adding this category to the sackful of articles where it is irrelevant. AshbyJnr 23:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as improper intersection, there is no article Roman Catholic comedy and I venture one cannot be written, and although we don't have an article Jewish comedy, I venture one could be constructed along the lines of similar articles like Borsht Belt etc. And Jewish is an ethnicity (which many seem to forget, oddly, around Easter.) Carlossuarez46 00:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- After a little further delving we do have Jewish humor but not Roman Catholic humor. Carlossuarez46 00:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Castles in France
- Propose renaming Category:Castles in France to Category:Châteaux in France
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Translating "Chateau" as "Castle" and only as "Castle" isn't very accurate due to the different nuances of French and English. Dozens of these buildings would be called country houses in England, not castles. But on the other hand, as all French chateaux, whether early castles or later houses form a stylistic continuity, trying to devide them up into "Castles" and "Houses" to would be rather artificial. "Chateau" is familiar enough to English speakers to be used, and indeed has arguably been adopted into English, eg in America the chateau style is a well known choice for new houses. There is already a category called Category:Châteaux of the Loire Valley and in English, the châteaux of the Loire are always referred to as just that, not the "Castles of the Loire" or the "Houses of the Loire". If renamed the category should be inclued in both Category:Castles in France, and Category:Houses in France. The latter is currently rather stunted, because most of the articles about houses are in the castles category. Jamie Mercer 13:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Château in France (spelling of Châteaux in English, see Château) -- Cat chi? 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and Bluap. Postlebury 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Perhaps the "s" plural is used in America, but it isn't familiar to me. According to google the x form is prevalent by 30 to 1 on UK sites and by 5 to 1 on English language sites overall. LukeHoC 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom Johnbod 20:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Culture of Kurdistan
[edit] Category:Media of Kurdistan
[edit] Category:Kurdistani media
Kurdistan is a controversial and ill-defined region (no defined borders). It neither has formal/dejure recognition (it isn't recognized as a country) nor has informal/defacto recognition (it doesnt claim to be a country).
In addition the two categories only contain one article about a website. I do not see any need for three categories for two articles of which one may be deleted for being non-notable.
-- Cat chi? 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge the two media categories and rename the result to Category:Kurdish-language media per convention of Category:Media by language.
- Delete the culture category. Otto4711 14:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would support the rename to Category:Kurdish-language media -- Cat chi? 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - a category at Kurdish-language media can be created seperately per Wikipedia conventions per Cool Cat. Baristarim 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Former states in Kurdistan
- Propose renaming Category:Former states in Kurdistan to Category:Former Kurdish states
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Kurdistan is a controversial and ill-defined region (no defined borders). Kurdistan is a controversial and ill-defined region (no defined borders). It neither has formal/dejure recognition (it isn't recognized as a country) nor has informal/defacto recognition (it doesnt claim to be a country).
As far as I can see, the intended scope for this category is former "Kurdish" states.
-- Cat chi? 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - as the nominator says, the term "Kurdistan" is subjective, hence fails WP:OC section 3 (subjective criteria for inclusion). I can't think of a renaming that would be less subjective. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Walton. Baristarim 12:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Former Kurdish states has no reliance on what is Kurdistan or not. Carlossuarez46 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Famous animals and subcats
Suggest renaming. I was under the impression we didn't use the word "famous" in cat names. I kind of see the point of this cat, but perhaps it should simply be "Dogs" or "Individual dogs" rather than "Famous dogs", etc. >Radiant< 13:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Am I missing something? There's more than just dogs in there. Are you using dogs as an example? It looks like you are suggesting we change the word animals to dogs in this category. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's an example. I was referring to the cat "famous animals" and subcats like "famous dogs". Similarly, "famous cats" -> "individual cats", etc. >Radiant< 10:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? There's more than just dogs in there. Are you using dogs as an example? It looks like you are suggesting we change the word animals to dogs in this category. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Individual Dogs Yeah, we usually try and avoid the word "famous" since it's an unnecessary somewhat subjective term (all articles are presumably about subjects of some notability). Individual dogs sounds ok. Dugwiki 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename parent and all "famous" subcategories to "individual X". There are some subcategories not using this word, just ignore them. — coelacan — 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note the parent Category:Famous organisms. Which strikes me as a hilarious category name so I hope we can keep it. Otto4711 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am confused on why Lassie is in Category:Famous dogs, but not Category:Animal actors. This category needs to be revamped. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The article Lassie looks to be about the character as opposed to any of the various dogs who portrayed her. Which leads me to believe it should be in Category:Fictional dogs instead (which it turns out it is). Pal (dog actor), who played Lassie originally, is in the animal actors category. Otto4711 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The point of the word famous is to distinguish it from the Category:Animals. In Wikipedia the use of the word famous or notable is usually superfluous, but in this case we clearly need something to add and "famous" is the term readers will most likely use in searches. I believe this is one of the cases where using the word "famous" in a title is useful. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems the same issue would arise with anything preceded by "famous", wouldn't it? The articles and categories show up because people think they have to use this word to find things they want. Some readers would likely search for Category:Famous buildings to find architectural works like Category:Frank Lloyd Wright buildings. I don't think this tendency should be encouraged or used to keep titles that use WP:PEACOCK terms; that just encourages more WP:WAX thinking. I think "individual" works fine as a replacement for "famous" here, and people can find their "famous dogs" with a quick perusal of Category:Dogs which will lead them to the subcategory for individuals. If there is a widespread expectation that the "famous" categories will keep being recreated because people can't figure this out, then category redirects would make sense. — coelacan — 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- How is "Individual" any better. I know what it's supposed to mean because I'm in this discussion now, but if I was a random passerby I wouldn't have a clue as to what it was supposed to refer to. Individual is an ambiguous word and could refer to any number of things and most important of all, it doesn't sound natural. - Mgm|(talk) 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hmm. Well, I really don't know how to answer that. It sounds natural to me. I can see that you may have a point, but I don't know how to address it without drawing on subjective perspective. Well, sort of. I googled for "individual dogs" and found 112,000 sites using the phrase; among the first ten results were this this, and this. That suggests to me that the phrase has some currency already to mean "this particular dog", and of course "this particular dog on Wikipedia" is always a notable dog. — coelacan — 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename all to Individual X - I've been wanting to do this for months, and was just getting ready to since I did a test case with Bibles. If you want me to tag all the subcats to a proposed name, please drop me a note on my talk page. --After Midnight 0001 02:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Prefer "famous" I know it's a bit problematic to keep "famous" in the title of any category but "individual dogs" or "individual x" seems awkward and just a contorted way of saying "famous" and there is more risk that the category will be used incorrectly. That being said, I don't feel so strongly about it and I'd like to reassure Otto "Individual organisms" is pretty hilarious too! Pascal.Tesson 17:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The present names won't cause any practical problems, and there is no reason to avoid using the most natural term other than a dogmatic insistence on applying a rule that was created to present the hyping of articles about people. Piccadilly 09:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Asante
- Delete, as unrelated subjects with shared names. bobanny 07:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Except for the name, these articles are unrelated and should not be grouped together. For example, Asante Kotoko, a football (soccer) team in Ghana, has very little to do with Molefi Kete Asante, an African-American scholar. Dr. Submillimeter 08:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Prove It (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Suggestion this would make a good disambiguation page (if one doesn't exist). Aside from that no reason to keep. -- Cat chi? 13:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Asante is already a disambiguation page. Dr. Submillimeter 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note the bogus Wikiquote and the entry CA?. Methinks it's some kind of cryptic joke (from the maker of Category:Vlad). bobanny 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - CA? has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. Dr. Submillimeter 22:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note the bogus Wikiquote and the entry CA?. Methinks it's some kind of cryptic joke (from the maker of Category:Vlad). bobanny 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Chinese writers in London
Overly specific category. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 07:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This type of subdivision by ethnicity/nationality and city seems too narrow to be useful for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 08:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Abberley2 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category: Overseas Chinese writers and Category: British of Chinese descent. - Privacy 21:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Operetta librettists
This category is superfluous as it is already covered by Category:Opera librettists. - Kleinzach 02:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree, though weakly. Operas and Operettas are different, aren't they? Student7 02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, operettas are one of about 20 different genres of opera and they are performed by the same musicians as the other forms of opera. Operetta is covered in all the main reference works on opera, e.g. the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. The other genres do not have separate categories for librettists, hence I suggest deletion to avoid obfuscation. - Kleinzach 04:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Abberley2 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly merge per nom.--Smerus 06:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. There is no reason to have a separate category, and there is much overlap. Ssilvers 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - per nom and Ssilvers. Not a terribly useful category. Moreschi Request a recording? 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Movies set in Vermont
[edit] April 3
[edit] Category:Liverpool Catholic Bishops
- Propose renaming Category:Liverpool Catholic Bishops to Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Liverpool
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Reason: accuracy. Brandon97 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
*OpposeRename Judging by Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese, the norm is "Archbishops in Foo," which is less wordy and it doesn't appear that specifying RC is necessary. I also think they all should be changed to read the same, unless there's some compelling reason for exceptions. bobanny 06:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I recall that in another discussion on a category for Anglican clergy in Liverpool, the addition of "Anglican" was suggested to disambiguate between the Anglican and Roman Catholics with the same title. Is that the case here? Does the Anglican church have archbishops in Liverpool? Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. The qualification is necessary because the Anglican Church is the primary church in England. Abberley2 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I changed my vote and added it to Category:Liverpool, where there is a Category:Anglican Bishops of Liverpool. bobanny 15:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename - Even if the Anglican church does not have an archbishop in Liverpool, the words "Roman Catholic" are probably useful for disambiguation anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Another quibble: does "Archbishops" need to be uppercase? bobanny 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Nature of Azerbaijan
- Merge, well-intentioned by non-standard and superfluous category. Most of the article should already be in subcategories of the environment category. Abberley2 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, after a quick glance, I believe that is the correct instruction. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Lakers 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Doczilla 07:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:List of Italian sportspeople
- Category:List of Italian sportspeople - single entry category. It "seems" to be a part of a larger categorisation structure, but I'm not certain. If not, it should be deleted: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. If kept, it should be speedily renamed (List > Lists), speedy criteria #3. - jc37 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nathanian 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as part of the Category:Lists of sportspeople by nationality structure, although I could probably be persuaded to delete the entire structure if it were nominated. Otto4711 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- If kept, it should be Lists ... otherwise it's just a dupe of Category:Italian sportspeople -- Prove It (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as part of Category:Lists of sportspeople by nationality As Otto points out above, this is a subcategory of an existing scheme to divide Category:Lists of sportspeople by nationality. In such cases the size of the category doesn't matter and it's ok to have a subcategory with only a single entry. Dugwiki 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Lists of Italian sportspeople. -Sean Curtin 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes
- Rename Category:List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes to Category:Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes - Another "List of" category. - jc37 13:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename - as nominator. - jc37 13:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Doczilla 07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:List of architects by country
- Rename Category:List of architects by country to Category:Lists of architects by country (List > Lists) - I didn't list this directly at Speedy, because there is a commented out note in the category introduction whether country or nationality is "better". We might as well determine that as well : ) - jc37 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename as nominator. Neutral on country vs. nationality. - jc37 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Lists of architects by nationality per convention for categories of people. Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Lists of architects by nationality. Perhaps a "by country" cat exists somewhere or should exist, but all the entries here are nationality (eg, "French architects," not "Architects of France"), and the parent category is also by nationality. bobanny 06:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:List of urban debate leagues
- Rename Category:List of urban debate leagues to Category:Urban debate leagues - Needs to at least have "List of" removed from its name : ) - jc37 13:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename - as nominator. Possibly speedy? - jc37 13:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The way you are setting out your nominations, it looks like you are voting twice. Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flops
Either delete all as POV/subjective or rename and rework the definitions in some fashion to match the parent category Category:Commercial failures and avoid POV in inclusion. Otto4711 12:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is "Box office bomb" too POV for a rename? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. POV/subjective and per the talk page. Perhaps some of this could be in a list, but not in a category since it can't list any references or even explanation.
- Delete all - After reading through some of the items, I came to the conclusion that "flop" is simply being used as a POV term. Some of these features are low-budget, poor quality features that still make a profit anyway. Others are large-budget features that are critically panned and that lose money (e.g. Waterworld). Some features are actually OK but just lose money (e.g. Treasure Planet). Given how loosely the term "flop" is applied, these should all be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete mainly due to preference that categories be fairly definitive and complete. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all as vague, subjective, useless. Doczilla 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all Flops is too subjective a term to be used for criteria category or list inclusion. I might be ok, though, with something like "Category:Films that never earned a profit". Such a category would likely house all or almost all the films people consider "flops", and it would be based on something that is potentially verifiable (ie ticket sales vs production costs). It also would probably include some films that received critical praise but which, for one reason or another, didn't sell well at the box office. Dugwiki 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All Arbitrary definition, too open to interpretation to be standardized. I like Dugwiki's suggestion of a "Holy shit we lost a lot of money" category (though I'd suggest his name for it over mine). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all, and possibly listify. Some films that fail to break even make a sizeable profit in the international market or on video, but are generally considered "flops" in terms of the original domestic theatrical release. -Sean Curtin 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Television flops
Delete as essentially a recreation of the deleted "Short-lived television series" category. Otto4711 12:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - See my comments in the nomination above. Some of these may be critically approved but may have received low ratings. Others may be both critically panned and low-rated shows. Grouping them together is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Flops is too subjective. I might be ok with something like "Category:Television series cancelled prior to completing their first season". That would be something that is objective and verifiable and which would probably include a number of shows generally considered ratings "flops" (not necessarily critical flops). Dugwiki 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete fairly arbitrary. Ran across this when someone tried putting Firefly (TV series) into the category, which has so far been met with very little support. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - arbitrary and subjective; kinda like Dugwiki's suggestion, though. --Orange Mike 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Arbitrary and POV. – Chip Zero 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Soft drink flops
- Propose renaming Category:Soft drink flops to Category:Soft drink commercial failures
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to match the parent category Category:Commercial failures and remove the POV word "flop." Otto4711 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename - The suggested rename will work here (unlike the rename for the films and TV categories). Dr. Submillimeter 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)- Delete - Upon further review, it appears that the entire Category:Commercial failures category tree functions the same as the "flops" category above. The categories could potentially sweep up all sorts of unrelated things (things that were only limited commercial successes, things that were successes in one country but not another, things that were critically panned but still profitable, etc.). This category and the parent should probably be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and also review Category:Commercial failures and its subcategories for deletion Personally I think the whole "flop" thing is too subjective to be used as an inclusion criteria. I would say delete this category and also review the parent category, Category:Commercial failures and its other subcategories for possible deletion. (That of course would require a seperate cfd nomination). Dugwiki 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note that Category:Commercial failures was renamed from Category:Flops. Vegaswikian 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Rock
- Merge, shouldn't this be a redirect? Elle Bee 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect Under what circumstances are category redirects appropriate? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- When we expect people to often use the category they shouldn't use, we add a category redirect to stop the category from being created over and over again. — coelacan — 22:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if we leave a redirect, it should probably be to Category:Rocks. Vegaswikian 06:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- When we expect people to often use the category they shouldn't use, we add a category redirect to stop the category from being created over and over again. — coelacan — 22:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect sounds right. — coelacan — 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, dubious on redirect, since it could also be used instead of Category:Rocks (and is in fact used on one article that belongs there). Mairi 04:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect My guess is that someone looking for "Rock" is more likely looking for Rock music than the geology kind, given the amount of pop culture on Wikipedia, but perhaps a dab note would also be appropriate either way. Alternatively it could redirect to Category:Cocaine; that's what people looking for Rock are usually after where I live. >8=! bobanny 06:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dab on a category doesn't work very well, as a lot of people don't check the contents of a category when they use it. Category redirects are only useful because bots patrol them and move articles to the target category automatically, but a dab will just gather dust. Better to just delete and redlink it if there's no consensus for one redirect over another; the redlink will discourage most people from using it (someone will recreate it, though, and then it's G4 time). — coelacan — 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as companion to Category:Paper and Category:Scissors. Just kidding, Merge/Redirect. Otto4711 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Nice one, LMAO. But how would you decide which ones should be subcategories? bobanny 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect per nom. -Sean Curtin 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Theaters in Russia
- Merge, when we have Category:Theatre in the United States and Category:Theatres in the United States (on the grounds that that is the spelling used in the industry), where seems to be little reason to use the "er" spelling for Russia, when nearly all the other national categories use the "re" spelling. "Re" is used in the title of 19 of the articles about individual Russian theatres, and "er" is used only once. AshbyJnr 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Maps showing 20th-century history
Delete, Very misleading category name since not all of the maps in it's subcategories fit the definition of the cat name. Plus I believe this is overcategorization. WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This category currently contains Category:Maps of the history of Israel and Category:Maps of the history of the Middle East. These subcategories contain maps showing the Middle East as it appeared in earlier historical periods. The category clearly is not being used as the title suggests it should be used; it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Doczilla 07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions
- Propose renaming Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions to Category:National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Abbreviation removal. Bringing this here since the name is rather long and there may well be 50 subcategories. Nomination also includes Category:NRHP Multiple Property Submissions in Illinois to Category:National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions in Illinois. Vegaswikian 06:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rename with full name. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Tau Kappa Epsilon brothers
Delete I thought these had all been deleted already. This is not a defining characteristic. No-one has an article because they belonged to a student fraternity. Haddiscoe 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Ack! You found another one. Probably a few more hiding out there too. This one is, like all the rest were, non-defining indeed. — coelacan — 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Don't categorize people by every single membership they have. Doczilla 05:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - People are generally not notable for their fraternity memberships or for other affiliations or achievements at the undergraduate level (except for sports achievements). People are instead notable for their achievements after college. Note that several other fraternity categories still exist. Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Nathanian 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I think we have been through this before with frats. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Abberley2 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone above and/or logic. It's okay to mention it in an article, but it certainly isn't a defining characteristic. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pending discussions
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 2
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 1
 Go back to current discussions |
