Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 9

< April 8	April 10 >

April 9[edit]

Category:Organisations in Buckinghamshire[edit]

Category:Organisations in East Sussex[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Organisations in Buckinghamshire to Category:Organisations based in Buckinghamshire

Propose renaming Category:Organisations in East Sussex to Category:Organisations based in East Sussex

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to reflect the convention that organisations are categorised by the locality where they operate, rather than to all the localities where they operate, in line with other recent renamings of categories of organisations for English counties. Hawkestone 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename This is explicitly called for by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Miscellaneous Scarykitty 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Schools by subject or specialty[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools by subject or specialty to Category:Universities and colleges by type

Merge, as it is stated to be for post secondary institutions, ie universities and colleges, rather than schools, and is therefore the same as the target category. Some of the subcategories are double-categorised. Oliver Han 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there has to be some kind of schools by subject, and not all all of these are University level. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the two should be distinct, and the double posted ones should go where they belong--although there are a few,such as Julliard, which combine both & do go in both.DGG 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and start again if necessary. These are overwhelmingly and deliberately tertiary institutions. Retention would preserve systematic duplication and factual error. Haddiscoe 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The overwhelming majority of the articles are about tertiary institutions, and that is the intention based on the definition of the category. If it is desirable to have a separate category for elementary and secondary institutions, it should have a clearer name. AshbyJnr 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and AshbyJnr. Honbicot 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, too much overlap. >Radiant< 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Local Football Team[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Every football team is local ... somewhere ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but only one of them asserts it.DGG 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postlebury 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Early muckrakers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Early muckrakers to Category:Muckrakers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - no reason I can see for arbitrarily limiting the category to "early" muckrakers. Otto4711 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does Wikipedia contain another category that may describe muckrakers? According to muckraker, modern-day people like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein may be described as muckrakers. However, the term is not necessarily used to describe modern-day journalists. Dr. Submillimeter 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the term also has perjorative meanings (far more common ones), and unless there is some definitive usage of the term, this is likely to only remain POV. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Investigative journalists but that doesn't really catch the sensationalist populist aspect of muckraking. Otto4711 23:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The classification of pre-1950 (approx) muckrakers is not really controversial, and tho the name was originally meant as pejorative, it ha been generally accepted in historical context. But the present list includes IFStone,who doesnt count as "early" I think he might have been pleased to be included, DGG 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Investigative journalists - I prefer using this more straightforward term, as it includes both the original "muckrakers" and their modern-day counterparts. Dr. Submillimeter 13:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Investigative journalists - agree fully with Dr. Submillimeter - Trident13
- Works for me too. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Slovakian cross-country skiers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Slovakian cross-country skiers to Category:Slovak cross-country skiers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename since it's called Slovak not Slovakian. Punkmorten 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom. Baristarim 11:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:WikiProject U2 Tour Venues[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category for a deleted Project. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jhonen Vasquez[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another eponymous category with all its material extensively interlinked through the main article, making the category unnecessary. Otto4711 18:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Postlebury 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pidgins and creoles[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming the following:

Nominator's Rationale: Rename both to standardize these categories, and to make sure pidgins have a place to go. (I don't think separate categories for pidgins and creoles would be a good idea.) --Ptcamn 18:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Choalbaton 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Having both pidgins and creoles in the same category would also avoid the problems of whether a given language is a pidgin or a creole. --Miskwito 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Honbicot 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:IRA killings[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. Hemlock Martinis 06:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-categorisation. Category:Provisional IRA actions and its sub-category Category:People killed by IRA already cover this adequately. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Category:Provisional IRA actions does not include non-provo actions and its sub-category Category:People killed by IRA cannot include articles that are named for a geo-location as opposed to named for victims (according to the proposers for deletion)W. Frank 20:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Struck through as sockpuppet of [[[User:Gaimhreadhan]]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this category has been added is because very recently User:Vintagekits has removed from the Category:People killed by IRA the following incidents [all of which were, in fact, incidents where people were killed by the IRA on the (grammatically correct) but politically spun, grounds that these places were "not people"].

To eliminate this category is to censor the facts and to belittle the deaths of the people that died in all these incidents:

I think that any successful attempt to hide these deaths will result in grossly unfavourable publicity for Wikipedia...Gaimhreadhan

^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and think it should be deleted - the category does not accurately reflect these events and they are already in the parent category of "Provisional IRA actions" which is more neutral and a better description of the events. It is therefore superfluous (sp?)--Vintagekits 19:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take Remembrance Day Bombing for example, and see which relevant categories it's in already shall we? Terrorist incidents in the 1980s, Terrorism in Northern Ireland and Provisional IRA actions - clearly the removal of this one particular category which you chose to create rather than use the existing category is not "censorship" or "spin", but the removal of a superfluous category. You've already falsely claimed that the Provisional IRA actions is for actions where nobody died, which isn't the case at all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believe that then I suggest you revert the actions of Vintagekits in removing all the incidents I named above from the Category:People killed by IRA since it was solely this action (on ostensibly grammatical grounds) which prompted the creation of the new category...Gaimhreadhan

^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have discussed it before jumping in with two feet and creating this Catogory - p.s. watch you tone and language in the edit summaries and remember WP:CIVIL, regards--Vintagekits 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I object to your use of "comrade" in your edit summary, secondly if you had read the nomination you would realise why VK's edits do not need reverting. Category:People killed by IRA is a sub category of Category:Provisional IRA actions, so articles go in one or the other not both. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You two have already been active in removing Category:People killed by IRA from its super categories. I predict that you will steadily remove its other super category parents and then finally kill the orphan. I think your edit logs already clarify your agenda....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. You do not predict anything - you have no crystal ball! 2. I will remind you for the last time about your tone and suggest you read WP:CIVIL - next time you pull a trick like that then I will report you.--Vintagekits 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the incivility and personal attacks. I chose to concentrate the majority of my time on a particular group of articles, which to be fair, were generally in a very poor state. Using your argument I suppose it's safe to assume that anyone who edits Adolf Hitler is a Nazi who wishes to start another Holocaust? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that User:Gaimhreadhan has been canvassing support for this discussion - [1] [2] [3]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential comment - why is the other category "People killed by IRA" when the group is only ever known as the IRA? And, given Wikipedia's downer on abbreviations, wouldn't the full title of the Irish Republican Army make more sense anyway? Grutness...wha? 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was thinking that category could do with renaming myself. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there has been a concerted (and successful) attempt this evening to remove this categorisation from more than a score of articles BEFORE the verdict here. Presumably this is so that it then can be argued that the category is redundant. My POV is clear: All articles referencing killings by the IRA (whether the article is named for a person or for a place or for a date) should be categorised. The purpose of categorisation is to assist readers to explore topics and the purpose of the requested deletion would hinder rather than assist readers in assessing the scale and paramaters of the killings.

This category was only started because of the wholesale campaign of removal from the pre-existing category "People killed by IRA" of such obvious articles as the Birmingham pub bombings on the ( narrowly correct grounds that a pub was not a person! ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this category (which was only created today) it that it is redunant - each of the articles which the editor wants to to put in this category are already categorised in the Category:Provisional IRA actions - so there is no need for this category. There already in a sub category for "People killed by IRA" which is used for people (individuals) who were killed by the IRA therefore this makes this new category redundant as it is just doing what is already done by existing categories!--Vintagekits 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you were unhappy with the current name of Category:Provisional IRA actions you should have proposed it for renaming, instead of creating a new largely duplicate category that goes on all the same articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That word "largely" is very weasel in the context that in the space of a few hours the categorisation of MAJOR articles as "people killed by the IRA was removed because they bore the name of a pub or another place rather than a human being. It was this concerted campaign of obfuscation that prompted my creation of a new category that emphasised that any article that referenced an IRA killing was appropriate. Please think of how the victims families will feel if the Red Tops report that there has been a successful campaign of obfuscation here on WP...Gaimhreadhan

^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 23:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any attempt to hide, or downplay terrorism should always be resisted, whether that terrorism be by Irish, Muslims, or whatever. TharkunColl 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user was canvassed by User:Gaimhreadhan here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And does that make my opinion wrong? Are you suggesting that we should hide the acts of terrorists? TharkunColl 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How are we attempting to hide the acts of terrorists by deleting a duplicate category? I've already demonstrated exactly how many terrorist related categories one article is in above, hardly hiding is it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're not really interested at this stage in the killings of Gerbils or fish I suggest that the artificially narrow category of "People killed by the IRA" be renamed "IRA killings". Then such articles as the Birmingham Pub and Brighton bombings as well as articles on named individual victims could all be categorised in the newly named category of "IRA killings"....Gaimhreadhan

^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's inconsistent with practically every People... category there is. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving out the pub bombimgs would give a wholly sanitised view of the IRA. We must be truthful. TharkunColl 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Well your first post here was "shouting" about them being terrorists so if we combine that with the fact the you were hand picked and canvassed to come here it is in my opinion safe enough to say that you may be biased. Please try and be balanced in your contributions. A category which states anything less the Category:Victims if Bloody thirsty baby killing terrorist would be the only thing that some would be happy to see. The whole issue here is that wiki has policies - one is WP:NPOV and we should try and adhere to that. This catoegory is redundant and is already well served by Category:Provisional IRA actions.--Vintagekits 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Birmingham pub bombings is not sanitised, it has Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1970s, please say how that is possibly sanitised? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it categorises by the victims, rather than the perpetrators. TharkunColl 23:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and that's we have Category:Provisional IRA actions, so why create a duplicate category? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my temerity in pointing out that these are NOT duplicate categories.

There are (and will be more in the future) Wikipedia articles that detail actions that are not provisional ira actions but are republican actions. Equally, there will be actions that do not result in killings (eg: maimings, tortures, arsons, ~~rapes~~, blackmails, robbings, kneecappings, etc). I therefore suggest two new categories of Category:Republican killings and Category:Loyalist killings then we may be able to subsume your proposed Category:British Army killings into the latter since the numbers (tens of millions) are too great if that is proposed as a serious category for all documented killings by one of the greatest terrorist forces the world has ever seen.W. Frank 15:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask a question? Is it permissible to change the categorisation of multiple articles before a conclusion has been reached here?

[The reason that I ask is that I notice that within the last couple of days the Category:IRA killings has been removed from more than a dozen major Wikipedia articles involving multiple killings by the same two participants of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism
see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism#Participants
and also see the edit histories of:

W. Frank 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ask that you strike through rapes, unless you can provide evidence that a rape has been committed in the republican cause? The category was removed to maintain some level of NPOV, given it was created purely to add the term "killings" to articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapes are an example of non-lethal actions and the word rape is contained in a sentence that introduces my suggested two new categories of Category:Republican killings and Category:Loyalist killings rather than in the prior sentence dealing with provisional ira actions and republican actions. I have read editions of an poblacht (sorry if I've got the spelling wrong) that do detail "Loyalist Rape"s but I am happy for you to strike through the word "rape" if you find it misleading (I can't since I'm too ignorant to know hoe to use strike thtru.)

Apologies in advance for any offence caused.

What do you think of the multiple categorisation deletions before we've reached a conclusion here?

No problem, I wouldn't particularly class a rape committed by a Loyalist or Republican (or anyone else for that matter) to be a Loyalist/Republican rape. I'm more concerned about the addition of the new category to articles for the sole purpose of adding the word "killings" to the article, when it's already made very clear in the article that people died. With one exception every single article it's been added to was in Category:Provisional IRA actions, and that article is Dunmanway Massacre which according to the category description shouldn't be in there anyway as it's before the arbitrary cut off time of 00:01hrs 1 January 1948 UTC. So it's quite clear it's not being added to articles for any navigational purpose, but simply to add the word "killings". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point, 303.

I agree with you and others that we should be bold and call a spade a spade. The reasons we have articles on these incidents at all includes:-

The fact that people died
The fact that people died by intentional action (rather than influenza or other act of god)
The fact that people died as a result of a planned campaign by a republican organisation

That's why I think it important that we choose between Category:Republican killings and Category:IRA killings. Which do you prefer?

And would you please also comment on my previous question:

Is it permissible to change the categorisation of multiple articles before a conclusion has been reached here?

[The reason that I ask is that I notice that within the last couple of days the Category:IRA killings has been removed from more than a dozen major Wikipedia articles involving multiple killings by the same two participants of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism

see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism#Participants
and also see the edit histories of:

W. Frank 16:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely permissable to remove articles from that category - the issue at hand here is the category itself - so ifarticles are incorrectly added then they can be removed. I just think that this is a poor category and adds nothing that is already provided by Category:Provisional IRA actions, additionally your "point number 2" above is incorrect.--Vintagekits 16:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, since you believe that the category is not needed, is it also consequently your position that there is no article, and never will be an article that should have the categorisation Category:Republican killings and Category:IRA killings applied to them?W. Frank 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer neither of the proposed new categories, as they add nothing that the existing categories do not already. As you agreed above the only purpose of the category is to add the word "killings" to articles which are already clearly stating that people died, and are categorised as terrorist attacks. If this category remains on articles, I will be adding {{NPOV}} to the articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, presumably, it is also your position that

Sashimi
Scampi
Sea cucumber
Shellfish
Shmaltz herring
Shrimp
Shrimp toast
Smoked fish
Smoked salmon
Sole meunière
Soused herring
Stinkheads
Stuffed clam
Surströmming

should all be removed from the category "Seafood" since all these articles clearly state that they are Seafood?

Don't you think that you have misunderstood the purpose of classification, which is not to provide a handy précis or summary of the article, but rather to provide navigational links that will be helpful to our readers?

Do you not think that, someday, readers may be interested to navigate not just to actions carried out ~~by your comrades~~, but also to actions carried out by other republicans and even (don't frighten the horses) IRA killings?

Or is that the real source of your concerns? You don't wish users to be able to easily navigate to articles that reference IRA killings?,
W. Frank 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what's wrong with using the existing Category:Provisional IRA actions that already appears on all the articles in question? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've struck through your personal attack, I respectfully suggest you do not repeat it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just mention a few again:

Not all IRA killings were carried out by admitted members of the provos. There are certain addresses in Dundalk which you can visit to confirm that truism.

Not all provo actions resulted in death. Some recent non-lethal actions have been agreed as highly laudable by all communities (such as the recent provo actions taken to support and help the Police Service of Northern Ireland at long last.)

There was a concerted campaign (which you participated in and which continues) to remove

from appropriate categories.

I'm also genuinely puzzled by your strike-thru of the word comrade. From reading your user page, user talk and the focus of your edits I (mistakenly?) understood that you were a Republican. You have my instant apology and retraction of the error if you tell us now that you are not, in fact, a Republican.W. Frank 17:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation for any editor to reveal any RL (real life) information on wiki, including denial of such, and it should certainly not be presumed as ONIH points out below. It is, for the record, strictly forbidden to claim to reveal such information (whether true or false) and can lead to a block up to indefinite. I hope that resolves the genuine puzzle. Tyrenius 03:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my much earlier point above, is everyone who edits Adolf Hitler a Nazi who wishes to start a new Holocaust? You've still yet to show why Category:Provisional IRA actions does not adequately cover this, rather than vague references to "certain addresses in Dundalk" perhaps you'd like to provide examples of articles? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias. This requires a judgment of the personal motivation for another's action. Such a judgment can never be made with anything approaching certainty. This fact should always be kept in mind when one is tempted to label someone a troll." Please provide an accurate reference to a WP article that outlines a policy of banning editors who reveal personal information about themselves (as opposed to others). W. Frank was wrong to ask any Republican member to confirm or deny their point of view or political affiliations but should not be banned because he reveals his own personal details.

Even if A. Hilter is resurrected or genetically cloned and becomes a WP editor, the rules and procedures of WP should ensure that his and other nazi's sourced and referenced points of view are accurately reflected in relevant articles. WP is not here to make value judgements on political parites or movements - just to document their values, philosophies and actions.

However, categories are not articles. Categories are navigation aids and should be brief and pointed and not mislead. On this test the word killings succeeds. The word IRA is more difficult. Several users here are trying to both have their cake and eat it. Either the word IRA is descriptive of a political/terrorist/armed entity or it is not.

If it is not, there should not be any IRA categories whatever. If it is, then, the category IRA killings is a useful navigation aid.

Personally, I feel the need for at least the following categories as navigation aids: Terrorism associated, Terrorism associated 1500's, Terrorism associated 1600's, Terrorism associated 1700's, Terrorism associated 1800's, Terrorism associated 1900 - 1949, Terrorism associated 1950 - 1999, Terrorism associated 2000 - to date as one temporal series, together with another geographical series such as "Terrorism associated, Ireland", etc, as another.

Categories are NOT article summaries or badges of ethical correctness or bragging badges. They are merely navigation aids and this discussion should address itself to the utility of navigation.

Until and unless, articles begin to fall into more than 40 categories there is no need to prune a helpful category like IRA killings. People can read the articles themselves if the number of the victims or the flavour of the perpitrators is in dispute - once they have navigated there.

It is a specious argument to say that an article should not be categorised in IRA killings because there is argument as to whether the perps were continuity IRA, real IRA, mothers home brewed IRA or RUC pretending to be IRA. People interested in the subject will be steered by the category facility to the article where they can then read sourced and referenced points of view. (I have no objection to an article bearing simultaneous categories of IRA killings and RUC killings and BA killings - the article itself will then reference the differing points of view. If and only if categorisations become excessive do we need to start wittling them down.)

If the spin doctors succeed in removing "IRA killings" then a similar subset of articles will still have to be categorised simultaneously as Provisional IRA killings, Continuity IRA killings, Provisional IRA pretending to be real IRA killings, RUC pretending to be IRA killings, not really IRA killings because there was sufficient warning given killings, not really IRA killings because the intended victims were nor civilians killings, etc.

IRA killings does the job of steering people to relevant articles if they are interested in then reading the various points of view. As Hackney says, once they have arrived at the article they can then make up their own mind. Otherwise Hackney's arguments are arguments for abolishing all categorisation, not for abolishing the category "IRA killings".

83.71.158.130 12:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all "IRA 'actions'" resulted in killings so proper categorisation demands a sub-category as a navigation aide. The category name is entirely factual so I fail to understand how adding NPOV tags to articles where its been added can be justified. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's exactly why we have the Category:People killed by IRA sub-category, which really needs renaming to include Provisional. All the IRAs are seperate and distinct organisations, so their actions should not be categorised in this way. This category has been specifically created to add the word "killings" to articles, so is inherently POV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Then why are editors (well, User:Vintagekits) removing the Category:People killed by IRA from articles on the grounds that the pagenames refer to places or events rather than people? Either Category:People killed by IRA can be used on such articles as those listed above - or another category such as this one is needed. I'd settle for either. (The naming is a separate issue - maybe 'Category:People killed by Volunteers (Irish Republican)'?) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Its pretty simple really Bastun and it is not some underhanded action - the Category:People killed by IRA is for articles on individuals who were killed by the IRA, each of the articles that were removed from that category do not apply as the articles do not relate to an individual. I ensured that the articles that were removed from Category:People killed by IRA were in the Category:Provisional IRA actions - they are all categorised in this category and therefore the new Category:IRA killings is unnecessary and redundant not to mention messy and poorly thought through. --Vintagekits 10:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it is an underhanded action - merely stating what you are doing. Do I take it from this reply, then, that you disagree with ONiH's comment above (made at 22.52 last night) that the Category:People killed by IRA could be used? If so, then there obviously is a need for Category:IRA killings for articles named for a pub, bus or town centre bombing/shooting rather than those named for people, to differentiate between non-fatal actions, and ones resulting in murders. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because ONiH says something does not mean that I will agree with him - we are independant editors and have disagreed on many issues. At the moment I think that the Category:People killed by IRA works pretty well. However, I consider Category:IRA killings to be a poor category that it sloppy and not NPOV and adds nothing that isnt done by Category:Provisional IRA actions. I think that when you put an article into a category it should be based on 100% fact, e.g. People from XXXX place, People elected to the 7th Dail, People who appeared in a World Cup final etc - to put something into a category presents it as being 100% fact. It is relatively controversial to state that the IRA killed the people in Omagh since although it was an "IRA" bomb that killed these poor people some may argue it was a the actions of the RUC/British Army that killed them as the "IRA" targeted the centre and gave warnings - therefore "IRA killings" sounds pretty POV and unencyclopedic from that perspective, I hope you can understand the point I am trying to make here.--Vintagekits 10:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Category:People killed by IRA was rightfully made a sub-cat of Category:Provisional IRA actions, although it could possibly to with renaming to include the word Provisional. Prior to this, biographical articles were in both categories, which was redundant. Category:People killed by IRA is for biographical articles such as Ian Gow. This new category was created purely to add the word "killings" to a category, and it's now trying to be used to group the actions of different and distinct organisations under one category, which should not happen. I also refer you to Category:Al-Qaeda activities which categorises articles in the exact same way as the IRA ones were prior to the creation of this unnecessary and duplicate category. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly open to compromise, ONiH. What would you propose to replace the category to be used in articles named after places/events which resulted in deaths, seeing as Category:People killed by IRA apparently can't be used? Maybe another sub-cat, Category:Provisional IRA actions resulting in deaths? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be categorised the same way as existing categories, such as Category:Al-Qaeda activities, which it was prior to the creation of this unncessary and superfluous category. The constant need to add "deaths" or "killings" to the names of categories is unnecessary, the articles already make this abundantly clear and we should let the facts speak for themselves. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Interesting discussion. Is there some 'master list' of categories in Wiki that one can look up? I ask this because of something W. Frank said above: surely there should be a category [[:Category:People killed by BA]? It would be vast but there is no reason not to do it; one of the major debates raging in our culture at the moment is whether Western claims of moral superiority over other cultures stand any scrutiny; how incredibly useful it would be for anyone engaged in this debate to have all the crimes collected in a single category/sub-cats (I envisage here such as sub-cats
[[:Category:People killed by BA - Modern , Ireland]; [[:Category:People killed by BA - Ireland 1900 - 1923];[[:Category:People killed by BA 19th Century Ireland] and so on with similar for Iraq, Tasmania, Malaya, Nova Scotia, New England, The Falklands, South Africa, India, China, Egypt, Palestine, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Sudan, Nepal, Afghanistan and so on.
Someone above mentioned the distress of some families if "the redtops" got hold of a Wiki attempt to facilitate obfuscation re IRA killings. As NPOV is so critical to Wiki, not just within but (as we see by this debate) also across articles then I think that before we conclude the discussion of categorisation of killings by the IRA we should pave the way by facilitating the research into the most prolific terrorists first.

(Sarah777 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

British Airways fly to that many destinations? (Sorry, couldn't resist) FWIW I'd certainly have no objection to such a category. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am told that the sun never sets on British Airways (Sarah777 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

keep and combine other categories into this one. This seems to be the best solution--Sefringle 22:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and combine other categories into this one, following above. Drmaik 14:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, both of these keep !votes make no sense as how can you combine articles from Provisional IRA actions in which nobody died into IRA killings!?--Vintagekits 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Shaun White[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another eponymous category without the volume of material to necessitate it. The articles are all interlinked and the images are properly categorized in image-related categories. Otto4711 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OC--Sefringle 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The Simpsons seasons[edit]

Category:The Simpsons episodes, season 1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Xdamr^talk 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Simpsons episodes, season 1 to Category:The Simpsons episodes

Merge, As per the Futurama seasons merge Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 8. Limited categories with a maximum of about 24. Data already presented in a list. I've tagged the other 17 categories too. Lugnuts 17:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the reason these categories were created in the first place was because Category:The Simpsons episodes had gotten too big and unwieldy. --Redeagle688 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I don't have too strong an opinion here, but it seems to me that subdividing a long running's show's episode article by series is a natural way to go about it. Otherwise you end up with 100+ episode articles in the same category with only alphabetic sorting for the read to use. Dugwiki 19:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my recommendation on further reflection below... Dugwiki 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in favor of the lists, which should also be in the main category. Otto4711 14:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing recommdnation to Merge On further reflection I'm changing my recommendation merging all the articles into Category:The Simpsons episodes, and including the by-seasoin episode list articles within that same category sorted to the top. The reason is that this set up would allow for the optimal navigation for the reader. If you wanted to search for an episode by season, you would click on the list article link for that season. If you wanted to search for an episode alphabetically by episode name without knowing which season it's in, then you could use the episode category for that purpose. Therefore this is a case where it's probably not necessary to subdivide the category due to size. Dugwiki 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 400 episodes, 18 (soon to be 19) seasons and if they were all in one category, it would be hard to keep track of. Futurama is a little different because there are only 60 some odd episodes. Please point out the policy that says that the episodes can't be categorized by season. You can't just say delete because you don't think they should exist. It's not overcategorization and there is good reason to have the categories. And if memory serves, the categories were created as the result of a CFD. -- Scorpion 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned above, though, a better scheme would seem to be having by-season lists at the top of the category and the episodes themselves alphabetically by name. That way a reader can search for episodes in two way, either by episode or by episode name. Under the current system, though, a reader only can search by season - there's no way to search the episodes alphabetically by name. Dugwiki 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't realize that the purpose of categories was to provide an easy way to sort things alphabetically... -- Scorpion 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I remember how it was when it was all in one category. It was hard to find anything. This is in my opinion much more useful. The argument that "if Futurama can't then everybody is not allowed to do it" is invalid, because Futurama doesn't have that many episodes. --Maitch 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment doesn't have that many episodes is hard to define. What other shows have 400+ episodes though? Why one rule for them and one for another? What is the cut-off point when a show gets broken down by series? 100 episodes? 500? 1,000? Lugnuts 10:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. Gran² 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Goonies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lightly populated category with little chance of growth. The various articles are already well-interlinked with each other and the main Goonies article. Otto4711 16:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hollywood families[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hollywood families to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - the title as it exists is US-centric especially since the category is capturing families from outside Hollywood and the US. I'm unsure what to suggest as a new name, though, because the categories include family members known for a variety of disciplines and mediums. Otto4711 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems non-defining. What exactly is a Hollywood family? --Ezeu 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague, useless category. Doczilla 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I strongly oppose deleting the category. It is serving as a proper parent for articles and categories about families in show business. Otto4711 14:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment I suppose that you could try "Show business families", but does Show Business include Music, which is a sibling category? I see how this fits in the tree, and understand that you don't want to delete. Perhaps "Families in Film and Television"? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ghouls 'n' Ghosts characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's simple. There's no characters in this category. Basara-kun 04:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, if it's empty for at least 4 days, you can speedy delete under CSD-C1 {{db-cat empty}} Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do we know this category wasn't emptied by a vandal? Greg Grahame 11:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only found one article on a character from the game (Red Arremer) that used to be in the category, but was moved back into the main Category:Ghosts 'n Goblins category a while ago. It's possible that someone just created this category for one article. Recury 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Captain Commando characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same that above. Captain Commando was moved to Category:Capcom characters. Basara-kun 04:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as above, speedy delete if empty for at least 4 days. Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nonprofit organizations in New York[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 00:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations in New York to Category:Non-profit organizations based in New York

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Match true spelling/hyphenization of "Non-profit" and follow Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Miscellaneous to use "based in". Scarykitty 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. --Ezeu 06:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nonprofit organizations in Illinois[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 00:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations in Illinois to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Illinois

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Match true spelling/hyphenization of "Non-profit" and follow Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Miscellaneous to use "based in" Scarykitty 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. --Ezeu 06:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Note that these could have been done as an "umbrella nom", though. Alai 02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nonprofit organizations based in Colorado[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 00:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations based in Colorado to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Colorado

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Match true spelling/hyphenization of "Non-profit" See Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United States. Scarykitty 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. --Ezeu 06:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nonprofit organizations in California[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations in California to Category:Non-profit organizations based in California

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Match true spelling/hyphenizatino of "Non-profit" and follow Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Miscellaneous to use "based in" Scarykitty 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. --Ezeu 06:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vogue Magazines[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category redundant; Category:Vogue already exists --Mhking 03:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. --Ezeu 06:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Worldperks[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamr^talk 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No individual entry on WorldPerks exists. There was a WorldPerks entry however it was merged with Northwest Airlines in 2006. A list of participating companies should be included at Northwest Airlines#WorldPerks. Many of the linked company's individual articles do not mention WorldPerks at all, an example is Aeroflot. Russavia 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 10:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Projects[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Too vague. Consists merely of articles with the word "project" in the title. Ezeu 01:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I am aiming that individual entries will be diffused down into sub-categories and that this will mainly be a holder for sub-categories and articles that need narrower categories in general. The category currently already has some sub-categories (not mentioned above) and I would propose more as the structure becomes more apparent. The articles have been selected less randomly that might be inferred from the first comment above. The articles are all projects in some sense and many articles with "project" in the title that are not actually projects have not been included. This is work in progress that I am happy to continue if the category remains. But I guess I don't want to put in the effort if it will be deleted. So let the Wikipedia process commence! — Jonathan Bowen 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category whose title is vague beyond any semblance of usefulness. Doczilla 08:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the categorization of anything named a "project", which is a form of overcategorization. The various articles and subcategories have little in common. For example, Project Cadmus, a fictional genetic engineering program in DC Comics, has nothing in common with Project 211, a massive university construction project in China. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no essential connection between the disparate articles to which the very vague term "project" may be applied. Haddiscoe 10:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names; having the word "project" in their name doesn't necessarily suggest any commonality between the entries. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — "Project" has a perfectly good Wikipedia article defining the essence of a project, linked from the category. I have filtered all the articles into more appropriate sub-categories so many of the arguments above no longer apply. Instead (not mentioned above) the sub-categories given different domains of projects. — Jonathan Bowen 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This does not solve the problem. This is still the categorization of unrelated things by name. For example, Category:Building projects does not contain articles that are related to Category:Research projects aside from the fact that both things could be described as "projects". Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment — If "project" was not defined on Wikipedia I would agree. But how is this different from (for example) saying that science museums and art museums have nothing in common except that they are both called "museums"? I agree this is a matter of judgement and Category:Projects by type would be more descriptive and better. So I have done some recategorization and am happy for this category to be deleted as a result. — Jonathan Bowen 18:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As the term "project" is an ambiguous dictionary definition with several possible meanings or interpretations[4], the category will likewise consist of articles with little in common.--Ezeu 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - The functionality of a science museum and an art museum is very similar, which is why they should be grouped together. The functionality of a research project and a construction project are not similar, which is why categorizing them together is inappropriate. (I really do not think I need to explain.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment — I disagree. Projects have many common aspects such as start and end dates, deadlines, tasks, devilerables (e.g., services, products, etc.), organization through project management for critical paths, etc. None of this depends on the domain of the project. — Jonathan Bowen 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jonathan Bowen has created a duplicate version of this category at Category:Projects by type. I have already nominated the category for deletion; the discussion is here. (This was rather disruptive, even if it was unintentional; instead of duplicating this category, Jonathan Bowen should have proposed a rename here.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — sorry for jumping the gun, but I guess the Wikipedia process will take its course anyway. — Jonathan Bowen 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Xaverian Brothers Sponsored Schools[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamr^talk 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Xaverian Brothers Sponsored Schools to Category:Schools sponsored by the Xaverian Brothers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename The capitalization is speediable, and the supplementary rephrasing will hopefully be seen as an improvement. ReeseM 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chemical engineering topics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as user mistake Physchim62 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaning(ed), as per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, Category talk:Chemical engineering topics. Rifleman 82 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with deleting this category. Essentially, it just duplicates the Category:Chemical engineering which has been in existence for a long time. This new category is completely redundant and unneeded. - mbeychok 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is redundant with Category:Chemical engineering and List of chemical engineering topics. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category talk page has been archived at Talk:List of chemical engineering topics. Physchim62 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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