Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 11 December 13 >

December 12[edit]

Category:Railway engine sheds[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 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 debate was keep as is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Railway engine sheds to Category:Railway depots
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moving from speedy with the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Railway engine sheds to Category:Railway depots. The category Category:Rolling stock depots is absent, the subcategory Category:Railway depots in the United Kingdom isnt divided to either the engine (locomotive) depots and the rolling stock depots. --ŠJů (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. In many countries, the words "engine shed" and "depot" are not synonymous - in quite a number, a depot is a non-terminus station. As such, renaming this to the ambiguous "Railway depots" will likely cause some confusion. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Railroad depot redirects to "Train station" which is completly a different topic and therefore likely to confuse readers. I suggest that we may need to make "Engine sheds" a sub-category of "Railway depots in the United Kingdom" and then another sub-category for rolling stock depots if that is appropriate.Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Although the current name for most of the entries in these categories is xxxx TMD (Traction Maintenance Depot), historically and colloquially they are known as engine sheds. Otherwise as per Geof Sheppard. EdJogg (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – in the UK 'Railway depots' cover a great deal of ground; not just locomotive depots and rolling stock depots (there they are stored, serviced and running maintenance undertaken) but goods or freight depots, maintenance depots, even lost property depot (?). As for historical engine sheds (or even engine stables as they were originally called), depot is entirely inappropriate. Equally there were Sheds for carriages, goods etc.. If this is to be re-organised, then use 'depot' as a generic name for modern installations but retain 'Shed' as a generic name for historic (and heritage) usage. XTOV (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all. Johnbod (talk) 10:48, 17 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Putative terrorist organisations[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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Putative terrorist organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Application requires interpretation, POV, and speculation. Currently defined as "A list of groups (formal or informal) which have carried out activities on a basis that possibly constitutes terrorism." Too mushy. In contrast, Category:Organizations designated as terrorist has objective inclusion criteria. Currently only one article in it. Snocrates 22:54, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Satirical Musical Compositions[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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Satirical Musical Compositions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All pages in this category are currently listed at Articles for Deletion, and will most likely be deleted soon. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as they were closed and deleted. —ScouterSig 15:17, 13 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greek Nazi parties[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 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 debate was merge Category:Greek Nazi parties to Category:Nazi parties and to Category:Nationalist parties in Greece. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Greek Nazi parties to Category:Nazi parties and to Category:Nationalist parties in Greece
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, Category with one article with limited growth potential. Snocrates 22:41, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Velazquez paintings[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 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 debate was still no consensus to rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Velazquez paintings to Category:Diego Velázquez paintings
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination found doing November cleanup. While not listed, this pointed to a group discussion that was closed as no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep covered by the very recent decision, even if not included there. The problem is that although Diego Velázquez is the right name for the article, no-one ever talks of "Diego Velázquez paintings", or is likely to search for them. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 13 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vermicelli food stuff[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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vermicelli food stuff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found doing November cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:SA[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 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 debate was rename to Category:Nazi SA. Kbdank71 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SA to Category:Sturmabteilung
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Though it is perhaps better known in English as the "SA", it is ambiguous as a cateory name. Main article is at Sturmabteilung, and SA does not redirect there. Snocrates 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename 'SA' is known in English, 'Sturmabteilung' is not. This is an English encyclopedia, not German. Change the current 'SA' page to 'SA (disambiguation)' and then use the SA page for redirect to Sturmabteilung. This should satisfy all concerns. Hmains (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to agree to that if there is no objection to "SA" being the primary usage. Snocrates 04:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose SA is the more common seach term in English no doubt. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Nazi SA for clarity. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (nominator) I think that may be a better proposal than either using the German word or simply using "SA". Snocrates 08:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Nazi SA. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Nazi SA. Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent towards SS/Sturmabteilung issue, but Oppose move to Category:Nazi SA. 'Nazi' is a pejorative and oversimplified term, and should not be used unless necessary. If it is deemed that the acronym 'SA' is not clear enough, then write out the whole name. --Soman (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of categories and articles that use the term "Nazi"—see Category:Nazism and its subcategories. Why should this be any different? Snocrates 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could expand on the complexities that would make it inappropriate here, for this bunch?? Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Nazi SA - This leaves no doubt as to what the category is for, definitely preferable to either of the alternatives. Cgingold (talk) 02:24, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:SS[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 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 debate was rename to Category:Nazi SS. Kbdank71 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SS to Category:Schutzstaffel
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Though it is perhaps better known in English as the "SS", it is ambiguous as a cateory name. Main article is at Schutzstaffel, and SS does not redirect there. Snocrates 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
  • rename But argment for name change failed in July. Use 'SS' page as a redirect to this renamed page which should satisfy all concerns. Hmains (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per last time, maybe with redirect. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 13 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism[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 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 debate was relisted on dec 21. Kbdank71 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism to Category:Emigrants from Nazi Germany
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rather than using the category to subscribe an intent to the emigration, it would be more neutral to simply have a category for people who left Nazi Germany. Snocrates 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - they do all seem to be from Germany, so no need for W.H. Auden etc. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC) see below[reply]
  • Comment - what about Stefan Zweig? He clearly fled to escape Nazism, and even killed himself in fear of its triumph, but it would be four more years before his country was taken over by Nazi Germany. On the other hand, yes, the proposed rephrase is more easily subject to verifiability criteria. Biruitorul (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zweig wasn't in the category when I was examining it; all the ones who were in it seemed to meet the definition of the revised name. Does anyone know if there are a lot more like this? Snocrates 08:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notably, Einstein left Germany in late 1932 to "travel"; when he "emigrated" is subject to debate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this category precisely because the then-existing categories (which are now sub-cats of this one) were restricted to people from Germany. Apparently, nobody noticed Wilhelm Reich sitting there; or perhaps you assumed that he was German, when in fact he was Austrian (or more accurately, Galician) -- certainly not German. At any rate, I've now added both Stefan Zweig and the eminent Holocaust scholar, Raul Hilberg. No doubt there are others, as well. Cgingold (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - As I've said previously, it sure would have been nice to have been notified about the CFD. I nearly missed the opportunity to participate in the discussion. By the way, there is now a lovely, easy-to-use template for notifying Category creators when there is a CFD: {{cfd-notify}}. Please do make use of it! Cgingold (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm - I've added Sigmund Freud + another, and there is a need for such a category, but I'm still not sure about ascribing motivation in a category name, even when it is clearly justified in most or all cases. Can anyone think of a rename? Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is interesting -- it really hadn't occurred to me that the cat name could be perceived as subtly ascribing motivation, rather than simply stating a known fact. I'm still really not convinced that it's an issue that we need to be seriously concerned about, especially since the reason these people emigrated isn't mere speculation. I'll give it some more thought, though. Cgingold (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing very subtle about it! For example, does it apply to Marlene Dietrich? Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 21 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Waldorf school alumni[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 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 debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Waldorf school alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete education by pedagogical philosophy? And anyone can call themselves a "Waldorf school" and these could range from preschools through high schools, presumably, so it's a rather indiscriminate list, not much different than Category:Christian school alumni, Category:Jesuit school alumni, Category:Public school alumni, Category:Expensive private school alumni and others we'd rather not have. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this a test nomination since there are a ton of these categories out there? If so, would it simply be better to listify in the school article? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) Not any school can call itself a Waldorf school; it is a protected name. 2) It would thus not be analogous to any of the above, which are not integral educational philosophies, though it would be analogous to a Category:Montessori school alumni. 3) There are extensive discussions in educational circles about the results of various pedagogical approaches, including comparisons of alumni directions and success. This category has obvious relevance to such a discussion. 4) I note that there is a Category:Non-graduate alumni of Harvard. This seems at least as valid a category!Hgilbert (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • certainly analogous to Jesuit - can't call yourself a Jesuit school unless you are run by the Jesuit order. But the Waldorf webpage tells you that you can set up your own school & even home school. So if you are home-schooled a la Waldorf then presto a category for you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can set up a school, but can't legally call it "Waldorf" until/unless accepted through a series of accreditation hoops by a national Association of Waldorf Schools. Homeschoolers cannot legally use the protected term "Waldorf" either; thus, they wouldn't qualify unless their homeschool has been accredited. Hgilbert (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep surely the deletionists prefer that there is only one of these cats covering 1,000 schools? If deleted they would only splinter. I see no problem with a supercat Category:Jesuit school alumni collecting various subcats, nor one for public schools (English sense). And per Hgilbert. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As User:Hgilbert noted, a school may not call itself "Waldorf" unless it meets certain criteria set by an Association of Waldorf Schools such as exist in North America, the UK and Germany. Waldorf education is quite distinctive and a number of notable Waldorf alumni regard their Waldorf education as a significant part of their biography. EPadmirateur (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining and should the category then splinter into a thousand separate categories for a thousand separate schools below the university level, delete those too. Where one graduated from high school is rarely if ever defining and a collective category for high school (or grade school or kindergarten) graduates from schools with a particular educational philosophy is similarly non-defining. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However concensus and many precedents are clearly against at least the first point. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of precedents for deleting high school alumni categories. Otto4711 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there? We just kept BHG's English "test case". Johnbod (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These aren't limited to high schools, going to a waldorf nursery school makes you an waldorf alum. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So does attending a summer school course for high school students at Harvard make you a Harvard alum, I suppose. Normally one wouldn't count either case for such a list, however. You might look at Category:Groton School alumni for a precedent. Hgilbert (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in practical effect this doesn't happen: having attended a Waldorf kindergarten is not a notable part of a person's biography. I have been through all of the names on the list in detail and none, as far as I can tell, is present because of having attended just kindergarten. On the other hand, quite a number of Waldorf alumni specifically cite the fact that they went to a Waldorf school (citing not a particular school, but being in a Waldorf program) as a particular influence on their biography and career: most notably actors (film, stage and TV), filmmakers, authors, artists, to a lesser extent musicians (pop, classical, opera) and a lesser extent managers and politicians. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto4711 has claimed "graduates from schools with a particular educational philosophy is similarly non-defining". I gave examples where for this particular category, that's not the case. Can you explain how the category of Waldorf alumni is non-defining, when many of those notable people are proud to state "I went to a Waldorf school and it helped make me who I am"? In particular, notable people such as Kenneth Chenault, the CEO of American Express, saying "It taught me how to think for myself, to be responsible for my decisions. Second, it made me a good listener, sensitive to the needs of others. And third, it helped establish meaningful beliefs. In all the Main Block lessons -- in history, science, philosophy -- we really probed the importance of values and beliefs." or Michael Ende, well-known writer of fantasy novels and children's books, saying "I am deeply grateful for Waldorf education, which woke me up and helped me rediscover my imagination." or Jennifer Aniston, a well-known actress, saying "I was always fascinated by acting, but my experience at Rudolf Steiner [school] encouraged me to pursue it as a career... [The] Steiner [school] was a free-spirited school that encouraged creativity and individualism." -- how is that non-defining when the very people who are categorized define themselves specifically in that category? (I can give many more examples if you'd like.) --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I view it as not whether the person in question defines themselves that way; rather, it's whether neutral, third-part observers who are reasonably aware of the person's biography find it a defining feature. In other words, it's an objective standard, not a subjective one. The category should be objectively relevant to the person's notability. For none of the examples given would I consider having attended a Waldorf school as satisfying this standard. Being an alumni of any school or type of school will rarely meet this standard, which is why all the alumni categories are almost universally misapplied and should be deleted, in my opinion. Snocrates 05:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think the list itself demonstrates that being a Waldorf alumnus/a is objectively a defining feature. Take the 86 notable alumni: 35% are involved in acting (film, TV, stage, director, cinematography), 17% are musicians (pop, classical, composers), 13% are authors (novels, fantasy, popular non-fiction, poetry), 12% are sports notables (figure skating, golf, marathon, tennis, cycling, double sculls), 8% are fine artists (painting, photography, comics), 8% are politicians (mostly "Green" party) and the rest (7%) are engineers (audio, computers, car designer) or business. What's interesting is that the author alumni are involved in creative writing (only 1 journalist), the engineers are involved in creative engineering (audio inventor, inventor of object-oriented programming, car designer), the politicians generally have a "Green" political perspective, and even the sports alumni are mostly involved in individual sports or with a partner (ice dancing, double sculls, with only 1 soccer star). Now compare that equivalently to the alumni from Phillips Exeter from an equivalent time-period (1950s to present) with articles in Wikipedia. Of the 63 alumni, 11% are actors, 10% are musicians, 27% are authors (but mostly journalists), 10% are sports notables (many on team sports), 0% are fine artists, 14% are politicians (Republican and Democrat), 14% are business (plus 1 engineer) and 15% are educators, lawyers and military. They are distinctively different lists, with the Waldorf list weighted more in notability in the arts, creativity and individuality. So the Waldorf alumnus designation is an objectively defining and notable characteristic of a person. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since we apply categories to biographies on a case-by-case basis, I was referring to assessments of whether it is a defining aspect of a person on a case-by-case basis, not a global or statistical analysis of trends among numerous individuals. Snocrates 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in order to assess whether a list is non-defining, you need to look at each individual person on that list and make an assessment? I thought the argument by Otto4711 was that the list as a whole is non-defining, by this argument: Where one graduated from high school is rarely if ever defining and a collective category for high school (or grade school or kindergarten) graduates from schools with a particular educational philosophy is similarly non-defining. In other words, I can't see how it could possibly be defining, so it's non-defining. Providing evidence to the contrary seems to fall on deaf ears: the members of the category themselves attest that it's a defining characteristic, but that's a subjective assessment: after all, who could trust the notable person him/herself to assess what was defining in their life? And evidence that the category as a whole shows that it is defining, is dismissed because we need to look at each individual and decide whether it is defining for that individual. I have to say, your arguments sound as circular as the original assertion. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Otto, so "my" reasoning is not circular. I thought I set out my position clearly above, which came after my statement that I agreed with Otto. Snocrates 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor this much further, there is one further warrant that needs to be stated, namely that Waldorf education specifically strives to do just what the demographic results show in this category (the arts, creativity and individuality). This further supports the case that Waldorf alumnus is a defining characteristic. From the introductory paragraph of the article: "Learning is interdisciplinary, integrates practical, artistic, and intellectual elements, and is coordinated with "natural rhythms of everyday life". The Waldorf approach emphasizes the role of the imagination in learning, developing thinking that includes a creative as well as an analytic component. The education's overarching goal is to provide young people the basis with which to develop into free, moral and integrated individuals and to aid every child in the unfolding of his or her unique destiny." --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's belabored. I still don't think it's a defining characteristic for those individuals it's applied to. I personally am not too interested in abstract, global assessments of the status when we deal with articles on a case-by-case basis. Snocrates 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't have any new insights to add here, but I do want to say that I concur with the arguments made by Hgilbert, Johnbod and EPadmirateur. Cgingold (talk) 00:54, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Post World War II DP camps[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 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 debate was rename to Category:Displaced Persons camps. Kbdank71 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Post World War II DP camps to Category:Displaced persons camps
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation of "DP camps" per WP:NCCAT. Including "Post World War II" doesn't seem to add much since the term was used after WWII but not much since. There are no other categories for DP camps, and DP camps that are unrelated to World War II tend to be called and categorized under Category:Refugee camps. See main article at Displaced persons camp. Snocrates 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. Chris (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Post-World War II Displaced Persons camps. The "Post-World War II" element should be retained to ensure that the category is not used for other unrelated purposes. "Displaced Persons" should be capitalized, as it was an official designation, not merely a descriptive phrase. Cgingold (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the desire to emphasize that the camps were related to WW2, but "post-World War II" is not very helpful in dissuading its misuse, because "post-WW2" can mean anything from 1945 to the present. Snocrates 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I guess I can see your point. Ideally we would say something more specific, but then it would get rather unwieldy. However, I just added a new parent cat, Category:Aftermath of World War II, which goes a good way toward resolving my concerns. Amazingly, it wasn't in any WW2-related category, until now. In any event, it still should be capital D & P. Cgingold (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you two may be on the same page. Is there a specific title you two could agree on? Would you, Cgingold, support Snocrates' proposal if the D and P were capitalized?-Andrew c [talk] 05:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to the caps on "Displaced Persons". Snocrates 05:29, 21 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Airports in the Mojave Desert[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Airports in the Mojave Desert to Category:Airports in California
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination found doing November cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category actually covers airports in three states and not the two listed in the category so a rename would be completely wrong. Being in the Mojave Desert is not defining for any of these airports. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as appropriate. I'm sure we've deleted other Mojave categories on Vegas's rationale. Johnbod (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a quick check and all of the articles already seem to have correct cats so no need for a manual merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete airports in the US are grouped by state not by geographic feature as part of the scheme, so overlaying that with more and more jigsaw pieces of territory isn't likely to help navigation of our cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't merge to Category:Airports in California because three of the airports in the current cat are in Nevada. Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 19:01, 14 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and structures in Orlando[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Orlando to Category:Buildings and structures in Orlando, Florida
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent Category:Orlando, Florida and form used by all children categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orlando musical groups[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Orlando musical groups to Category:Orlando, Florida musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match other categories in parent Category:Orlando, Florida. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a band, redundant per WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:54, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Salt Lake City[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 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 debate was rename all. Kbdank71 17:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Salt Lake City to Category:Buildings and structures in Salt Lake City, Utah
Category:Companies based in Salt Lake City to Category:Companies based in Salt Lake City, Utah
Category:Mayors of Salt Lake City to Category:Mayors of Salt Lake City, Utah
Category:Neighborhoods in Salt Lake City to Category:Neighborhoods in Salt Lake City, Utah
Category:People from Salt Lake City to Category:People from Salt Lake City, Utah
Category:Salt Lake City media to Category:Salt Lake City, Utah media
Category:Sports in Salt Lake City to Category:Sports in Salt Lake City, Utah
Category:Salt Lake television anchors to Category:Salt Lake City, Utah television anchors
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with parent category Category:Salt Lake City, Utah and article Salt Lake City, Utah. Snocrates 21:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rename the article instead to Salt Lake City. As a former Olympic City, it should not need disambiguation. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with last suggestion. This Salt Lake City is the only substantial place of the name that I have heard of. I think we recently decided that Manchester did not need to be Manchester, England. The same rationale applies here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is not the place to discuss article renames. Based on the exhaustive discussions about American place names, it is not likely that Salt Lake City, Utah will be renamed. So there is no reason to not proceed with this suggested rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could you direct us to a couple of representative discussions? I'm inclined to support the idea of renaming the article as suggested, but I'd like to look into any pertinent discussions that would bear out your contention that renaming would not be supported in the case of SLC. Cgingold (talk) 02:19, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People that have played Survivor more then once[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People that have played Survivor more then once (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this category is necessary; it seems that only five people have "played" Survivor more than once, and that might always be the case. Overly limited category. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - every Survivor contestant has a template of all the contestants and the template is color-coded for those who've played more than once. Far too narrow a category. Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, there are 20 contestants who have played more than once, and probably 8 more to be announced shortly. Nevertheless, Otto4711's analysis is correct. --Maxamegalon2000 23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Additionally, this is the only "People that" category. The proper grammar would be "People who", so at minimum this would need a rename. VegaDark (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons that VegaDark outlines. --Yamla (talk) 04:29, 18 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Celebrities that Competed on Reality Shows[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celebrities that Competed on Reality Shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, already exists in the form of Category:Reality television participants. Only page in this category was Trace Adkins, whom I removed. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:37, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mortal Kombat terms[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 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 debate was merge into Category:Mortal Kombat. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mortal Kombat terms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Contains only two articles, one of which is set to merge into the other. Too narrow for a category. Upmerge into parent categories. Pagrashtak 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. At any rate, the Brutality article will probably be merged into the Fatality aricle. -Sean Curtin (talk) 06:25, 14 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jumping Monks[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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jumping Monks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary eponymous cat for a band; per many precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Various mixtures[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 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 debate was relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_21#Category:Various_mixtures.-Andrew c [talk] 05:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Homogeneous mixtures to Category:Homogeneous chemical mixtures
Propose renaming Category:Heterogeneous mixtures to Category:Heterogeneous chemical mixtures
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match its parent Category:Chemical mixtures. Our article mixtures describes what could be homogeneous & heterogeneous mixtures which include "salad". Let's let this stay focused on chemical mixtures, not whether a cobb salad is homogeneous or heterogeneous (does it matter if it's tossed?) and the heterogeneous category tells us that pizza is also heterogeneous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems like a term of art might be in play here. We should relist to generate broader discussion, and maybe post on wikiproject chemistry. --Lquilter (talk) 23:53, 18 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

LGBT-related films by country[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 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 debate was no consensus on whether to keep or delete. If desired, this can be relisted. Rename subcats to Category:Fooian LGBT-related films per convention. Kbdank71 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT-related films by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT films of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT films of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT-related films from Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:LGBT-related films from Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete parent, merge all subcats to Category:LGBT-related films. The parent LGBT-related films is not so enormous that it needs to be fragmented along national lines. If retained the subcats need to be renamed Category:Fooian LGBT-related films, in line with the parent and grandparent and per the convention of Category:Films by country. Otto4711 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I created the parent cat (Category:LGBT-related films by country to gather the various country LGBT-related film subcats (which I did not create) but at this point am agnostic on whether or not the subcategories need to exist. If they exist the "by country" parent category needs to exist to properly sort it into the "by country" category trees, and to prevent the categories from being hidden at the back pages. --Lquilter (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created the Thailand cat to help populate Category:LGBT culture in Thailand, and to better identify a notable and growing segment of the Thai film industry. I can't comment on the rationales for the other categories, but with regard to their place in LGBT country culture cats, the category is about more than just film. — WiseKwai 06:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If kept, the categories need to be renamed to match existing naming conventions. -Sean Curtin (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all merge up per nominator. Lists can be created if necessary and either added to existing articles if relevant, or new articles can be created. As these are now, they are a problematic overcategorization. There are far too many ways to categorize films to start creating all the intersection categories. Eventually, Category Intersection will be a software feature. Until then, we can deal with intersections by adding lists if the intersection is notable. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination doesn't appear to be taking into account that Category:LGBT-related films is not these categories' only relevant parent. I can only speak for the Canada category, which I created in order to include the films in Category:LGBT culture in Canada — this is not an unnecessary grouping, as the films have to be included in that category. Keep, and in future please keep in mind that the size of the film-specific parent is not the only valid consideration here — and even if it were, a category that's three pages long even without the direct inclusion of some of the subcategorized films is large enough to be subdivided. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 15 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by jurisdiction
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As one might expect, most Russians who are Orthodox Christians belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, most Greeks to the Church of Greece, etc. However, churches are emphatically not set up on ethnic criteria -- this was condemned as a heresy ("philetism") in 1872 -- but rather, jurisdictions are supposed to follow traditional and geographic boundaries. These borders most often happen to correspond with national boundaries, but not always (for instance the great majority of ethnic Romanians in Moldova continue to belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, which has held sway there since 1944, while most Slavic Macedonians are part of the Serbian Orthodox Church) The point is that we should follow jurisdictinal rather than ethnic lines, because the Church itself does so. Biruitorul (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concerned how this would work, though I see sense in trhe basic idea. Would it not mean merging the Estonians into the Russians for example? Some, like the Category:Antiochian Orthodox Christians presumably are set up this way anyway. What do you do with the USA, which, heresy or not, has several different organisations (no category yet) ? Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for Estonia: yes, I would say either include the Estonian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate directly in the Russian Orthodox category, or make it a subcategory thereof; likewise with the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, which should go into a Constantinople category/subcategory. Do keep in mind that Orthodox in most of Moldova, much of Ukraine, and all of Belarus and Kazakhstan (and I believe Latvia) are also under Moscow. With America (which has indeed laboured under philetism for decades), we can have a category for members of the Orthodox Church in America (although its autocephaly is not universally acknowledged), and make the Antiochians and the GOARCH subcategories of their parent patriarchates. That's the general idea--the move from nationality to jurisdiction--but of course the matter is rather complex and requires some thought. Incidentally, I have a concrete example of why the current system falls short: Andrew Natsios, a Greek American, was born and raised in the Greek Archdiocese, but is now an Antiochian parishioner. So it would make sense to put him in an Antiochian jurisdiction category, since he isn't Arabic (and neither are a third of the Archdiocese's members), but he isn't a Greek Orthodox anymore, either. Biruitorul (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that will mean some very fiddly checking, by people who know the differences. Any volunteers? Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly well-versed in Orthodox denominations, but individuals of uncertain adherence could always go in the Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians until a more precise subcategory is found. Biruitorul (talk) 02:23, 14 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Journalists killed in action[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 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 debate was rename * Category:Journalists killed in action to Category:Journalists killed while covering military conflicts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Journalists killed in action to Category:Journalists killed while covering war Category:Journalists killed while covering military conflicts
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Killed in action" is a military term, and should only be applied to those participating in military action. The new name is also consistent with the names of its subcats. jwillbur 16:51, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Authoritarian political parties[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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Authoritarian political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Criteria for inclusion will always be highly subjective and pov-ish. Soman (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was actually considering adding this to Sanacja. Some category for the for the single party or The Party (politics) would be useful. We have Category:Parties of single-party systems, but what about wannabies? Parties who support authoritarianism, may have excessive parties, but are no monopolies? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem lies in delimitation. No state is 100% free (by its nature as an organ holding repressive power), nor is any state 100% unfree (by the sheer fact that any regime, even dictatorship, needs some degree of popular legitimacy). Single-party system parties is a valid cat, cause its delimitation is based on more or less formalized one-party systems. 'Authoritarian' is highly dubious criteria. --Soman (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the necessity of POV in applying the current definition and the difficultly of formulating an alternative definition. Snocrates 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both deleters. How authoritarian do you have to be? "anti-democracy" might be better, not that I amk suggesting it. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above and another reason: ambiguity are the parties authoritarian or are they advocating authoritarian government. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles supported by WPRhodesia[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles supported by WPRhodesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:WikiProject Rhodesia articles, the standard WikiProject convention. -- Prove It (talk) 14:39, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Israel Aircraft Industries[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 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 debate was rename Category:Israel Aircraft Industries to Category:Israel Aerospace Industries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Israel Aircraft Industries to Category:Israel Aerospace Industries
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proper current name of company. Main article is at Israel Aerospace Industries. Snocrates 09:59, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NRK[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 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 debate was rename and salt. For the record, I did in fact delete the category on July 2 [1] .. Kbdank71 17:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NRK to Category:Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation
Category:NRK television programmes to Category:Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation television programmes.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviations per WP:NCCAT. Main article is at Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. Snocrates 09:49, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orlando television anchors[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Orlando television anchors to Category:Orlando, Florida television anchors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per convention of parent Category:Orlando, Florida. Snocrates 09:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename' per nom or delete. There are only 2 entries, but I guess this is part of a series, so... Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 17 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fort Wayne television anchors[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fort Wayne television anchors to Category:Fort Wayne, Indiana television anchors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand name of city per conventions and parent Category:Fort Wayne, Indiana. Snocrates 09:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the TV anchors/presenters branch an exemption to the performers-by-performance ban?-choster (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valid question with no good answer. However if you look at the articles in this category, I wonder if any of the entries here meet WP:GNP as news anchors. I suspect that most or all of them do not. So I guess this becomes a sticky issue. I'll suggest that this be Renamed to cleanup the name issues and then renominated to Delete as not defining. I think the non defining question needs a full discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:42, 18 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York television anchors[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New York television anchors to Category:New York City television anchors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is defined as television anchors who worked in New York City, not ones who worked somewhere in New York state. Snocrates 09:28, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Famous pandas[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Famous pandas to Category:Famous giant pandas
Nominator's rationale: Pandas actually refer to at least two different animals, red panda and giant panda. This category is mostly about famous giant pandas. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / initial oppose: Category appears to include both giant and red pandas; e.g., Babu (red panda). Are you proposing a new category for famous red pandas or just removing red pandas from the category? I agree though that just having a category for "pandas" could be problematic as the two groups are only distantly related. Snocrates 03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose before we get into discussing panda apartheid, there are sufficiently few articles here to really generate another level of categorization. After all, we've lumped all the apes together mixing gorillas with chimps with bonobos, etc. and as for distant relation, all fish are lumped together which no doubt have more distant relationships than dumping all mammals (much less all pandas, apes, rodents, etc.) together. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment did you look at the biological classification boxes? They are not related. It would be like classifying dogs with cats, or whales with seals. These two pandas are more closely related to other things with categories than each other. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Famous bears is closer to the giant panda, while the red panda is closer to Category:Famous seals. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the classification boxes they seem at least as closely related to each other than are all fish that could fit inCategory:Famous fish. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Situation's not exactly the same, is it? Category:Famous fish has all of two articles, and Category:Famous apes has a diverse number of different types of "apes". Category:Famous pandas, on the other hand, has exactly one red panda who is only notable because he escaped and was on the loose, and the rest are giant pandas who are notable for the simple fact that they live in zoos outside China. Why not go for the more accurate name? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The red panda is not closely related to the giant panda. It is closer to seals, so this category makes no sense as is. The giant panda is closer to bears, so it would make more sense to merge giant pandas with bears than to keep red pandas and giant pandas together. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well unless I've missed an article, the concern for excluding red pandas really only pertains to exactly one article right now - Babu (red panda). Babu the Red Panda seems to be notable only because he escaped and spent four days on the loose. So I'm guessing that there aren't going to be many red pandas becoming famous anytime soon, unlike most captive giant pandas outside China - the birth of each giant panda outside China seems to be notable in and of itself because of the amount of news coverage devoted to each birth. So I would propose that we recategorise Babu (red panda) to the top level Category:Famous animals, the same place where Nereus the Walrus sits. It seems red pandas are genetically very unique, at least according to the Red Panda article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as they are biological, physically, and in human culture, distinct. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The two species are not closely related, and a narrowest taxonomic cat that would hold them both looks like it might have to cover all of suborder Caniformia and subsume a bunch of other cats including Category:Famous seals. As to Babu (red panda), I don't see a problem bumping him up to Category:Famous animals as Hong Qi Gong suggests. ×Meegs 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This being an encyclopoedia, I agree its better to be clear about these classifications. tess (talk) 22:25, 17 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Captains of Norwich City F.C.[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 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 debate was merge to Category:Norwich City F.C. players. Kbdank71 17:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Captains of Norwich City F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorized, already listed at Captains of Norwich City F.C.. Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"they should all be playing captains" - what does that mean? --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
many sports have non-playing captains, Davis Cup tennis comes to mind. But these guys are all players for Norwich City F.C. so the merger would work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Law enforcement agencies of Dubai[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 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 debate was rename/merge per nom. Kbdank71 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming Category:Law enforcement agencies of Dubai to Category:Law enforcement agencies of the United Arab Emirates
Suggest merging Category:Law enforcement in Dubai to Category:Law enforcement in the United Arab Emirates
Nominator's rationale: Rename first; upmerge second. The parents are Category:Law enforcement by country and Category:Law enforcement agencies by country; there is no equivalent "by city" parent categories for Dubai to be placed in as part of a larger scheme. Category for renaming contains only one article but I suggest it may be kept as part of large "by country" scheme of classification. Category for upmerging contains nothing but category to be renamed. Snocrates 00:12, 12 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_12&oldid=1166570092"