Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 5

< December 4	December 6 >

December 5[edit]

Category:Mario Lanza songs[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) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete both, per my reasoning at the discussion on Category:Jussi Bjorling songs below - i.e. that arias/songs by (opera) singer who has recorded them is not a good category structure to start, because of the horrendous risk of category clutter. For example, Nessun Dorma is in the Mario Lanza category and in theory it could be in a category for every tenor who's ever recorded it. Where do you stop? Bencherlite ^Talk 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as non defining/trivial intersection. Maralia (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mario Lanza, delete Sissel, which may seem perverse, given my !vote below, but Lanza was a crossover artist & Be My Love was a pop hit first I think recorded by him, so should be categorised as other pop songs & artists are. But the other two should be removed as not especially associated with him. I'm sure there are plenty of other pop hits of his that could go here. Both songs in the Sissel cat are the same as Lanza's. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non defining/trivial intersection. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-defining, and replace by lists e.g. List of songs recorded by Mario Lanza or even List of artists who have recorded Nessun Dorma. Rationale: category is non-defining i.e., it is not an important characteristic of Nessun Dorma, for example, that it was recorded by Lanza. It is interesting to know what songs he recorded, and might also be interesting to know who has recorded a given song, but categories aren't the best way to achieve this; you just get too much clutter. Casper Gutman (talk • contributions) 16:11, 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 political organizations and Category:Joke 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 merge Category:Satirical political organizations to Category:Joke political parties. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Same thing, merge. I believe the former name is better, although some related categories are named "parody <foo>". >Radiant< 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 11 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:Joke organizations[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) 18:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Nearly all of these are political in nature (and thus should be put in Category:Satirical political organizations, mentioned above) and the remainder are either fictional or not actually an organization, or both. Thus there is no actual content for this cat, and it should be deleted. >Radiant< 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 11 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:WABC-TV[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) 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper overcategorization of television personalities by station per extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 11 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:Festivals in Europe[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) 18:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - redundant to the Category:Festivals by country structure. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - oddly incomplete too. Johnbod (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary duplicate. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 11 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:Quilt Art[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: nuke. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete one article category, similar to Art Quilt, with a name coming from one source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any articles in this category could be adequately categorized under Category:Quilting and Category:Textile arts. (Full disclosure - I am a quilt artist.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:47, 6 December 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:Knights Templar[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 destination for the Category:Medieval Knights Templar merge below. Kbdank71 16:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This seems to have been deprecated in favor of Category:Medieval Knights Templar, but not sure that that's the better solution; all other interwiki's have the category without the "Medieval" and probably there is wisdom there, so perhaps a reverse merge of Category:Medieval Knights Templar into this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why 2 noms here? I think we should consult the project - I suspect they want to avoid "modern" Knights Templar claimants joining in, which seems reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete No articles in this category. Use Category:Medieval Knights Templar instead. Hmains (talk) 19:48, 8 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:Medieval Knights Templar[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. Kbdank71 16:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Medieval Knights Templar to Category:Knights Templar

Nominator's rationale: Merge, per above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, possible speedy as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is full, it's the other one that's empty! Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Sting_au Talk 22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Above comments seem very confused. THIS category has all the articles and THIS category name is the preferred name--one that helps readers and editors know what the category does/should contain. Hmains (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the category with the members and it seems to be time specific. No valid reason to merge given that the target is likely to be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This will displace that prior one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Medieval Knights Templar are the Knights Templar. Just because some masonic orders have purloined the name doesn't mean we should disambiguate the category for the real order. That should be the default. How many people would think of Knights Templar and associate them first and foremost with anything other than the medieval order? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 10 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:Jussi Bjorling songs[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) 18:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jussi Bjorling songs to Category:Jussi Björling songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. His name, and WP biography title, have two dots over the "o". Possible speedy, but some people always have an issue of keyboard usability, etc., so I bring it here instead. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd happily delete, great singer though he was. I'm not sure songs by opera singer are to be encouraged - we don't have Category:Maria Callas songs. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we rename it, please keep this one as a redirect, the correct name is difficult to type. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arias/songs by (opera) singer who has recorded them is not a good category structure to start, because of the horrendous risk of category clutter. For example, Nessun Dorma is in this category. It's also in Category:Mario Lanza songs (which I'm nominating for deletion above), but in theory could be in a category for every tenor who's ever recorded it. Where do you stop? The other song in this category is O Holy Night, which has scores of names of recording artists already in the article, illustrating the potential misuse. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non defining in both directions, not to mention inaccurately implying ownership of the songs. Maralia (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Maralia and Bencherlite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Songs by artist categories should only be created for genres where the performer wrote the majority of their own material. Opera performers renowned mainly for their performances of arias written by others should not have their own songs by artist categories as an individual piece could potentially end up with hundreds of them cluttering the categories. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 9 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:Go!Products[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) 18:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete three item category for official products for a particular platform, OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 6 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:Festivals in Stuttgart[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:Festivals in Stuttgart to Category:Stuttgart and Category:Festivals in Germany. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Festivals in Stuttgart to Category:Stuttgart

Nominator's rationale: Merge, one article in the category, found in the orphanage, should merge with the city's category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to suggested target and also Category:Festivals in Germany. Otto4711 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge twice per Otto. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double upmerge per Otto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 6 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:Electoral divisions always held by the Australian Labor Party[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) 20:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete we don't categorize electoral divisions on how they tend to vote: OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is also completely inadequate as it only includes a few of the electorates that could be in the category. The category however is not useful. --Bduke (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because always is a really long time and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Lquilter (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but probably rename to "have always been held by" so as to clarify: the crystal ball argument is a furphy - it wouldn't be intended to be read that way. In Australia we are very interested in the notion of safe seats and we do categorise them on the basis of how they vote. That a category is underpopulated is not a reason to delete in my view. Categorisations such as these make Wikipedia more useful. --Matilda ^talk 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can see no purpose for category. Orderinchaos 02:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see no reason to keep this category. --Roisterer (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists of safe seats are great, and can be very informative because they can include details of the sizes of majority and on how boundaries have changed, but categories are too crude for this job. Categories can't indicate whether the "seat" has boundary changes, or how major these have been, or whether the seat is marginal in a bad year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless since boundary changes and demographic evolution makes the status a bit fluky really. Canterbury, New South Wales where John Howard was born and grew up was a middle-class conservative area before WW2 but since the 1970s and 1980s has experienced large waves of Asian and Middle Eastern immigration and turned into a Labor stronghold. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no need for this category - as the seats are subject to boundary changes at redistributions, the fact that it may have been "always held by Labor" really means absolutely nothing. Frickeg (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of safe seats is not unique to Australia; it exists in almost every electoral democracy on earth. But it's simply not done as a category. Listify and delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 9 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:Diocese of Clifton[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) 20:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete one item cat found in the orphanage, most Roman Catholic dioceses cannot support a category since we have usually only one, two, or a few articles relevant to them unless we start dumping geographic articles into each of them (a very bad idea), so this is unneeded. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 6 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:Credu[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: speedy deleted, but not by me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete category of unsure scope, meaning, or use. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"CREDU" appears to be a distance education agency in South Korea, which had its main article speedied as G11 five separate times on December 3. The category was clearly filed incorrectly and meant for a single article; consider it speedied. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 9 December 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:Constitutional republics[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 16:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete POV categorization; although constitutional republic has a variety of meanings there are disputes as to whether certain countries meet the definition, particularly true in theocratic governments where the will of God as interpreted by those in power always seems to trump any secular constitutional terms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since category is undefined and the correct way of defining is not obvious, per nom. At it's widest it could apply to every state that has a constitution and calls itself a republic, but this probably is not what the category is meant to encompass. Snocrates 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Snocrates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Clearly a part of a larger and correct category system of types of governments of countries. Government types are encyclopedic. The meaning of a Constitutional republic is very clear; read the article. Does the category lack a statement of inclusion. Then write one. Are there a few articles that do not belong here? Then fix them. Deleting every category with a few doubtful articles is no solution to anything. POV pushing of trying to get rid of article and facts that a nominator might personally object to is not an acceptable reason for deletion anywhere in the WP policies and procedures. If the WP article says a country is a constitutional republic, then the country is a constitutional republic until the article is changed by the WP editing process of that article. Hmains (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If its so clearly defined, as in the first line of that article: "A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens." How do: Cuba, Commonwealth of England, Kyrgyzstan, Egypt, and many others qualify - the essence of parliamentary democracy is that the "constitution" is mutable by the current parliament in power. And as for elections, well, one man's election is another's charade - who by the way elected Cromwell and did the then existing "constitution" of England - according to which he must govern to be a constitutional republic - permit him to usurp the throne? And then there's the problem of temporality: Germany may be a constitutional republic, but our article is about more than the Federal Republic of Germany, and includes its less savory history (say 1933-45) which really doesn't smell like a constitutional republic however one would define it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are still missing the point entirely. The point is to help WP by improving things, not trying every angle to try to delete things. Deletion helps nothing and no one. If an article is in a wrong category, fix it. True, it does take some more time and effort than just nominating everything for deletion. Also, not confuse Constitutional republic (not all of which are nice) and liberal democracy (which many now think are nice). Two different cuts in categorizing governments/societies mean two different things. This list is 'as of now', meaning it categorizes the country by its current government structure. This is a fact, not a 'problem'. So arguments regarding historical governments are irrelevant. Hmains (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Deletion helps nothing and no one." That's a gross over-generalization that I would not agree with. Sometimes when things are FUBAR it's more helpful to delete and start from scratch. Not that it is necessarily here; if you strongly believe this can be adequately defined/cleaned up, I look forward to you doing so if there is no consensus to "delete". Snocrates 09:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Probably so, but not in this case. How are we going to improve the term 'constitutional republic' as that is clearly a defined form of government. How are we going to imrove the countries that get included in this category? WP cannot change their governments! Deleting one of the subcats of Category:Countries by form of government does not make good sense to me. Why target this subcat? Because some constitutional republics are poorly governed or ignore varying parts of their constitutions? Should the subcat Category:Constitutional monarchies be deleted because some monarchs govern poorly or are evil people? I don't think this deletion activity is very useful to WP and don't think it positively contributes to WP. Hmains (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need to have yet another "almost-everybody-here" type of category. From the guidelines: "2. An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article". Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:31, 8 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:Art Quilt[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. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete one article cat, found in the orphanage with a title that seems to have come from a single source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation with correct capitalization when enough articles exist; art quilts are indeed a genre of quilting (and art). --Lquilter (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation per Lq Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any articles in this category could be adequately categorized under Category:Quilting and Category:Textile arts. (Full disclosure - I am an art quilter.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:47, 6 December 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:Female draughts players[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:Female draughts players to Category:Draughts players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Female draughts players to Category:Draughts players

Nominator's rationale: No reason to categorize draughts players by sex. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - overcategorization based on sex. Otto4711 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge OCAT based on sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume there's no "men's" and "women's" leagues/rules as in other sports & games categories? If so, Carlossuarez46, then we may have found -- at last -- a gender/occupation category on which we can agree. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wedded to this surviving, but there are in fact women's championships and competitions. nl:Europees kampioenschap dammen voor vrouwen, nl:Wereldkampioenschap dammen voor vrouwen, etc. There's also been articles on Women in Checkers. Still this seems to be a bigger thing in the Netherlands and the Baltic states than here.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this based on the Dutch version. Also on there being women's world and national championships, etc. Ideally it was to be similar to Category:Female pool players, Category:Chess woman grandmasters, or even things in Category:Sportswomen by sport. If this is unacceptable that's okay, it was just an experiment.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I see no evidence that a substantive and encyclopedic head article could be written on this subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 6 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:Armoured fighting vehicles of the United States[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of the United States to Category:Armored fighting vehicles of the United States

Category:World War II armoured fighting vehicles of the United States to Category:World War II armored fighting vehicles of the United States

Category:Cold War armoured fighting vehicles of the United States to Category:Cold War armored fighting vehicles of the United States

Nominator's rationale: American English, they aren't called "armoured" in the USA. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:09, 5 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:Professional sports players who died mid-career[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) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We've been through this before, Dead people by occupation isn't feasible, please see the discussion of June 27th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons last time round and per the vagueness of defining "mid-career". Bencherlite ^Talk 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why not rename it? Instead of 'mid career', how about 'before retirement'? That's not vague. Don ^MEGĂ|60645 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the previous discussion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_27#Category:Dead_athlete_categories, you'll see that "died before retiring" was the category name used last time this was discussed and deleted, so "before retirement" is no improvement. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcat/recreation of previously deleted material. And you can't technically die at the "mid-career" point, as it's the end of your career if you're dead... Lugnuts (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply put, it is impossible for this to happen. If you die your career is finished and not at a mid point. Also how defining of a characteristic is this? Do we also add categories for those who have a torn muscle, or develop heart disease or cancer that keeps them from playing? Vegaswikian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and Vegaswikian does have a point! :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Death is really the ultimate retirement. --Lquilter (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete → Lugnuts, that would have never came to my mind. Anyway, Vegaswikian said it all, there's no encyclopedic usefulness in this category, not mentioning the recreation of deleted content (well, sort of). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a highly notable topic because when a well-known active player in a major sport dies during their career, there is a special degree of attention paid to the event by the media and public. Take the recent death of Sean Taylor, which inspired me to create this category. How many of you remember Cory Lidle's plane crash? When something like this occurs, it is a unique kind of national tragedy.
There is surely interest among other Wikipedians in having this category. On the day I created it, I placed 10 names in the category. In just a few days, the number has doubled. There is only room for more. A category with a large number of articles that does not immediately duplicate another should not be deleted. And there is no Wikipedia policy that seems to frown upon this one.Massbox (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However you do not address how this is a defining characteristic for these individuals. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All manner of categories can grow, especially if they are vague like this one is. What is "mid"? Apart from the obvious points several of us made about death, what if someone was near to retirement age but still active? Or early career? I suspect the intent is to capture those people at the height of their career whose potential was blighted by their death. But "mid-career" is just too vague. --Lquilter (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list would be valid; a category is pure overcategorization. Listify and delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 9 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:War on Terror[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. Kbdank71 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:War on Terror to Category:War on Terrorism

Nominator's rationale: Rename.

Most all US formal documents on this subject refer to "War on Terrorism".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/faq-what.html - FAQ - What is the War on Terrorism?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/100dayreport.html - The Global War on Terrorism - The First 100 Days

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/ - National Strategy for Combating Terrorism

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/ - Progress Report On the Global War on Terrorism.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/index.html - CIA & The War on Terrorism

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html - Terrorism FAQs

To verify this, and find official Whitehouse documents on the War on Terrorism , use the search:

google: site:whitehouse.gov "war on terrorism"

google: site:cia.gov "war on terrorism"

Notice that if you instead search for the informal phrase, you will mostly find press statements, not formal documents:

google: site:whitehouse.gov "war on terror"

google: site:cia.gov "war on terror"

The Wikipedia title and categories should use the formal name, Even if the current president often uses the informal name. GodWasAnAlien (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_2#Category:War_on_Terror. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_3#Category:War_on_Terror ("War on Terrorism" merged to "War on Terror", i.e. the opposite of what's being suggested now). What's being suggested now was put forward in the November discussion, but there was "no consensus" so to do, with various comments about the desirability of matching the main article name and hoping that the article would get and keep a stable name to prevent perpetual ping-pong of renames. Well, the article has been at War on Terrorism since 27 Oct without any moves back to War on Terror (at least, as at the time of writing) and so rename Category:War on Terrorism. Suggest that a polite message be given to editors at the article that, whatever happens here, the category name won't be changed for 6 months at least, because the to-ing and fro-ing is a waste of time! Bencherlite ^Talk 16:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It should be noted that the article was named "War on Terrorism" for a long period. On September 8-25, 2007, there was a discussion on changing the War on Terrorism Title. There was no consensus. The title of the article was changed to "War on Terror" on September 25. Then on October 3, 2007, the "War on Terrorism" category was nominated for a merge with War on Terror. There consensus was apparently based solely on the name of the Article (which had been changed without consensus days earlier). The article name change was reverted on October 27. The category was nominated for rename the category back to "War on Terrorism" on November 2, without consensus (Though mostly with renames). So now here we are. Most all articles refer to the formal "War on Terrorism", while the category is named "War on Terror", based on consensus of to match the article name, which was "War on Terror" for one month out of 5 years.GodWasAnAlien (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; Comment this just closed as no consensus, serial nominations are often viewed as disruptive. I suggest taking this to DRV if you think that a consensus was formed in favor of the rename but closed contrary to that consensus, although I don't think that is the case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as dog that has very recently gone back to sleep. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename. Rename, as "War on Terror" does not make much sense, and "War on Terrorism" is the official, more proper term (In the US, which the articles center around.). YesuSmith (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Dispute should be resolved with main article, War on Terrorism first.YesuSmith (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will list reasons here for each name that I have seen. Feel free to update the list.GodWasAnAlien (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- War on Terrorism:
  - Official phrase used by official documents of the Whitehouse and CIA is "War on Terrorism".
  - "War on Terrorism" was used before 2001.
  - "War on Terror" is an informal abbreviation of "War on Terrorism".
- War on Terror:
  - Bush says "War on Terror" more than "War on Terrorism".
    - Even if Bush uses the informal name more than the official name, I'm not sure that is relevant compared to official documents. The speech of this president is often intentionally informal.
  - Google has mor matches for "War on Terror" than "War on Terrorism"
    - I don't think we should make name decisions solely on Google searches.GodWasAnAlien (talk) 17:55, 9 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:Cultural Properties of Busan[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:Cultural Properties of Busan to Category:Busan culture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Busan culture, convention of Category:South Korean culture. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Sting_au Talk 05:01, 6 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:Minor basilicas in Rome[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:Minor basilicas in Rome to Category:Basilica churches in Rome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Minor basilicas in Rome to Category:Basilica churches in Rome

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Since all but four basilicas in the world are minor basilicas it makes no sense to have separate categories. We already have Category:Patriarchal basilicas for the four major basilicas, so this category is extraneous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Bwpach (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:13, 5 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:Minor basilica churches[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:Minor basilica churches to Category:Basilica churches. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Minor basilica churches to Category:Basilica churches

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Since all but four basilicas in the world are minor basilicas it makes no sense to have separate categories. We already have Category:Patriarchal basilicas for the four major basilicas, so this category is extraneous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Bwpach (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 5 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:Abandonware[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) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The term Abandonware is disputed (for legal reasons), and should therefore not be applied to actual software. SharkD (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abandonware seems to mean anything that isn't kept up to date to work on the next sort of hardware, which presumably includes every hardware-software combination (video pinball machines, e.g.), and every game that may have flourished on Windows 2000 but cannot work on Vista, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:20, 5 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:Online Football (soccer) games[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) 20:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Very small category. Not notable. SharkD (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcategorization. Should be lowercase "football" if kept. Recury (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 5 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:Text-based video games[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: Speedy delete at author's request (WP:CSD#G7), next time please use {{db-author}}. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Didn't realize there was already a category like it. SharkD (talk) 04:01, 5 December 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:Online games[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) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Online games to Category:Multiplayer online games

Nominator's rationale: Merge, I don't see any non-multiplayer games in this category (although, I admit I didn't look too closely, and I'm not that familiar with these games). SharkD (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that Yahoo! Games has a list of singleplayer online games. Maybe these could be moved to Category:Singleplayer online games or Category:Singleplayer games played online? I'm not sure these games are even that notable. SharkD (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I personally went through the category and sorted them based on type. SharkD (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge various human vs. computer games really aren't wholly dissimilar to the experience of many multiplayer games. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that they don't feature multiple players. SharkD (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose., since sorting can and has been done. --Eliyak T·C 22:41, 6 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.