Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10

< January 9	January 11 >

January 10[edit]

Category:Rangoon[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect. Timrollpickering 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have moved all articles from this cat to Category:Yangon, because "Rangoon" is the antiquated name. Hintha 00:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did you talk this over with other editors, and then form a consensus on Yangon/Rangoon? It may well be better-known by its antiquated name. -Toptomcat 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was given approval on Wikiproject Burma/Myanmar to do so, and there were no objections for relocating the articles. Because using "Rangoon/Yangon" may be controversial (because some users claim, as in the "Burma/Myanmar" case, is not neutral in point of view, and can be interpreted as having political leanings toward the democracy movement in Myanmar. --Hintha 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Question for Hintha. I see a discussion on project talk about using "Myanma" as an adjective rather than "Myanma", but no recent discussion there about Rangoon/Yangon. Talk:Yangon opens with a discussion about using Rangon or Yangoon, but it has been sporadic (with a lot of undated contributions) and the last post was over a month ago: there appears to me to be no consensus. Category talk:Yangon is empty.
  Please can you give us a link to the discussion you are referring to in which you were given approval? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, seeing as how it's pretty much done already. --Wizardman 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main article is at Yangon, and the name of the category should match. Bluap 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CategoryRedirect, Rangoon is definitely the better known term. like the movie Beyond Rangoon, and activities of a certain Jane Fonda... 132.205.44.134 23:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tree of life[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, and Category:Organisms has been created now anyway. Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. the wub "?!" 15:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tree of life to Category:Organisms

Rename, "Tree of life" in an unintuitive name for the supercategory of all organisms and types of organisms. ragesoss 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Keep the nifty picture, though- it will remain germaine to the cat. -Toptomcat 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. with the suggestion that Phylogeny might be an equally approriate new name. Kail Ceannai 07:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer Phylogency as the target, given what the subcategorization contains. Serpent's Choice 09:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason why I proposed "Organisms" is that it allows a better stream-lining of related categories, while it is less likely to be populated with other types of articles. In addition to organisms, there are many concepts related to phylogeny. Likewise, there are many organism categories where phylogeny is not the common factor (Category:Aquatic organisms, for example). As it stands, the only place for such non-evolutionary organism categories is the overpopulated supercategory "Biology", and this would still be the case if "Tree of life" were changed to "Phylogeny".--ragesoss 13:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Existing name is highly ambiguous (see Tree of life), and the branch does not exclusively contain articles about "phylogeny" though it may be a phylogeny itself. -choster 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Name is too informal and sounds like a miracle cure in a fantasy novel. --- Safemariner 01:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Tree of Life isn't technically the organisms themselves but their relationships, or rather it is about their relationships. The organisms are life, how they are tied together by their common descent, or their phylogenetic systematics is the Tree of Life. However, Choster is right, the existing name is ambiguous to the point of uselessness, and it's quite clear by what's in the tree of life, that the category IS the organisms and various subsidiary things, not their relationships. This should be posted at WP:TOL to get input from people in the know who can suggest a functioning category, if one is needed. KP Botany 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a valid point, but I think all the non-organism pages currently in Tree of life can easily find homes in existing categories (Phylogenetics or Evolution). As it is, this category is an unwieldy hybrid. Thanks for mentioning it on the WikiProject, which I totally forgot about.--ragesoss 16:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — if the category is going to be treated as the highest category for organisms, then it may be synonymous with Category:Life, which already exists (the highest taxon is Biota, or life).

Life is much more inclusive that Organisms; it includes all kinds of philosophical, scientific, anthropological, sociological, and other kinds of of articles (Life extension, Biology, Artificial life). Organisms is neatly delimited in ways Life is not.--ragesoss 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's NOT rename this category. Let's just create the category Organisms. Again, they're NOT the same thing, making this category something it's not is just pointless. It's like saying we don't need the category One-wheeled-bicycles, so let's rename it DVD players, because we need a category for DVD players--the two are not the same, whether we have one or the other is not a function of the existence of the one or the other. I'd like a little sense to come over WP:CFD at some point. KP Botany 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
do NOT rename at least not without the consensus of those who use the category. Tree of Life has a specific meaning, it indicates a relationship to other projects, it is used elsewhere. and whatever is done, do not move pages unnecessarily into evolution, of all WP topics the hardest to manage because of the different approaches. of course things could go elsewhere, but what's here is here for a reason. However, the category: organism would be a good one and after we reject this renaming it can easily be started & the appropriate pages added. trust KP.DGG 05:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is ongoing discussion of the talk page of the Tree of Life WikiProject: WP:TOL. Given that the consensus is clearly in favor of creating the Organisms category, that's been done. What's not clear is what to do with the Tree of Life category, but since some editors see a different role for it than as the supercategory of all organisms, deletion is probably not the answer. At this point, this renaming discussion is moot. But please join the discussion on WP:TOL.--ragesoss 17:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename I think Tree of Life is a valid category. It is about looking at the phylogenetic relationships of organisms. I think the name is clear and understandable for that sense. Any article that discusses the phylogentic relationship of living organiisms, or sub-group or living organisms, is a good fit for this category. -- Donald Albury 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Best Original Song Golden Globe winners[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Best Original Song Golden Globe winners. Timrollpickering 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Best Original Song Golden Globe winners into Category:Best Original Song Golden Globe

Merge - I created the former without realizing that the latter already existed. But as long as the subject's come up, can we use this nomination to come to a consensus as to whether the categories for Golden Globe winners should include the word "winners"? Looking at the parent cat Category:Golden Globe Awards some have "winners," some don't and some have two categories, one with and one without. Makes me no never mind which way we go (although I have a slight preference for including "winners" for consistency with other awards categories such as the Academy Awards) but we should choose one or the other. Otto4711 22:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like 'winners' myself, unless the category contains articles which are not only about the winners (controversies surrounding who it went to on a particular year, an article on the award itself, et cetera) -Toptomcat 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either way, distinction is not particularly useful. >Radiant< 13:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Best Original Song Golden Globe winners They obviously should be merged one way or another. Just my own opinion, I think including the word "winners" sounds a little better and makes it a little more clear what the category is for. But Category:Best Original Song Golden Globe would be acceptable too if that's what other people prefer. Dugwiki 18:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The Art of Noise[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 16:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Art of Noise to Category:Art of Noise

Propose renaming Category:The Art of Noise albums to Category:Art of Noise albums

Propose renaming Category:The Art of Noise songs to Category:Art of Noise songs

Rename, Artist name was renamed; change of category name to match. pbryan 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -Toptomcat 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Wizardman 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maps of Oklahoma[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of Oklahoma into Category:Oklahoma maps

Merge, Essentially the same, but don't know which is the correct name. OKtag 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Oklahoma maps because many maps will be of small parts of the state, not "of Oklahoma" as such. Honbicot 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Oklahoma maps, convention of Category:Maps of the United States -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Honbicot. -Toptomcat 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to match the rest of the U.S. Hmains 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maps of Texas[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 16:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of Texas into Category:Texas maps

Merge, Essentially the same, but don't know which is the correct name. OKtag 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Texas maps because many maps will be of small parts of the state, not "of Texas" as such. Honbicot 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Texas maps, convention of Category:Maps of the United States -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Honbicot. -Toptomcat 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom to match rest of U.S. states Hmains 02:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Golden Globe nominees[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nominee categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as above, should normally only be categorizing award winners, not nominees. Dugwiki 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - It is too cumbersome to track award nominees through categories. Dr. Submillimeter 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collction of information. --Wizardman 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not likely to be complete. Jordan 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Doczilla 05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with deletion. >Radiant< 13:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, concur exactly with Wizardman: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These lists of awards nominees can easily be found on dozens of other websites, but using categories on Wikipedia is not an appropriate way to house the information. --Cyde Weys 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe lists (maybe), but definitely not categories. The Rambling Man 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all nominee categories. --lquilter 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See also a related discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Reservoirs of Greece[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 13:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category replaced by Category:Reservoirs in Greece. Skysmith 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete --lquilter 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this one. The 'snowball's chance in Hell' standard applies. -Toptomcat 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and being blank. --Wizardman 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:English laws[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep separate. Given the comments about clearer naming, I recommend a new listing to find an alternatvie name. Timrollpickering 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New listing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 17#Category:English laws. Timrollpickering 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English laws into Category:English law

Merge, Actually I am not quite sure what kind of merge would be appropriate but I think these categories at least overlap a great deal. Skysmith 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first category is for individual laws, the latter for the whole field. -choster 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per choster. Different concepts, both cats needed. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Laws" is or should be for enactments, while "law" is the overall category for articles about law. Honbicot 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as something - The subtle difference in semantics is not necessarily going to be recognized by the average reader. Worse, a simple typo or mistaken use of the plural or singular form could place an article in the wrong category. The two should not be merged, but one of them should be renamed for clarification. Dr. Submillimeter 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like Category:English statutes or Category:English legal acts perhaps? Otto4711 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Otto4711, did you look at Category:English laws and its subcats? It includes Magna Carta and some treaties, which seem to me to be sensible, but neither are statutes. How about renamuing Category:English laws as Category:Laws of England? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: If "laws" is used to refer only to enactments then perhaps "statutes" would be a better category name, and more distinctive from "law". It would also get us out of potentially dealing with folks including in the category common law "laws" and maybe would help keep people from including non-sovereign laws (like religious laws or laws of nature). I only float it this as a comment because I'm not at all knowledgeable about international uses of these terms. --lquilter 20:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as related but distinct categories. -Toptomcat 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either way, distinction is not particularly useful. >Radiant< 13:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The distinction is extremely useful and removing it would create an almighty mess. Pinoakcourt 13:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep distinct, I'm not sure if the way these categories are designed is exactly how the phrases are normally interpreted, but English law usually refers to the legal system of England and Wales, and English laws I believe is being used for historical laws from before the union between Scotland and Ireland, or laws of the United Kingdom which apply only to England. Kurando | ^_^ 14:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something more distinctive. While the arguments of the "Keep"ers are persuasive, they still do not speak to the very high chance of confusing the people who Wikipedia is supposed to serve when they are looking for information in this area. (Hint: it is not the Enlish law buffs who already know everything about this subject) --- Safemariner 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep distinct It is not necessary to be a specialist in this sort of thing to see the totally different topics in the two categories. They are large categories as well, and much would be lost by merging them. DGG 05:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pages referenced by the press[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pages referenced by the press to Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press

Rename, This category was previously moved from "Articles referenced by the press", but I still don't think the name is correct. "Pages referenced by the press" is very vague and doesn't automatically trigger anything in my mind saying that it's specifically talking about Wikipedia pages. It could also be talking about any sort of page in any resource referenced by the press. My new suggested name takes care of the ambiguity. --Cyde Weys 17:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Agree with the above - current name is not very clear. CiaranG 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. -Toptomcat 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Doczilla 05:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Old Norse poems[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category replaced by Category:Old Norse poetry. Skysmith 16:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were a lot more development in the area, I could see them being kept separate, but as is it's just redundant. -Toptomcat 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty category already covered by Old Norse poetry. Doczilla 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Norse sagas[edit]

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

The result of the debate was reverse merge, but keep Category:Sagas as parent since there is a list of sagas. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category replaced by Category:Sagas. Skysmith 16:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge; Category:Norse sagas is older and the main article is Norse saga, and the specificity helps prevent epics or worse from being included given the loose usage of the word (e.g. "the Star Wars saga").-choster 16:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. But we probably want to keep Category:Sagas as the parent since there are other sagas. I'm assuming that someone knows all of these are Norse sagas. Vegaswikian 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Australian rock drummers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redundant against Category:Australian drummers. The category is empty. Orderinchaos78 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. >Radiant< 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate as it should be a subcategory of Category:Australian rock musicians. Honbicot 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate - changed my mind having read Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization which I should have done in the first place. CiaranG 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Merge Where does it end? Pop drummers, indie rock drummers, heavy metal drummers, jazz drummers? The mind boggles. CiaranG 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate per Honbicot. This is the main defining characteristic for most of its members. Pinoakcourt 13:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - defining characteristic of its members? What members? It doesn't have any members! No need to subdivide drummers by genre.
Delete empty categories are not very useful. --- Safemariner 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or (at most) delete without prejudice to recreate. This fits in perfectly with the general categorization scheme at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization which is widely accepted and generally non-controversial. The fact that this particular category is not yet populated merely indicates that our coverage is still lacking. It may not be in use today, but "rock music" is a very broad genre. We have dozens of sub-sub-genre categories for guitarists of various nationalities (particularly American), including indie-rock, heavy-metal, etc.. And yes, there are fewer articles about drummers than about guitarists, but there is still plenty of room for expansion here. Singling out Aussie rock drummers for non-categorization seems like blatant systemic bias, unless we allow it to be recreated once people are ready to populate it. Why Aussies and not Category:American rock drummers (well populated, reinforcing my "systemic bias" theory)? What about Category:Serbian blues guitarists, Category:Polish folk guitarists or Category:Finnish heavy metal guitarists? Frankly, I suspect that there are way more notable Aussie rock drummers than potential members of those last three! Xtifr _tälk 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume bad faith or systemic bias? Is it not possible that the nominator did not know about the other categories you listed as counter-examples? Which counter-examples I don't much see the need for either, but regardless their existence or non-existence has no bearing on whether this category should be kept. Otto4711 00:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't assume bad faith—systemic bias is usually unintended and innocently done. I've got no quarrel with nom, who saw an empty category and, quite reasonably, nominated it for deletion. I'm just saying that this is part of a bigger categorization scheme being run by the Musician Wikiproject. That is the biggest argument for keeping (or deleting without prejudice if it is deleted). There's lots of room for expansion here, even though the category is currently empty, and the category is part of a well-established categorization scheme. Which is usually considered a good argument for keeping a category. This is not a randomly-created category, it's part of a larger plan. If you've got a problem with that plen, that should probably be discussed at the project page. But otherwise... --Xtifr _tälk 12:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree that delete without prejudice is the best choice --- Safemariner 17:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Companies of Macao[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 13:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category creator has already blanked. Skysmith 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, empty and duplicate of Category:Companies of Macau.-choster 16:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, do not delete as "Macao" is a legitimate spelling, even if it isn't the one that has been chosen. Honbicot 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category no longer exists. Perhaps it was speedy deleted because it was empty? Dr. Submillimeter 19:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ethiopian visual arts[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 17:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category replaced by Category:Arts in Ethiopia. Skysmith 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate. These are not the same thing at all. Nathanian 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, it's indeed not the same, but the overlap is obvious. >Radiant< 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, category is empty so there is nothing to merge. Articles may be suitable for Category:Arts in Ethiopia, Category:Ethiopian art, or a subcategory of Category:Arts genres by country or nationality, all of which are subcategorized under Category:Visual arts which has no other subdivision by political or cultural body. -choster 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an example of the inconsistency created by a botched reorganisation last year, which left the global and national art/arts/visual arts categories out of alignment. Honbicot 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty categories are not very useful --- Safemariner 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Costin[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category out of context and blanked by the creator. Skysmith 15:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Skysmith. Budgiekiller 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catgory has already been deleted. This discussion should be closed --- Safemariner 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Golden Globe Award nominees[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominee category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, use a list instead, it's more comprehensive. >Radiant< 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominee category. --lquilter 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe listify. Even if a list is made should probabyl de deleted anyway. --Wizardman 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominate this category for deletion --- Safemariner 02:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominee category. A list would be better. Jordan 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cities named for Kirov[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subcategory of deleted category Cities named for Soviet leaders (unless somebody has a better idea, that is. Skysmith 14:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic. Add a list in the Kirov article. >Radiant< 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A series of other categories for cities named after people (Lincoln, Columbus, etc) were already deleted because the cities had little in common with each other aside from their names. The same could probably be said here. Dr. Submillimeter 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unrelated subjects with shared names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful --- Safemariner 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

UK MPs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was "no" to en-dashes; no consensus on Grutness' rename proposal. In the light of BrownHairedGirl's statement that these categories were created for the convenience of cross-checking by contributors to the subject area, may I suggest that consideration be given to whether these categories should be treated as maintenance categories? They should perhaps be placed on the articles' talk pages, and not on the articles themselves? All the articles perhaps belong in Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. No vote the wub "?!" 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typographical errors (hyphen should be an en dash) nominated by —Psychonaut 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Semi-addition:
- Category:UK MPs 1974
- Category:UK MPs 1910
- These were "short Parliaments" within one calendar year. Any change to the standard names beyond en dashes/hyphens should also apply to these two. Timrollpickering 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Change all to Category:United Kingdom Members of Parliament 2001–2005 and similar. "UK MPs"is not standard naming. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why do we use en-dashs in category names? Seems to be a typing annoyance not worth the typographic gain. Kusma (討論) 09:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed. I don't think non-standard-ASCII punctuation is appropriate. If nothing else, it'll make the URLs look really silly. And "UK MPs" is far from the optimal naming convention for these categories anyway. Recommend taking it to CFD. --Cyde Weys 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose endash - non-standard characters - while endash may look better, people are more likely to type hyphen than dash. Keep endash to textspace. Grutness's suggestion above however has merit and should be considered as an alternative to standardise the names. Orderinchaos78 15:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object, use standard characters if possible. >Radiant< 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's at CFD, I support Grutness's proposal. "UK MPs" is a bad category name. I figured out what UK is, but I didn't really know what MP meant until Grutness expanded it. I thought MP stood for Military Police ... (a more common use of the abbreviation in the United States, anyway). --Cyde Weys 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness with hyphen not dash, although the meaning of the abbreviated categories should be pretty clear in the context of the articles they're used on. Kusma (討論) 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma Budgiekiller 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ndash (a nuisance to type, keep it endash in textspace);
very very strong oppose grutness rename (I am the creator of these categs). MPs usually serve for several parliaments, so most MPs have three or four of these categories, and some have up to ten. These category names were chosen precisely because they are short, after a previous attempt to create them with long names led to a massive clutter at the bottom of articles (for the worst case see T. P. O'Connor as it is now, and as it was with longer names. (Note that Grutness's names would be even longer).
These categories are very useful, but they are only workable with short names, and these are intentionally as short as possible.
For earlier discussions, see Category talk:British_MPs#MPs_by_Parliament; Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 14#category:MPs_of_the_United_Kingdom_House_of_Commons.2C_by_Parliament_and_subcategories (see also Kbdank71's explanation of the closing decision.
Further discussions at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring.
Note that the since it is useful to categorise MPs in several different ways (by country, party and parliament), a compromise has to be made between clarity and brevity. Every article on an MP should spell out the abbreviation, so it should be clear when viewed; if not, the category text should clarify. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorting people by the terms that they served in a government body (in this case, the parliaments that they served in) is not good, as it leads to lots of categories cluttering the bottoms of individual articles. I am inclined to vote to upmerge or delete, although I am now confused because the discussion is in two different places. Dr. Submillimeter 19:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found it extremely useful to find all the MPs by Parliament, and you can see why by going to the talk pages for some of the later categories. While links in the articles on MPs elected by general election may turn blue because of someone with a similar name but who is not an MP, only the MP will find his article in the category. The categories therefore guarantee that when we say "There are articles on every person who has sat in Parliament since 1964", that this is absolutely true. Sam Blacketer 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There is a lot of merit in what Dr. Submillimeter says, but I created these categories to assist in populating the lists of MPs, as Sam Blacketer describes. I am inclined to think that they might cease to be so important once we have at least a stub article on every MP, but despite a very fast pace of article creation, that point is some way off yet (at a rough guess, we have over half of about 6,000 articles created). In the meantime, these categories are invaluable for cross-checking the integrity of the lists, and for identifying all sorts of problems in cross-linking. Meanwhile, the shortness of the categ names helps minimise clutter. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose a change to an 'en' rather than a simple dash. Sometimes I go to the search panel and enter the category name and it makes it difficult if the unorthodox typography is allowed. So far as the additional suggestion of expanding the abbreviations, I can see the reason, but I accept what BrownHairedGirl says about making things very long. I also think it would be very disruptive in changing all the articles in the categories, especially since they have been changed before. Sam Blacketer 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's important is the end product (see m:eventualism). We should never shy away from doing what is right because we are worried about some short-term negatives. --Cyde Weys 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I happen to resile from the thought that Wikipedia could ever be 'finished', but I take your point: however, BrownHairedGirl had the answer to it, in that the categories might cease to be necessary once there were stub articles about every MP. We have only got back to 1964 so far as comprehensive coverage goes. Sam Blacketer 00:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am greatly impressed with the thoroughness and succinctness of the system as is and feel that any change whatsoever would be for the worse. roundhouse 01:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an unnecessary and pedantic proposal. Dovea 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose En dash is a non standard character. Proposed renaming is far too long. The Proffesor 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose En-dash, weak oppose Grutness proposal, by reason of length and difficulty of typing, which makes it hard to enter these de novo (as opposed to adding them by AWB or whatever afterwards). Agree that these are somewhat unwieldy categories, and should be considered (long-term) provisional pending the construction and proper disambiguation of lists "MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, XXXX" and "List of United Kingdom by-elections (XXXX - XXXX)" now underway. Choess 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very difficult to type an endash when searching --- Safemariner 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My rationale was given in the original nomination; I therefore wish to address the arguments made by the opposition votes to date:
- The arguments about the en-dash not being a "standard character" are fallacious; the en-dash is and has long been the standard typographical symbol for expressing numerical ranges. Using a hyphen in this context is simply incorrect.
- With respect to the argument that the en-dash is "too difficult to type", the presentation of Wikipedia articles should not be determined by what is convenient for the editors, but rather what is convenient, unambiguous, and aesthetically pleasing for the readers. Moreover, the en-dash is not particularly difficult to enter; editors who don't have a dedicated key or key combination for this symbol can use the HTML entity –.
- The argument that en-dashes make searching more difficult is a valid one, but IMHO one which should be taken up with the MediaWiki search engine developers. A good search engine should establish character equivalence classes for precisely this sort of situation. —Psychonaut 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Psychonaut

The en-dash is not a standard character in the sense of being directly accessible from a keyboard. Yes, it's a standard in typography, but a category name is not a place for typographical exactitude (the isues here are different to those in body text)
To my surprise, – in categ names does appear to work. But requiring it greatly increases the chances of inaccurate entry of categ names, which leads to either redlinked categs or editors not using the categs when they appear redlinked. Omitting categ names is far more inconvenient to the reader than having a slightly shorter dash.
Most importantly, categorisation has to work with the software we have now, rather than the software we would like to have. I wish the software allowed category arithmetic – for searches like ((Category:Astronauts AND Category:Russian people AND Category:1804 deaths) AND (NOT Category:Rock drummers or Category:Vegetarians)) – but for now it doesn't, which is why CFD has a lot of discussion about manually-creating intersection categories. If the search engine is improved as you would like it to be, I will be delighted to support using ndashes, and we can have a mass conversion of existing categories … but for now it doesn't. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using endashes makes it difficult for readers. We editors tend to forget that readers like to search. endashes just do not offer any advantage in this situation. The web is not print media and print media typographical conventions should not be blindly imported into the web. --- Safemariner 17:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Climate by state[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mairi 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, creator requests deletion in the text. Skysmith 14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Budgiekiller 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete lquilter 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Christmas customs 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by creator request. ×Meegs 09:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category creator has blanked. Skysmith 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, empty and duplicate of Category:Christmas traditions by country.-choster 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete lquilter 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Catholic families[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category creator apparently blanked almost immediately. Skysmith 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the one hand there are so many Catholic families with little else in common that this is category clutter, while on the other hand many mainly Catholic families contain non-Catholic members, so this category could indirectly mislabel people. Nathanian 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely inappropriate to describe a group of people by an individual characteristic. --lquilter 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like Catholic families was blanked only because there is a category Category:Roman Catholic families. I note that there are also "Category:Jewish families" and the supercat "Category:Families by religion". We should delete the whole C:FBR hierarchy. I reserve judgment on the Jewish families since it's used as an ethnicity as well as a religion. --lquilter 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, with Lquilter, delete families by religion category. Each individual will be listed in the category of his/her religion. It is redundant. Pastordavid 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All such categories, including Category:Jewish families. Pinoakcourt 13:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty categories are not very useful --- Safemariner 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Brewpubs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category replaced by Category:Beer and breweries by region. Skysmith 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being blank. --Wizardman 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty categories are not very useful --- Safemariner 17:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bacteria organized by reaction to gram stain[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category no longer in use, replaced by Category:Bacteria organized by reaction to stain. Skysmith 14:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like it would make a better list, so delete. >Radiant< 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (Radiant makes a good point as well) Budgiekiller 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the new category is good, though, I think, because it looks like there is a move afoot to fill in this taxonomy. --lquilter 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty categories are not very useful --- Safemariner 17:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Czechosolvakia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was already been deleted. Timrollpickering 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category with a typo, based on the edit comments creator would have wanted deletion . Skysmith 14:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category already deleted. --- Safemariner 17:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Portugal-related projects[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a double of Category:WikiProject Portugal. Montchav 13:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, duplicate and could end up becoming used for vaguely related Portugal pages. Budgiekiller 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Budgiekiller. Xiner (talk, email) 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant cat --- Safemariner 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Celebrity Fit Club[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 16:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category is obsolete as participants (US and UK) are listed at Category:Celebrity Fit Club participants --Starrycupz 13:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant category. I question the need for the other version too. Doczilla 01:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty categories are not very useful --- Safemariner 17:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Amusement parks accidents[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per nom. David Kernow (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emty category replaced by Category:Amusement park accidents. Skysmith 12:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Angelina 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was category already deleted. Timrollpickering 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category for songs of an apparently non-notable band that has no article in Wikipedia. Skysmith 12:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, pretty clear cut. Budgiekiller 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - the person who set this up seems to have got confused between Angelica (band) and the name of Brad Pitt's wife. Easy mistake to make.... This should be renamed to 'Category:Angelica songs', but I don't know how to do this. Matthew 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please close this discussion as category seems to have already been deleted --- Safemariner 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this category should have been deleted, but rather renamed - see my comment above. Can someone who knows how to do this do so? Matthew 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proedure: Create new category and edit all articles in old category and reassign them to new category. --- Safemariner 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Army groups 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category apparently replaced by Category:Armies. Skysmith 12:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (although the actual replacement is Category:Army groups). Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty categories are not very useful --- Safemariner 17:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles lacking sources from January[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per CSD G6, maintenance. --Cyde Weys 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty former maintenance category. Skysmith 12:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These referencing categories are proliferating in a sorry fashion. It is possible that more time is spent on them than on referencing that can be directly attributed to their existence. Honbicot 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles lacking sources from January 09/07[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per CSD G6, maintenance. --Cyde Weys 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty former maintenance category. Skysmith 12:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These referencing categories are proliferating in a sorry fashion. It is possible that more time is spent on them than on referencing that can be directly attributed to their existence. Honbicot 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Astram Line templates[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, creator blanking (were blanked on December 30) and category emptiness are both speedy deletion criteria. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category creator has already blanked. Skysmith 12:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Skysmith 12:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Skysmith 12:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Affiliates of Rover's Morning Glory[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulated and replaced category that is no longer needed. Skysmith 12:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty categories are not very useful --- Safemariner 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Female models[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 16:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this category, which is pointless as all really famous models are female. Abberley2 10:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They're not, that's why there is also a Category:Male models. CiaranG 11:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above - Skysmith 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we've got plenty of other women/men categories. ~~Maybe one day we'll~~ We already have a massive Category:Women and Category:Men. --Montchav 13:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. Xiner (talk, email) 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the few gender-parity categories where we don't have to argue whether gender is significant. <g> --lquilter 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete Category clutter. Category:Male models might be justified on the same basis as certain female categories, ie that in the field of modelling notable people of one gender (male in this case) are the exception, but I would delete that too. CiaranG can't seriously think that there are anywhere close to as many famous male models as female models. Nathanian 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that, nor is it relevant - just two of the reasons why I didn't say that. CiaranG 12:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CiaranG. >Radiant< 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure CiaranG said Delete... Budgiekiller 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, misreading on my part. I meant "per Abberley" but Cieran's sig just seems to stand out more. >Radiant< 12:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as all above keeps. Budgiekiller 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sparsely populated category-clutter. Honbicot 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though the nomination is based on a false premise. Otto4711 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally, categories by gender are deleted. The exception would be when the person's gender actually makes a notable difference in the occupation, which presumably it does for professional models. Since there is most likely a substantial difference between being a male model and being a female model, both categories should be kept. Dugwiki 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CATGRS, which says "A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." In this case it clearly does: modelling is a gendered occupation (if Kate Moss gets fired, they won't hire a man instead). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is underused, and people would be better off going to the national categories. If this was important or useful, it would have been used more widely. Pinoakcourt 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reply, underpopulation doesn't mean it's not useful. It could simply mean that editors aren't aware the subcategories exist and/or noone has taken the time yet to fully populate them. Dugwiki 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep per Dugwiki above --- Safemariner 17:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without a doubtzadignose 16:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Underpopulation is not a reason for deletion by itself and gendered categories have their uses. User:Dimadick

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

Category:Stalinists[edit]

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

The result of this debate was speedy delete, recreation of deleted contents. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category previously deleted. see [1] and [2]. Soman 09:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jewish-American businesspeople[edit]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 March 31.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 16:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting per DRV after my deletion following previous discussion was apparently "unethical". RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcategorisation. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 09:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorisation; it's an irrelevant intersection, probably useful only to anti-semites. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as re-created category deleted in CFD. - Darwinek 12:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either we categorize businesspeople by ethnicity, or we don't. We already removed them all, what would be unethical which is to put just one back, singling out one for special treatment. If we let one back, all the others will want to come back too. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl DuncanHill 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Xiner (talk, email) 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Prove It --- Safemariner 02:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl.--67.161.13.243 08:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Red 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category and the subcategory Category:Famous red pandas are too much, there is a single species of red panda and one famous red panda; the should be deleted.Peta 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Famous red pandas for overcategorization. Delete Category:Red pandas as underpopulated (nearly unpopulated) and unnecessary. Doczilla 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We do not need a category for one species of mustelid. Dr. Submillimeter 09:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom as overcategorization. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sad delete, very much over the top, but it did teach me that a Firefox was the same thing, so that's something positive. Budgiekiller 18:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl despite the fact that red pandas are a favorite animal Kail Ceannai 07:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Sad. Xiner (talk, email) 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete both~~ They can go into Category:Pandas--well, apparently there isn't one. KP Botany 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Or Category:Bears it seems. I didn't know they were bears, I thought they were more closely related to the raccoon or something. So, already there is a category. KP Botany 03:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was debate for a time about the panda, but it's generally accepted now that it is a bear. The Red Panda, despite its name, is not that closely related to the panda. Instead the red panda is something else that's not entirely defined by the sounds of it.--T. Anthony 10:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references on the red panda's classification are poor and need revision. It may not belong with mustelids, either. Dr. Submillimeter 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forgetting my mammals biology, it seems. Yeah, I remember now that the red panda wasn't really considered to be that close to the panda, so I guess it needs classified at a higher order, and maybe that's why the categories were created to begin with. I'm at this point not really certain what to do, and realize I don't know enough about red panda biology to make an informed opinion on the matter--and taxonomy of obscure animals is rather complex. KP Botany 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Zealand ethnicity categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per previous cfd. There are 24 categories for NZ ethnicity, and all but eight use an unhyphenated form. I'd like to bring the other eight into line:

Grutness...wha? 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency, although I'm not in love with the basic category--when it's nationality as a modifier of nationality, I think it's likely to create confusion (a) as to which is the modifier and which is the modified nationality; (b) what are the criteria (parentage, citizenship, former citizenship). --lquilter 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds oxymoronic to me, actually. >Radiant< 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Unless there's a reason for this type of hybrid category. Xiner (talk, email) 23:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - merge to where? And are you also suggesting deleting or merging all the other hundreds, if not thousands, of categories on ethnic origin? There are 126 in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin alone. These categories may sound oxymoronic, but they're not - they are for New Zealanders, listed according to their ethnic origins. Thus, for example, Daniel Vettori is listed as an Italian New Zealander and Jonah Lomu as a Tongan New Zealander, in exactly the same way that Peter Arnett is listed as a New Zealand-American. The standard form for New Zealanders is without the hyphen. The standard form for some other nationalities such as the US is with one. My only point is that whichever is appropriate should be used consistently (such that all NZer categories are X New Zealanders, and all those for Americans are X-Americans). Grutness...wha? 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with Grutness to rename the categories but not with the merging. Merge to where is right. RIANZ 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Nobles of England[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 15:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Nobles of England into Category:Peers of the United Kingdom.

Merge Category:Nobles of France into Category:French nobility

Merge Category:Nobles into Category:Nobility

Merge and delete - Apparently this little category tree got created and not noticed. It's redundant of the much more established Category:Nobility tree. --lquilter 02:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the established categories reflect the differences between the English and French nobility, but these ones don't. Honbicot 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I posted a note on the talk page for the person who started these categories but no response yet. --lquilter 13:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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