Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 2

< January 1	January 3 >

January 2[edit]

Category:Macedonian revolutionaries[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 00:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Macedonian revolutionaries to Category:Macedonian revolutionaries (ethnic group)

Category:Macedonian (Greek) revolutionaries to Category:Macedonian revolutionaries (Greek)

Rename, per the names of the relative articles Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonians (Greek), as there is a new category for Category:Macedonian (Greek) revolutionaries (which is disambiguated already). Also see my first comment below regarding Help:Pipe trick, but I don't really think it is important which particular dab method will be used, as long as one is used. Niko Silver 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ethnic Macedonian revolutionaries. Rename nominated is weird phrasing. Cleduc 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We don't call the article "Ethnic Macedonians", because they self-identify as plain "Macedonians" (just like the Greeks do). Parentheses illustrate that this is a dab, and should be kept IMO. "Ethnic" would be unwieldy in parentheses. Also, see Help:Pipe trick, which suggests that we should rename to Category:Macedonian revolutionaries (ethnic group) and Category:Macedonian revolutionaries (Greek) respectively. I'm changing proposal right away and adding the Greeks. Thanks. Niko Silver 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It creates comfusion with articles about Macedonians (Greek) Kapnisma 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, as far as I know, "Macedonian revolutionaries" are not an ethnic group; wouldn't something like Category:Macedonian (ethnic group) revolutionaries make more sense here? Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right if we take it word-by-word, :-) but we won't be able to use the Help:Pipe trick (i.e. type [[:Category:Macedonian revolutionaries (Greek)|]] to automatically produce when we press save [[:Category:Macedonian revolutionaries (Greek)|Macedonian revolutionaries]]). Is it too confusing? Niko Silver 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a subcategory of Category:Macedonian people. Renaming suggests the sort of Greek bias responsible for the acronym FYROM. Wilchett 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Category:Macedonian people is the sort of Macedonian Slav bias that wants to monopolise that term. Apart from them there are 2,5 million Macedonian Greeks that do not want to be comfused with others. After all the term Macedonians (ethnic group) was introduced into Wikipedia by them and their supporters after a pole in order to avoid tentions. How logical is it now that the supporters of Macedonian Slav opinion like you do not accept this?

Kapnisma 07:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal. For one thing we are dealing with two different revolutions here. The following would be a compromise: The Ethnic Macedonian category can be renamed Category:IMRO. The Greek category is in fact an unnecessary subcat of Category:people of the Greek War of Independence; until Capodistrias is put under Category:Ionian revolutionaries, we don't need it; and it can be deleted without loss. (When we actually have articles on Greek Macedonians from 1904-1911, we can reopen this discussion.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But... we do have articles about Greek Macedonians. We have Aggelis Gatsos, Anastasios Karatasos, Dimitrios Karatasos, Giorgakis Olympios, Zafeirakis Theodosiou, and a whole lot more not categorized yet that participated in the revolution. We also have the case of people like e.g. Germanos Karavangelis and others of the Greek Struggle for Macedonia. Also, the ethnic category, is not that much more populus than the Greek one... So? (do we delete both?) NikoSilver 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Gatsos and his category-mates are fighters in the Greek War of Independence, which doesn't have or need other subcats. They are also quite properly characterized as Category:Greek Macedonians. Similarly, Samuel Adams is in both Category:American revolutionaries and Category:People from Massachusetts; we don't need an intersection cat, although it would be more populous than either of these.
  - This is nationalist posturing on both sides. Please back away, and do what is best for the encyclopedia. Delete both if you must, although Delchev and his category-mates have a common factor not represented by any of their present cats or a combination of them. As for Germanos Karavangelis; he belongs in Category:Greek Struggle for Macedonia, which is not now represented in his cats; what's hard about that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just like you, I am annoyed by nationalism. I'd back away if I seriously didn't confuse "Macedonian whatevers", to these or these or these or these or any of these Macedonians, every time I heard them (see Macedonia (terminology)#In demographics). The dab I proposed is sensible, according to the WP main article title, and must be placed regardless of the Greek Macedonians' cat fate.
    - As for the Greek Revolution, a significant and most importantly separate part of it (because it failed) happenned in Macedonia (Greece). I wouldn't categorize Gatsos along with Capodistrias, but wouldn't care either way if we followed your proposal (i.e. cat them under both Category:Greek Macedonians and Category:Greek revolutionaries). For Germanos Karavangelis, indeed, we could also have Category:Members of the Greek Struggle for Macedonia (and not plain Category:Greek Struggle for Macedonia). Niko Silver 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as to disambiguate /FunkyFly.talk_ 04:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per arguments above. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:39, 8 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.

Paintings by year 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 keep all. — CharlotteWebb 10:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are almost empty, although they've been marked with {{popcat}} for over half a year. Eli Falk 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow them to be populated further. Cleduc 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These categories are obviously part of the larger, established practice of sorting works by year. There's no real advantage to deleting them, and in fact deleting them might cause a new editor down the line to recreate them in a style that is otherwise inconsistent with the overall layout for these scheme. Dugwiki 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. — coelacan talk — 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful system that will be populated over time. Greg Grahame 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone just needs to start working on that, and they could be filled in time. Jordan 01:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. --futurebird 02:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment There are many paintings painted per year. There are many years to which paintings can be dated. These are important categories to sort artwork by year. Although this is looking pretty strong that this will be a KEEP, might we want to broaden this to Artwork by Year? Valley2city 03:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The parent categories are "works" because, as Andy Warhol put it, "Art is a man's name." Cleduc 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside, on above, these are likely just all echoed down from the commons. Some images here were also likely moved there, as many work on here (and there!) // FrankB
  - I don't think that's the actual reason, but ok... Valley2city 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. Only wasted time and effort would result from deleting these now, with no benefit. Postdlf 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will be the contrarian here. (near) Empty categories make Wikipedia look bad and do not really help. Many paintings are painted every year but how many are truly notable? --- Skapur 03:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These seem useful to me, and they're bound to fill up as articles are written and categorized. Even if you delete the rest, definitely keep Category:17th century paintings and Category:14th century paintings. delldot | talk 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical linkto for VPT[edit]

Obvious Strong Keep -- These all simply need a tagging with {{Commonscat1R}} or {{Commonscat1Ra}}, preferably with a back tag template:WikiPcat1M on the commons.
See example I just updated: Category:1563 paintings .
We have a similar problem with Category:Maps and Category:Old maps in the new heirarchial maps categorizing scheme and 'the many 'Maps/Old maps of' subcategories, and being away most of last quarter, I didn't get to the bottom of that.
What I really want to find out is why these categories when created will mirror commons contents (images), and then sometime later (ca. 12-24 hours) the contents disappear... leaving them to assumed as useless... and the subsequent {{db-catempty}} follows by someone not realizing that hidden untagged link exists.
I would suggest the tagging be in the {{Commonscat1Ra}} form, and the resulting article redlink be concurrently tagged with {{Rhere}} or {{Rstub}} to categorize the article page to Category:Redirects with possibilities, which is to say, those needing articles. IMHO, each year's collection would warrant a survey article. For example, there are 17 paintings in Category:1565 paintings and a 'lucky 13' in Category:1563 paintings , each of which make for a nice article topic, and one survey topic each.
If the closing admin wants, I'll untag the cats and retag with the others at the same time. (Easy on you--I'll clean it all up.) Just say 'Go Frank'! <g> // FrankB 22:33, 4 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:WikiProject Computer and video games selected articles[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 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally intended for videogame-related articles that appear on the CVG Portal page, but said purpose is better served by templates and Talkpage discussions. Redundant and empty category. Stratadrake 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant, empty, and better usage as template. It's also a bit of a self-reference. TRKtv t c e 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful --- Skapur 03:06, 7 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:October Events[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 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just finishing an incomplete nomination ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cleduc 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — J Greb 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for randomness. Wilchett 06:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unpopulated category. Doczilla 08:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per who the hell cares. "Ooh, this event occurred in October. I wonder what other events occurred in October in all of recorded human history..." Postdlf 22:23, 4 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:October Deaths[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 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just finishing an incomplete nomination ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cleduc 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — J Greb 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for randomness. Wilchett 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Category:October Birthdays deletion. Doczilla 08:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely random trivia, complete garbage as a category. Postdlf 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete. Not a useful category -- Skapur 03:07, 7 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:Former French départements[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 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former French départements to Category:Former departments of France

Category:Former French départements in Belgium to Category:Former departments of France in Belgium

Category:Former French départements in Germany to Category:Former departments of France in Germany

Category:Former French départements in Italy to Category:Former departments of France in Italy

Category:Former French départements in the Netherlands to Category:Former departments of France in the Netherlands

Rename. For two reasons. The first is to follow x of y naming conventions, the second is to use English in article/category/everything when a translation is widespread and commonly used. Also follows from Départements of France renaming. Bob 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cleduc 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Piccadilly 16:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename French is an English word but it is used with a French word départements. --- Skapur 03:11, 7 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:Urban Decay and Riots[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 listify. Timrollpickering 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Listify. We already have Category: Urban decay and Category: Riots. This is pointless overlap. --dm ^(talk) 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Category: Urban decay is also up for deletion, further down this page. Otto4711 20:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Listify-- Riots can't simply be a subcategory of urban decay or vice verse. Not all riots occurred in decaying urban regions and not all urban decay results in riots. The two may be linked but this is a matter of debate. This is a list of only those specific riots that occurred places impacted by urban decay-- the list is of a healthy size (and bound to grow a little without being overwhelming) It shows the relationship between urban decay and riots without throwing one category in to the other creating needless overlap. --futurebird 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made it in to a list... so 'delete the category List of riots related to urban decay futurebird 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that one should be a subcategory of the other. The answer is to use both categories seperately in articles about riots that lead to urban decay. If you're trying to show the relationship between the two, a list or even a full-fledged article is the way to go. (I'm updating my vote to reflect this.) --dm ^(talk) 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense. -- futurebird 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Listify per dm. This allows a discussion of why the intersection is notable as a part of the entry. Vegaswikian 07:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant (and inappropriately capitalized) category. Doczilla 08:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "Urban Decay" category is inappropriate anyway for reasons that I stated below. (Dave Barry would say, "'Urban Decay and Riots' would be a great name for a rock band.") Dr. Submillimeter 00:26, 4 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.

Passions (Soap Opera) character 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 delete all. — CharlotteWebb 08:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll add the other categories to this list momentarily....~~

A group of categories for characters of this soap opera. An informal rename was performed, and the categories placed up for speedy. Listing them here to get formal approval or denial of the mass-rename. I am ~~Neutral~~ on the move itself, this is more a technical nomination. - TexasAndroid 19:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all above categories Assuming for the moment that Category:Passions characters is useful to organize the 90 articles about Passions characters (hard to believe there are that many character articles for this show, but I digress). Why is it necessary to subcategorize these characters by "family"? The characters already appear in alphabetical order by last name in the character list, so people named Sanbourne are already grouped together (or should be). In addition, even if the categories are kept, the word "Passions" in the category titles is necessary to disambiguate these categories from other categories about possibly famous families (eg Category:American families has four different categories of "Johnson" families). So delete all of these, and make sure the characters appear in Category:Passions characters. Or if kept, do not remove "Passions" from the category name. Dugwiki 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this extreme soapcruft. Cleduc 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this soapcruft. Strongly oppose renaming because most of the world won't know what Russell family you're talking about. Doczilla 08:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. >Radiant< 15:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as per Dugwiki above. (I'm the nominator, but it was a technical nomination, so I was Neutral originally.) I have now tagged the newer set of categories for CFD as well, so noone can claim they were not properly tagged. - TexasAndroid 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - I was going to suggest Upmerge, but everything seems to already be cross-listed at Category:Passions characters (where they belong). ~ Bigr Tex 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and oppose renaming per Dugwiki. --Alynna 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and oppose renaming these extremely non-notable categories --- Skapur 03:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and oppose renaming per Dugwiki. The categories only have a few pages in each, I don't see them as necessary. It'd probably be easier for readers to navigate with one big category anyway. delldot | talk 00:39, 8 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:Former Christian Scientists[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 nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Christian Scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I created this, but in retrospect it seems less than useful. This is a moderately small religion so the category has little chance to expand and all the names in it are at List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination)#Notable people raised in Christian Science.--T. Anthony 19:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn[reply]

Delete - As indicated in the previous day's WP:CFD discussion on similar categories, classifying someone as a "former" religious follower is difficult and includes a significant gray area. Whether or not someone has "quit" a religion or not may be subjectively interpreted; the extreme range of criteria includes everything from people who have stopped participating in regular religious activities to people who have been formally baptized (or the equivalent) as belonging to another religion. Ambiguous categories like these should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree... this is hardly Category:Men who have stopped beating their wives -- it's more like Category:1919 births -- people can lie or argue about it, but the classification is valid. Cleduc 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subjective interpretation is already covered under WP:NOR. It happens all the time on Wikipedia and should be dealt with when it happens. The threat that it might happen as cause to delete would lead to deletion of the whole encyclopedia. Ambiguous entries should be kept out with standard Wikipedia policies already in existence. No substantive arguments offered for its deletion. KP Botany 20:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my argument would be that few of these individuals are notable for being Former Christian Scientists. For people like Gerry Armstrong or John Brodie, to pick two, it can be argued that their being a Former Scientologist is significant to their fame or notability. Likewise Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Walid Shoebat's status as "Former Muslims" is arguably significant. James Hetfield is maybe the only name in "Former Christian Scientists" where it's notable, although Spalding Gray and Paul Feig are arguably notable as former CSers. These three can be dealt with better in the list.--T. Anthony 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple enough to do properly. Cleduc 23:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for balance. We had a very similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam (2nd nomination) recently. I'll chop, quote, and paraphrase from there:
If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. It's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," categories of what they joined, rather than the "negative," categories of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. This style of cat provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." cats. — coelacan talk — 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See January 1 discussion. Basically we have no Category:Converts to Christian Science. It's an old enough religion, unlike Scientology, that a converts category wouldn't end up being the majority of names. Still I'm not interested in creating a converts category to balance a category I created only semi-seriously in the first place.--T. Anthony 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That being said if you or anyone wants this category to stay and is also willing to create a "Converts to Christian Science" category, I'll probably withdraw.--T. Anthony 04:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, if there's an article to put in the category, why not? However, hostage talk isn't appreciated (WP:POINT). Cleduc 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry I didn't mean it as menacing or threatening. (People here can be so touchy) I just meant that creating the one would deal with the neutrality issue so it'd make sense for me to withdraw. If anything I was trying to be friendlier than my earlier post, which struck me as rather haughty acting.--T. Anthony 04:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Created Category:Converts to Christian Science -- 2 articles in it, all that I saw in the list. Cleduc 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Very well. I guess I'm for it being kept then. Should I withdraw or is that now inappropriate? How would I do that if I wished? (I'm not, nor do I wish to be, an admin)--T. Anthony 06:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~You can use the "s" tags~~ to strike through your nomination, and say "withdrawn" right after your first signature at the top, sign again, and I think that'll do it. An admin will handle removing the tag on the category page and making sure all is otherwise well. — coelacan talk — 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this inherently POV category --- Skapur 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the nomination though and it seems like it was going to get "no concensus" anyway. What's the dealio?--T. Anthony 18:16, 8 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:Disney[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 01:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney to Category:The Walt Disney Company

rename. per MOS:TM Ningfan 18:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, in interests of brevity. Cleduc 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, it is fine the way it is. Jordan 01:43, 3 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:Caldecott Medalists More Than Once[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Caldecott Medal winners. Timrollpickering 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caldecott Medalists More Than Once to Category:to be determined by consensus

Rename to something with correct grammar and case, but I'm not sure what. Any suggestions? Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Winners of more than one Caldecott Medal. TRKtv t c e 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcat. I don't see the need to subdivide the winners cat. If kept, rename per previous editor. Otto4711 20:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Caldecott Medal winners, simple is best. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cleduc 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial category that also happens to be incorrectly capitalized and confusingly worded. Doczilla 08:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would ask those voting delete to consider upmerging instead. Those who won twice also won once. Try saying that five times fast. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but I think that the people in Category:Caldecott Medalists More Than Once are also in Category:Caldecott Medal winners. Valley2city 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The current category overcomplicates the category structure. Dr. Submillimeter 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to prevent category over proliferation --- Skapur 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt. delldot | talk 00:33, 8 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:Cancelled TV series[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 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems a bit controversial on a couple of fronts. First, as it is currently defined, it will be enormous, including all television shows that are no longer in production (which is the great majority of them). Second, it was placed as a subcategory of "Cancelled media", which is intended to sort cancelled books, films and music. Notice that the meaning of "cancelled book" or "cancelled film" is fundamentally different than "cancelled TV series"; a cancelled book or film is a work that was planned for publication but cancelled before release. So to be consistent with other members of that parent, this category should instead be TV series that were planned for broadcast but never actually aired. Therefore I recommend either deleting this category altogether as overly unwieldy, or renaming it to "Planned TV series that never aired" and changing the category description so it fits in with Category:Cancelled media, or keeping the category intact but removing it from Category:Cancelled media as the meaning isn't consistent. Dugwiki 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not manageable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally unmanagable, and even worse then the once suggested Currently running television series category, which would theoretically be a lot smaller. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, "Currently running" and "Cancelled" are linked. It's a bit like Category:Living people and Category:Dead people, dividing series by "live/dead" status. Dugwiki 20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cleduc 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eventually all series are cancelled. My first thought, before seeing that Dugwiki had added the same, is that this is like categorizing people as live or dead, which Wikipedia says in no uncertain terms that we are not to do. Doczilla 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remane Category:Unaired TV series or Category:Unproduced TV seires --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 10:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already created Category:Unaired television program for that purpose. It's not in use that much, but I mostly want them as a place to toss one of those {{Future television show}} articles in, if they do get cancelled. We can then keep an eye on them and decide wether they should be deleted, cleaned etc. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 05:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was looking for a place to categorize Left Behind (TV series)--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no opinion either way, however I would like to note that a number of sources that I read from time to time (but that I unfortunately cannot source atm) consider 'Cancelled' to be a very particular status for a TV series, a sub-category of shows that are no longer airing. On the one hand you have series that have come to an end through agreement between the show's maker and the network, often coming to some sort of tie up of plot threads etc e.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer , and on the other hand a 'Cancelled' show is one that the network terminates, possibly not even showing all episodes made or giving the makers a chance to tie up loose ends e.g. Firefly (TV series). I just offer this in order to have an informed discussion. I have insufficient experience to say whether the category, even if properly defined would be useful. Cheers JonoP 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's just a case of semantics. Firefly was "cancelled", but Buffy "wasn't renewed for another season". Really, though, they're essentially the same thing - the network and/or producers opted not to make any more episodes. Dugwiki 17:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Fired and Forced to resign --- Skapur 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not manageable. All TV series fit into more than one category, anyway (such as TV series by decade and TV series by network) so it's not like these articles are uncategorized. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, and because it's completely useless. A TV series cancelled after ten seasons three decades ago has no connection to one cancelled this year after three episodes. Yet another category that implies really absurd reader habits: "Oh, this show was cancelled. I wonder what other shows have ever been cancelled in the history of television." Postdlf 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraneous comment: You made me spit soda all over my keyboard. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment is, that it's like managing the category Living People, eventually, every one dies. dputig07 06:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Living people is a special category set up to solve a problem (see Category talk:Living people) and should not be used as an example in this case. --- Skapur 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unwieldy; not useful as defined; not able to be defined in a non-wordy & clear way. --lquilter 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category needs to be deleted under its current name, but the creator of this category might consider adding instead a new Category:Prematurely cancelled TV series for serials that were cancelled without the plot being satisfactorily resolved, or with a conclusion that was demonstrably rushed, e.g. Dark Skies. (I'm suggesting that example in good faith, believing that it meets the criteria objectively NPOV.) Fayenatic london 21:15, 7 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:Braniff Flights[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 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Braniff, or at least Rename to Category:Braniff flights. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Misleading title, as it's not for flights, it's for crashes. Otto4711 16:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is: category is new and will be expanded to include other flights. Cat is categorized in Braniff. Clipper471 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cleduc 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. There are several similar categories appearing. I don't believe that any of the airline articles is overpopulated so this is overcategorization. Vegaswikian 07:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Category:United Airlines flights was full enough yesterday to make sense as a subcategory (which is why I'd keep). When I first saw these appear, I expected it to be like one of the Roads categories - Flight XYZ traveled from DFW to ABQ to LAX from 1992 to 1998 with departures at... but at least one Category:Delta Air Lines flights that I looked at wasn't a crash (so I can't figure out a better rename). ~ Bigr Tex 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Braniff flights. Yes, I'm changing my vote ... as it turns out there are lots of articles about eventful airline flights, so it makes sense to categorize them differently. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:45, 4 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:American People of the Spanish-American War[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 to merge; rename. Timrollpickering 01:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People of the Spanish-American War, or Rename to Category:American people of the Spanish-American War. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. >Radiant< 14:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for greater precision in line with many other such categories. Chicheley 16:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Thanks. Pastorwayne 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, there is no corresponding category, and no need to subdivide. — coelacan talk — 16:03, 3 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.

Ethnic groups in Romania[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 01:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per other articles/categories in Category:Ethnic groups by region. David Kernow (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both as nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Darwinek 14:02, 6 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.

Cateogry:Kaboohoo Network[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category only lists websites that are being speedily deleted because of blantant advertising for them (which also are non-notable). --Адам12901 ^Talk 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete qualifies, I think. Cleduc 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Spam doesn't get any spammier. SubSeven 08:09, 3 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:Planescape: Torment[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 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: dead category. After 4+ months, nothing is there except the article of the same name. No other articles that could conceivably be added as far as I can tell. SubSeven 06:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all characters and locations from Planescape: Torment are included into Category:Planescape anyway. MaxSem 09:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single articles with same title do not a category make --- Skapur 03:26, 7 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:Urban decay[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 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV category. Creator has included articles like freeway how is that about urban decay? Vegaswikian 06:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV category that lacks any useful definition. Doczilla 06:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category is meaningful and widely recognised.It links a body of knowledge that is otherwise difficult to navigate on wikipedia. The reasons given for deletion are not clear enough and only reflect a user's discomfort with the topic.futurebird 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including misnamed subcategories per nom. Chicheley 14:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective inclusion criterion. >Radiant< 14:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question - What if we limited the scope to a time period and the USA? It is an international phenomenon, but perhaps it will makes sense to first categorize all of the related US topics under another name such as "Urban decay in American inner cities 1960-200" ? futurebird 15:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't solve the inherent problems in such an ill-defined category. Trebor 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. It's too subjective for determining what should be included. Trebor 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Understanding the urban development cycle is necessary for good urban planning and zoning policy. Decay is often overlooked by planning departments simply as area to be redeveloped. While Wikipedia is not exactly a tool for social change, the existence of such a category offers a platform for those attempting to change planning policy to better understand all aspects of the issues. An entire chapter of Jane Jacobs' "Death and Life of Great American Cities" focused on aging buildings and how necessary they are to a healthy city. Freeways are included because the primary locations for freeway rights-of-way are in decayed neighborhoods - the 1997 book "Just Transportation" addressed defending such neighborhoods from freeway construction using Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Determining this topic's definition and article inclusion should be done by those with specific knowledge of urban planning and development issues. Bensch 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a POV position. I live very near to a new freeway and the this is not a decayed neighborhood! Even your keep vote implies that a certain level of expertise is needed to determine what would be a valid article for this cat. That sounds like only people with certain skills can determine what articles belong. That, in my opinion, makes this a category that we don't need. Vegaswikian 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is POV. There's no objective definition of "urban decay". The statement "the primary locations for freeway rights-of-way are in decayed neighborhoods" is absurd. The vast majority of freeway miles are in lightly populated rural areas and those that are in cities are often in vibrant, growing neighborhoods. --dm ^(talk) 20:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The impact of freeways in urban areas is a matter of common knowledge. See "Freeway#effects and controversy" under freeways. --futurebird 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of these arguments and mostly agree with them. Nevertheless, this is a particular point of view that many people disagree with. There is also a strong argument that well planned freeways can benefit cities in many ways. And, as I pointed out, most freeways are not in cities so their effect on urban decay is marginal. --dm ^(talk) 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion, anyone with *any* knowledge about the subject of urban planning, urban renewal or urban development would agree that this is a valid and useful grouping. Anyone without such knowledge would prolly not concur. This catagory is not POV, it is a useful and purposeful modelling and projection tool, and its presence adds value to Wikipedia's knowledgebase and usability. Drjon 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A useful grouping drawing together many interrelated aspects of a phenomenon. Toss out "freeway" if you want, but I'd leave it in. (That the public investment in this type of transportation infrastructure, new for the 20th century, enabled many people to move away from cities is not point of view, but is self-evidently logical and factual. But where does anybody say that the population movement is a bad thing?) Calling "urban decay" POV is to confuse observation of a phenomenon with criticism of it. In fact, many areas - urban, suburban and rural - are growing and decaying all the time as part of the natural dynamic life cycle of human civilization. This categorization calls attention to the forces at work. The Interloafer 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an eye on what goes in this category, and it should be fine. Articles specifically about "urban decay" would be acceptable; putting Detroit in it would not. Cleduc 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again as a POV category this is not a workable solution. Who is going to watch what gets placed in this cat? There is no automatic notification and what happens if the watched stops editing? The problem again is that this is POV topic. Vegaswikian 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how it is POV. Can you explain this idea more? Like any category there will be items that require discussion. Over time a consensus will form. There are many other categories that work in this way and work well. --futurebird 02:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is POV since what can be classified as Urban decay is not well defined and reflects an editors views. As pointed out above, Detroit is given as an example of what does not belong. But it is clear that Detroit belongs more then freeway. Vegaswikian 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot comprehend how the two words "Urban decay" are inherently POV. Cleduc 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Also, to your question "who is going to watch": the people who watch the articles will monitor them. Seems to work for all of the other categories. Cleduc 04:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The words are not POV, their use as a category are. Look at the new introduction. It now says 'Urban decay is a process by which a city or a part of a city falls in to a state of disrepair. Signs of urban decay include population loss, housing stock deterioration and increases in crime.' So does something that meets one of those criteria mean that it is in a state of decay? How is Category:Alleged police brutality NYPD an example of urban decay? Vegaswikian 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Police brutality is one of the types of crime that increased along with urban decay.--futurebird 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you are saying that police brutality and urban decay are related? If so, this should be in a list so that you can explain how these are related. Police brutality exists in the absence of urban decay and urban decay exists in the absence of police brutality. Vegaswikian 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why the scope was limted to NYC. If there were neatly grouped listings for other cities I could inculde them. But perhaps we should remove Category:Alleged police brutality NYPD from Category:Urban decay... I wonder what other people think?--futurebird 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I would remove that categorization. I proposed the above category for merging. Tinlinkin 09:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to have any defined inclusion criteria. Fannie Mae is related to urban decay now? --StuffOfInterest 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The title is ambiguous, so the inclusion criteria are also ambiguous. In effect, the category is not useful. Dr. Submillimeter 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is any more ambiguous that these: Category:Social justice, Category:Peace, Category:Society, Category:Scandals, Category:Rituals and many many more...
  - I just looked at Category:Peace, and it looks like it contains inappropriate material as well. For example, should Category:Aftermath of war or Category:Laws of war be in Category:Peace? (These "Y exists, and X is like Y, so X should also exist" arguments do not work.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely, of course this is wikiworthy, anyone who has lived in certain cities has witnessed it first hand. This article just needs to be fleshed out with other things that have led to urban decay besides freeways and link to some studies.--Gowithflo 05:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no issue with the article, the discussion is about the category. Vegaswikian 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "keep" arguments justify an article, but not a category. Inclusion criteria are ambiguous and inclusion can be POV. Not useful as a category; an article with links will suffice. --Alynna 06:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it may be difficult to come always to a consensus (as in other parts of Wikipedia) which article belongs to such a category it certainly would allow to bind together those articles which are related to urban decay. This seems important to me as those will come from a diverse range of topics. Just to delete this category would be an easy way out but also a loss of overall knowledge of a bigger picture. I'm sure collective editor wisdom can overcome any possible POV dangers. Optimale ^Gu 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a topic that works as an article, not a classification that works as a category. The list of entries looks like brainstorming for an essay, not a rational grouping of similar items, and it's senseless to create a category for every article to house every article that it links to or that links to it. That's what "what links here" is for, so click on it instead if you want to see these kinds of "everything relates to everything else" lists. Trying to do it as a category just causes confusion and clutter. Postdlf 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category is highly useful and more effective than an article or list since the related topics are quite wide in range.Marbel hill 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I hate it when someone needs to keep track of what belongs in a category; this is why categories with a subjective view are normally avoided. Vegaswikian's comment of "X exists in the absence of urban decay and urban decay exists in the absence of X" is a great way of describing this problem. A wide range is not the problem, weak association is. If someone is interested in the subject, I have no problem with articles and lists. But some of the articles currently in the category have only a tangential or conditional connection to the topic of urban decay. This is how a POV could be imposed, with an indefinite definition, and articles should not be categorized this way. To say "freeways cause urban decay" is misleading—it depends on the environment it is in and the conditions it was planned and built. Graffiti, ghost town and predatory lending also have the same problem. Cities also have to designate impoverished areas, for better or for worse, and the situation of a prosperous area turning into a blighted one is not particularly special, although noted. Even subcultures and media arts (music, films) articles in the category are more related to racial and socioeconomic groups, not necessarily the condition of urban decay. (The drug subculture was created by urban decay?) I like the intent of the category, but its subjective definition makes it difficult for me to support it. Tinlinkin 10:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category is highly relevant in a global context. Withit 01:25, 7 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:Fictional frogs[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 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Fictional frogs and toads, see November 4th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Didn't we just go through this one recently? Doczilla 06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're thinking of fictional toads. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom quickly please, before I start licking some... David Kernow (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge - Do so if possible; this issue was decided recently. Dr. Submillimeter 11:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Yup, this merge was already approved and implemented recently, but somebody has un-done it. Dr.frog 13:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and previous merge. —scarecroe 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. KP Botany 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Megre per nom. Jordan 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A persistant and determined anonymous editor has been repopulating and reparenting both Category:Fictional frogs and Category:Fictional toads. He's done this several times now, and I don't think he's going to stop. This is now at least the third time we've discussed this issue. Check the edit histories. Rather than go through this a fourth time I propose that both of those should be tagged as protected deleted categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:47, 3 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.

United Methodist bishops[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 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church, overcategorization. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all given precedent. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Modification of my vote: Move Category:United Methodist bishops of India to Category:Bishops of the Methodist Church in India - This is following Mairi's suggestion. I suggest that Mairi create the category structure based on central conferences. For now, I suggest merging all the articles from the "Area" and "Africa" categories into the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 11:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree. futurebird 18:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the US ones (by precedent - these are stragglers missed out previously). Category:United Methodist bishops of India seems OK to me, as does Category:African United Methodist Bishops (except I think it should be re-named to Category:United Methodist Bishops of Africa if this is what was intended). I have no objection whatever to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church being subcategorised into a few subcats, eg Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction splits the USA into 5 (fine by me). These 5 plus a few more for continents or large countries would seem entirely reasonable. roundhouse 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for UMC bishops outside the US, it might make sense to group based on central conferences, of which there are 7, since they appear to have a role similar to jurisdictions, and there's a similar number of them. Assuming there are sufficient articles to divide them into those 7 categories. The Methodist Church in India appears to have a different status based on [1], as an 'an affiliated autonomous Methodist Church in relationship with The United Methodist Church', so renaming that to Category:Bishops of the Methodist Church in India would make sense. Mairi 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - central conferences is most interesting and I would support the subdivision + renaming suggested by Mairi above. (There is some glossing over of the UM Church in Africa, which seems to be subdivided bizarrely - into Africa, Congo, West Africa - without explanation. Bishop Muzorewa is in the African bit - now he is very notable.) roundhouse 09:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. >Radiant< 15:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all that end in "Area", rename the India one per Mairi, no opinion on whether the Africa one is kept or deleted in preparation for a central conference structure. --Alynna 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per above. The Indian situation does not require a special category: there is in fact only one article on a UM Bishop in India, Ram Dutt Joshi. Two others (Frederick Bohn Fisher and Jashwant Rao Chitambar) were categorised under Category:United Methodist bishops of India, but both died more than 30 years before the UM Church was created. I understand that the UM Church recognises Bishops of its predecessor denominations as if they were UM Bishops, which is entirely a matter for the UMC; however, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to categorise people in a way which is historically inaccurate. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and move articles into one category Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church --- Skapur 03:30, 7 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:Reality Television Editions[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. — CharlotteWebb 08:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is intended to hold, I believe, all articles about a single season of a reality show. All of the shows currently represented have their own categories, and I don't see a need to gather all of their season summaries together with this cat. ×Meegs 05:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Meegs. Gwernol 05:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. RedWolf 06:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless, unclear, and inappropriate category created by EJBanks, who repeatedly creates categories, every one of which gets deleted for making no sense, being redundant, and/or violating Wikipedia guidelines. Doczilla 06:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and is there a way to block users from making categories? Otto4711 13:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally undefining category --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom... — J Greb 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jordan 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confusing category --- Skapur 03:31, 7 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:African bishops[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 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in favor of Category:Bishops by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Dr. Submillimeter 09:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - what is meant by 'in favor of Category:Bishops by nationality'? roundhouse 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean we should abandon Profession by continent in favor of Profession by nationality; whatever members there are should be divided amoung the various nationality categories. In this case it's not really an issue, the cat has no members and only one subcat, which is also under cfd. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK (I have since gathered that there is some objection to continents) - there are actually just the 2 bishops in the subcat, both Zimbabwean, so delete it is. roundhouse 09:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — coelacan talk — 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous discussions on categorisation by continent. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 05:09, 7 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:October Birthdays[edit]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED as repost of deleted category. Postdlf 22:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining or trivial characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider Category:October Events and Category:October Deaths created by the same user after this CfD started and suffering from exactly the same problems. The user has been warned to stop creating such categories. Gwernol 16:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ProveIt. Gwernol 05:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. RedWolf 06:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another category created by EJBanks who seems to live just to create and populate categories that get promptly deleted. Doczilla 06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I don't think this is a good categorization scheme. Cleduc 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/concur. Sahasrahla 11:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 16:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete best nip this in the bud. Catchpole 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - was previously deleted in November (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 2) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, tagged as {{db-repost}}, sorry I missed that. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:58, 2 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:Celebrities who personally authored their official sites[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. — CharlotteWebb 08:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an important enough accomplishment to justify a category, and difficult to verify besides. —tregoweth (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. RedWolf 06:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivia. Doczilla 06:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable trivia. Greg Grahame 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable trivia. TheMindsEye 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valley2city 17:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I'm getting deja vu from this as well. Something similar was deleted not too long ago. Postdlf 22:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a celebrity authored their own web site, maybe they are not a celebrity after all! --- Skapur 03:33, 7 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:Lloyd Alexander books[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 00:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lloyd Alexander books → Category:Books by Lloyd Alexander
Category:Joel Andreas books → Category:Books by Joel Andreas
Category:Enid Blyton's books → Category:Books by Enid Blyton
Category:William Wells Brown books → Category:Books by William Wells Brown
Category:John Brunner books → Category:Books by John Brunner
Category:Bill Bryson books → Category:Books by Bill Bryson
Category:Anthony Burgess books → Category:Books by Anthony Burgess
Category:Susan Cooper books → Category:Books by Susan Cooper
Category:Roald Dahl books → Category:Books by Roald Dahl
Category:Lucy Daniels books → Category:Books by Lucy Daniels
Category:Richard Dawkins books → Category:Books by Richard Dawkins
Category:Don DeLillo books → Category:Books by Don DeLillo
Category:Stephen R. Donaldson books → Category:Books by Stephen R. Donaldson
Category:Christopher Eamon books → Category:Books by Christopher Eamon
Category:Greg Egan books → Category:Books by Greg Egan
Category:Phyllis Eisenstein books → Category:Books by Phyllis Eisenstein
Category:F. Scott Fitzgerald books → Category:Books by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Category:Eric Flint books → Category:Books by Eric Flint
Category:E. M. Forster books → Category:Books by E. M. Forster
Category:Stephen Hawking books → Category:Books by Stephen Hawking
Category:Tony Hillerman books → Category:Books by Tony Hillerman
Category:S. E. Hinton books → Category:Books by S. E. Hinton
Category:Anthony Horowitz books → Category:Books by Anthony Horowitz
Category:Aldous Huxley books → Category:Books by Aldous Huxley
Category:D.H. Lawrence books → Category:Books by D. H. Lawrence
Category:C. S. Lewis books → Category:Books by C. S. Lewis
Category:Norman Mailer books → Category:Books by Norman Mailer
Category:Thomas Mann books → Category:Books by Thomas Mann
Category:George R. R. Martin books → Category:Books by George R. R. Martin
Category:W. Somerset Maugham books → Category:Books by W. Somerset Maugham
Category:Larry Niven books → Category:Books by Larry Niven
Category:Garth Nix books → Category:Books by Garth Nix
Category:Gary Paulsen books → Category:Books by Gary Paulsen
Category:Tamora Pierce books → Category:Books by Tamora Pierce
Category:Frederik Pohl books → Category:Books by Frederik Pohl
Category:Ruth Rendell books → Category:Books by Ruth Rendell
Category:Rudy Rucker books → Category:Books by Rudy Rucker
Category:J. D. Salinger books → Category:Books by J. D. Salinger
Category:Robert Silverberg books → Category:Books by Robert Silverberg
Category:Dan Simmons books → Category:Books by Dan Simmons
Category:Simon Singh books → Category:Books by Simon Singh
Category:Rebecca St. James books → Category:Books by Rebecca St. James
Category:David Weber books → Category:Books by David Weber
Rename to create some kind of consistency within the Books by author parent category (see more sub-cats below). Discussion has gone round and round (see here) so I am being bold but humble in trying to get this done before the categories get any bigger. Happy New Year! Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What's with the stars before George RR Martin and W Somerset Maugham? Recury 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Typo, sorry! <blush> Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Rename per nom then. Hooray for consistency! Recury 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and thank you for taking on this thankless task. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current formulation is preferable. It would be better to rename those books by... to ...books to go with similar categories such as Category:Songs by artist. Tim! 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Current configuration among the "Works by artist" categories is:
- Albums, songs, paintings, buildings and structures, is clearly settled on [Name] [Xs]
- Compositions, films directed by, symphonies, has settled on [X] by [Name]
- Poems are undecided but mostly [X] by [Name]
- Bibliographies are all over the place
- Short Stories are undecided
- Books are undecided
- Novels are mostly [Name] [Xs]
I plan to tackle short stories, novels, and other literary forms once this discussion is concluded. Also, my last point is that Books by [X] is not at all ambiguous, whereas [X] books could mean books by X or books about X. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - a much clearer and more grammatical formulation (E M Forster being a noun, not an adjective). roundhouse 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - looks better. delldot | talk 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. If the proposal fails, then at least remove the apostrophes from Enid Blyton, etc... Bluap 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - it makes more sense. Jordan 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is spot on. Also, I propose a reinstatement of a version of my proposed naming convention, so that this and similar can in future be a speedy renaming criterion. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Echoing ProveIt, a very big Thank You, Your Pegship. — coelacan talk — 16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename looks more uniform and we can still index them by author name. Is this going to be uniform for all authors? Valley2city 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename consistency is good --Skapur 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - much cleaerer. --lquilter 17:59, 8 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:Public Accountant Firms → Category:Public accountancy firms[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 to Category:Accountancy firms. Timrollpickering 00:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost put this on the speedy list for it's upper case to lower case change, then thought about changing the second word from Accountant to accountancy, which sounds more natural to me. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. delldot | talk 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per GG below Cleduc 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Accountancy firms. The word "public" adds nothing so far as I can see, at least it doesn't in a UK context. Greg Grahame 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Grahame's proposal. We need to maintain a worldly wording if possible. Valley2city 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Public accounting firms or Category:Accounting firms. If you read the Accountancy article, that term is only used for the profession, accounting (methodology) shows up more frequently in the article. Companies are involved in the methodology so accounting is the better description for a company category. Vegaswikian 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Accountancy firms. Vegaswikian surely has little knowledge of usage in the real world. I used to work for an accountancy firm, and it was never referred to as an "accounting" firm, and like most of them it was a partnership not a company. Piccadilly 16:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True my knowledge is limited to newspapers and magazines in this area. I don't recall them once using accountancy to describe these legal entities. Vegaswikian
- In the US they tend to use the gerund for this (and everything else), whereas in the rest of the English speaking world the term is usually accountancy. Cleduc 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Accountancy firms as it is good for Americans to have the lingusitic independence of the rest of the World brought to their attention, but people from other English-speaking countries are well aware of American English already. However it is the use of the word "firms" that is most essential, as "companies" is simply factually incorrect. Carina22 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be becoming a bash America forum. In the New York city yellow pages by superpages.com, there are seven entries [2]for Accountancy and 235 entries [3] for Accountant. However, on the left coast (Los Angeles) there are 117 entries[4] for Accountancy and 201 entries [5] for accountant. --- Skapur 03:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as someone who has worked for a "Public Accountant Firm" the name is correct. Headphonos 21:52, 7 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:People from La Rioja Province (Argentina)[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/rename. Timrollpickering 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from La Rioja Province, convention of Category:Argentine people by province. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge'. Riders I want to add to this, if I may, for more uniformity Renames (to exclude the term "(Argentina)" per nom of:

Category:People from Córdoba Province (Argentina)

Category:People from San Juan Province (Argentina)

Category:People from Santa Cruz Province (Argentina)

Do you have any objections to this, ProveIt? Valley2city 17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as long as the names are unique, that's fine. I was initially worried about the one in Spain, but it's called La Rioja (autonomous community). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:39, 4 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:Evangelical Converts to Christianity[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 00:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is redundant; there already exists an Evangelicals category. Martin 00:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete partly redundant and largely unconfirmable category. Doczilla 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term "evangelical convert" as used here is vague. (I had contemplated nominating this for deletion recently.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This cat further distinguishes converts to the Christian faith -- those who were converted in an evangelical fashion, as opposed to what might be termed a more "official" conversion (such as baptism or simple assent to the faith). Pastorwayne 13:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think it's useful to subcategorize converts by the way they were converted. >Radiant< 14:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is useful to subcategorize converts by the way they were converted, it helps to clear out Category:Converts to Christianity which has a great number of entries.<-that was me futurebird 19:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Upmerge to the parent category Category:Converts to Christianity (which is not unduly large - 95 articles) and also place in Category:Evangelicals if appropriate. roundhouse 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly defined category, contentiously named. Lots of people who undergo such conversions would not call themselves "evangelicals". This category amounts to point-scoring, in which one denomination of Christians can claim big names into their ranks. — coelacan talk — 01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not what they call themselves after conversion. It is the kind they experienced. Persons might call themselves a liberal Christian, but who also experienced an evangelical conversion. Pastorwayne 12:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still point-scoring, because the evangelical denominations are trying to claim that these kinds of conversions should be called "evangelical" after their own word for their own methods. The word itself is not a neologism, but its use as such is. There was nothing "evangelical" about Balthasar Hübmaier's decision to undergo adult baptism in 1525. — coelacan talk — 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for ambiguous wording. Are they evangelical before or after? Cleduc 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for every reason given above, particularly Doczilla's and Coelacan's. Postdlf 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ill-defined POV category, and as an un-needed subdivision of Category:Converts to Christianity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Which Christian denomination is non-Evangelical? All Christians believe in evangilism. --- Skapur 03:57, 7 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.