Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 6 January 8 >

January 7[edit]

Category:Piracy computer and video games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Arrrrr. I mean, RENAME to Category:Computer and video games about pirates. The point is well taken that "pirates" is much clearer than "piracy" due to the latter term have a dual meaning (true, "pirates" technically has the same dual meaning, but it just isn't as likely to be taken as the software-pirate sense - I can't really explain why this is so, but I think most would agree that it is). Anything about "piracy" is also about "pirates" so I think there's little if any loss of meaning in the rename. And if we change "piracy" to "pirates" it has to be Category:Computer and video games about pirates because Category:Pirate computer and video games is obviously a nonstarter. Herostratus 06:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Piracy computer and video games to Category:Computer and video games about piracy
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:On MST3K DVD[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 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:On MST3K DVD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Many movies have been on the Mystery Science Theater 3000 show and are on DVD, this is a good example of category cruft. There is already a cat for the movies that have been on the show, listing which ones are on DVD is just redundant. RobJ1981 23:14, 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:Television miniseries[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 merge. We can keep it as it is; for miniseries from the countries with subcategories, the articles can go in those subcategories, otherwise they can go in the parent category. —Mets501 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television miniseries into Category:American television miniseries
  • Merge, Most, if not all, of the miniseries listed under "Pages in category 'Television miniseries'" are really more accurately categorized as American television miniseries. The two sections should be consolidated, probably under the sub-category heading of "American television miniseries." The only catch will be to make sure that all of the entries currently under "Pages in category 'Television miniseries'" really are American shows. (I would be willing to go through the entries and cull out any foreign miniseries, if necessary.) Miniseries from other countries should be categorized or listed separately as such. Vbd 22:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I wouldn't call what needs to be done her merging, I'd call it categorizing properly.... TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong oppose - Category:Television miniseries is the proper parent cat of Category:American television miniseries along with other miniseries by nation cats. Otto4711 22:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close per nom's comments below, doesn't want the cats merged, just wants them sorted. If not speedy closed, rename per Xdamr. Otto4711 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Actually changed my mind again. Don't rename since this would still be the parent cat to a miniseries by country sub-cat. Otto4711 15:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just move most of the contents into the American sub-category. I've just moved a dozen miniseries which I recognised as British into a new British sub-category. There are others that should remain in the main category e.g. Das Boot (German). Fayenatic london 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if "merge" was the incorrect (or inaccurate) term. What needs to be done is to move American miniseries that are currently listed under the parent category to the sub-category (to follow the lead of the last post in creating the British sub-category). Perhaps "categorizing properly" would have been a better term. Thank you for your comments.--Vbd 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why not consider renaming this to Category:Television miniseries by country? This could then be populated with sub-categories for individual nations, eg Category:Swiss television miniseries. That would adequately describe the ambit of the category and keep things fairly tidy.
Xdamrtalk 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see too much problem with single-member categories, given the wide scope for expansion in this particular case - though others might disagree.
Xdamrtalk 20:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xdamrtalk 17:43, 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:Wikipedians who like The Pussycat Dolls[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 sd. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like The Pussycat Dolls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Speedy delete", redundant category. There is another category of people who listen to The Pussycat Dolls. Requested by author. Chris 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - requested by author. Done to avoid redundancy. Chris 21:40, 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:High school sports conferences[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 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:High school sports conferences to Category:High school sports conferences and leagues in the United States
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 Lockharts[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 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Days of our Lives characters, soapcruft ... -- ProveIt (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete. These characters are already identified in the DooL character category. Do not redirect because it's not like these are the only Lockharts in the world. Wryspy 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; probable sockpuppet of blocked vandal User:EJBanks. --Quuxplusone 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Honbicot 18:46, 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:Former watermills on the River Thames[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 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former watermills on the River Thames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Replaced by Category:Watermills on the River Thames. Chris j wood 20:48, 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:Towns in France[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 upmerge to Category:Cities, towns and villages in France for now. Timrollpickering 20:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category is pretty-much empty, and/or all articles that could in theory go in here are already elsewhere (Category:Cities, towns and villages in France). In theory we could fill this category up with all towns with a population between xxxxx and yyyyy people, but that would be a lot of work. Montchav 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge up for the moment The entire system of communes in France needs an overhaul. There is no concept of a city in France so the category above it should also be renamed if we are to be encylopaedic. A Ville is a commune with more than 2,000 people and all villes are communes and as stated above translates as wither town or city. We could therefore designate all communes with over 2,000 inhabitants using Cities and towns in France or Cities and towns of France (also as stated above), as the / character cannot be used. Additionally, the Category:Villages in France in France is unwieldly, is not an official designation and should go. Category:Cities in France is just wrongly titled for the aforementioned reasons. Perhaps it should be renamed Category:Communes in France with more than 100,000 inhabitants? The collective Category:Cities, towns and villages in France should be renamed Category:Communes of France, reflecting the main article of that category whilst being more accurate. Perhaps I will open up discussion on these tomorrow with a new listing mentioning the above. As there are 36,685 communes in France, there could be a lot of work ahead... --Bob 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Bob; I agree that an overhaul rather than fudge patch looks necessary. David (talk) 13:29, 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:Roman era Christian martyrs[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 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman era Christian martyrs to Category:Christian martyrs of the Roman era
  • Rename, in accordance with standard notation for historical periods. In the case of Christian martyrs, it is more relevant to keep the word Roman than use the standard era name Ancient. This category corresponds to the first two periods in the main article Christian martyrs. After this change, I intend to add the missing category "Christian martyrs of the Medieval era"; the existing and new categories should be consistently named. Most of the articles in Category:Christian martyrs should then be moved down into one of the sub-categories. Fayenatic london 18:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, as (1) places subject at head of name; and (2) seems better English. David Kernow (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, very sensible. Xtifr tälk 01:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Twittenham 12:08, 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:English-Spaniards[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 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English-Spaniards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Neologism. Non-category, undefined, non-notable and not relating to any known concept in use. An examination of its contents shows that its four members are: a Spanish footballer who is currntly playing for a British team, a Spanish journalist who briefly lived in Sussex and died in Mexico, a Spanish pop star whose mother is said to be English and an 19-year English footballer, born in Spain, of great obscurity. This, like Category:Spanish-English people, already nominated (by me) for deletion, simply makes a mockery of WP categories. Smerus 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way, it is an attempt to revive Category:Spanish-British (created by the same user), deleted acording to the log on May 29, 2006 - another reason for its deletion.--Smerus 09:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 09:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - bizarre combination of words. roundhouse 11:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. See my vote below for Spanish English. - Privacy 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This practice is the biggest source of bad categories on Wikipedia. Nathanian 15:54, 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:Banned writers[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 listify. Timrollpickering 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Banned writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This is a pointless category as vast numbers of writers have been banned somewhere. The present contents show that it is not being used with judgement and discretion. Carina22 16:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Useful category. It would be helpful if the person proposing this ban would list articles that have been added to this category that should not be. --- Safemariner 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful. If "vast numbers or writers have been banned somewhere" then this category would be far larger than you're claiming. It doesn't break any category guidelines. --Wizardman 18:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to be working on the assumption that the category system is complete, which is hardly the case. Osomec 09:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Delete Simply unmanageable category. KP Botany 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC) There are many categories, articles, and lists proposed for deletion that are cultural aspects of the world we live in today. American (US) libraries celebrate National Banned Book week, this category could be used in conjunction with this, one could look up any favorite author and see if they were banned. Of course, almost every book in the world has been banned by someone at some time, and cults are notorious for banning all books, so it would have to be limited somehow. KP Botany 18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete isn't pretty much every writer banned in Turkmenistan, North Korea etc? I would think that the category needs tightening up to say from where they're banned. Budgiekiller 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they ban all books, not specific writers. Examples of miscategorized articles would be useful --- Safemariner 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Maybe that would happen with subcats after there are sufficient entries. --lquilter 21:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator: many books are banned in many places at many different times. Hence, it is not necessarily defining if a book is banned somewhere. Subcategorization will only be messy, as some books will be banned in entire countries while others will only be banned in a myriad of local jurisdictions. Moreover, if a book is banned in multiple locations, that book will acquire multiple categories, rendering the categories difficult to navigate. Therefore, I suggest deleting the category altogether. Dr. Submillimeter 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they are usually banned as a group, not as individual writers. Examples of miscategorized articles would be useful to this debate. --- Safemariner
  • Delete, the category is way too vague as to what qualifies. Taken strictly semantically (from the given wording in the category), every writer ever would be included since they must have been banned at some point. I also feel that sub-catting this would get too messy too fast and the List of banned books seems to cover this topic well enough. From there, a simple Ctrl+F would be able to find any author on it. Axem Titanium 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What isn't banned in North Korea or Taliban Afghanistan. Osomec 09:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This must really be a list to explain why and where and when they were banned. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/Delete per Banned books. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present form, although I can see the advantage of Banned writers in XXX categories for individual countries—perhaps we could then turn this particular category into an overarching Category:Banned writers by country?
Xdamrtalk 15:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having considered other contributions to this debate, I an now persuaded that this would be best accomplished through listification rather than though categories.
Xdamrtalk 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep 'category has a lot in it' not a reason for deletion. 'i don't like what's in it' (if reasonable at all, no details are given) is reason for editing contents only, shouldn't be dealt with here.  ⇒ bsnowball  13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment It again runs into the same problems as the initial category. I challenge you to name a literary American (sensu lato) writer from the late 19th to mid twentieth century who wasn't banned. Possibly Category:Banned writers by banner might be appropriate, then whoever banned them would hae to be notable. I don't know, though. KP Botany 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'whoever' banned them? i was (naively?) assuming that the ban had to be promulgated by an authority with the power to enforce it ie a government or defacto gov. i think it reasonable to assume that this cat does not include books denounced by someone, even if they are notable. perhaps this should be discussed and added to the category description. (tho 'government' may be too narrow, one assumes this cat should include, for instance, books placed on the roman church's index)  ⇒ bsnowball  13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly listify, per WP:OC. Trivial characteristic, seldom related to the writers themselves (though "writers banned in their own country" might make an interesting category...). -- Visviva 15:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, many countries and organizations have their own individual banned lists. The union of those lists covers a huge number of books. Too broad to be manageable. Dugwiki 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. Much as I would like to see which writers have been banned, I'd need to know (1) where, (2) when, and (3) why in order to trust this information. What if my mom banned Stephen King from our house? As worded, that would count. A category like this is useless and leaves too much room for unverified nonsense. A list can be annotated with verified sources. Doczilla 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a sourced list is a good way to do this and I think List of banned books can be that. Recury 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike this category, a sourced list can focus on examples which were actually of some import in their own right. Nathanian 15:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Without context, it's meaninglessly broad so that the inevitable flood of entries will only coincidentally have something in common. I'd be surprised to find many writers who never had at least one work legally prohibited from sale somewhere for some reason (do countries like Iran even allow American books to be sold there at all?), and this category doesn't even distinguish between banned from an entire country and banned from a particular library. Postdlf 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as already stated, problems with context can be fixed by spelling it out. i would suggest 'banned' should mean proscribed by an authority having the power to enforce the banning (as per normal english usage, banning does not consist in saying "i ban x", but in taking steps to ensure x does occur/isn't available). as an aside, also suggest postdlf find out something about the country his government is franticly looking for excuses to invade (there were for instance eng. lang. bookshops in tehran which had to destroy the copies of the satanic verses which they'ed ordered).  ⇒ bsnowball  11:37, 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:Syndicated television 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 19:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syndicated television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I propose to completely delete this category, because due to it's name, it is being used for ANY form of Television syndication, instead of the single type of First-run syndication it's description points out it was intended for. This is much in line with the cfd of "Currently running televisionπ series" (deleted long ago), and Category:Cancelled TV series(still being voted on, but looking likes it's going towards delete). About 80% of TV content ends up being syndicated at one time or another. If we want we can create a new category called: Category:First-run syndicated television programs. This is quite unusual, probably defining (much as a made for TV movie, or a direct to DVD movie I guess) and it is something that people might be browsing for potentially. A rename seems less usefull, because of the 25 shows I have selected so far, i could not identify a single article that was "first run syndication" TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lots of TV shows are "in syndication" at some point, makign the category unclear. Makign a first-run syndication category may be a good idea, but for now this category is too vague. --Wizardman 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Syndication is just a distribution method & we shouldn't categorize by distribution methods.--lquilter 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we delete the category on the basis of distribution method then be prepared to delete every category for shows by network, since all networks are just methods of distribution. This is valuable, encyclopedic information and the category should be kept and properly maintained. Otto4711 22:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think networks are publishers/distributors, not distribution methods; "broadcast" would be the distribution method. But I'd be happy to delete the network categories, anyway, because shows sometimes hop networks, and networks merge, and I'm not sure how valuable "NBC series" is, compared to production company (Mutant Enemy Productions, 1021, WGBH); genre; era; and so on. --lquilter 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The value of "NBC series" lies in the fact that the average person intuitively thinks about television shows in those terms. Most people could tell you that Friends was on NBC; few are likely to know that it was produced by Bright/Kauffman/Crane Productions in association with Warner Bros. Television. I would oppose deleting the network categories as suggested by User lquilter. --Vbd 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the highly visible branding of series by networks, it's also the network that gives the green light to the production company, places it on their schedule, advertises it, distributes it to affiliates, and finally decides to cancel it. Yes, shows can hop networks, but it's a big deal when they do. Postdlf 04:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The distinction between "first-run" syndication and "off-network" syndication is an important one. As a 2005 Washington Post article noted, the former "is a cutthroat business." It is not just about distribution -- it has a lot more to do with production and sales. I would support a decision to delete Category:Syndicated television series because it is too broad and vague, but I would second User TheDJ's suggestion that a distinct category called Category:First-run syndicated television programs be created.--Vbd 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Category:Television series created for syndication as a replacement? But I'd support any option that will get rid of the current category, which inappropriately invites rerun syndication. Postdlf 04:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 09:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to Category:First-run syndicated television programs and remove inappropriate articles I would support a category that includes all television series that were first-run syndication programs. But including all programs that were eventually syndicated as reruns is a bad idea, since the great majority of television shows eventually enter syndication for rebroadcast. Dugwiki 17:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to Category:First-run syndicated television programs and prune per Dugwiki and Postdlf. As long as there are articles categorized by network, those that are not created for a network belong in an appropriate category. Current name promotes a misguided intent. Tinlinkin 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lquilter Chicheley 01:12, 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:Spanish-English people[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 19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish-English people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy deletion please. This is the third, or maybe the fourth, time that User:Raymond Cruise has tried to botch up WP with this category, and on every occasion it has been roundly decided to delete. Can I ask someone with authority on WP to please try to deter User:Raymond Cruise from ever resurrecting it, or anything similar. Smerus 14:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question What's the problem? Why is this any different than Category:Spanish-Americans, Category:English-Germans, Category:English-Spaniards? -- ProveIt (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reason for deletion is not explained. The category seems notable and not POV. As ProvIt states, what is the problem? --- Safemariner 15:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The log doesn't show any previous deletions either TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no such thing in the normal British way of thinking. This is just an importation of an American concept and should be stamped out. Carina22 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have raised my curiousity. What is the normal British way of thinking on this topic? --- Safemariner 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologise for absence of rationale - I thought (in error) that previous deletions of this category would render this unnecessary - I apologise. The problem here is that there is a concept of 'Spanish-American' (and many people consider themselves such) - because there is a history of Americans of Spanish origin making a real contribution to American culture and history. But there is no corresponding concept of 'Spanish-English' as a separate cultural or historical grouping. The category is therefore inventing a fake - it is no way 'notable' by WP standards as it does not refer to anything regarded as existing. What we have listed in it is a group of British people, some of whom are alleged to have some Spanish ancestor. There is no evidence that any of them would consider themselves 'Spanish-English'. To be accurately named it would be Category: People of British nationality alleged to have a Spanish ancestor. That is not a category in WP terms. Category:Spanish-English people did indeed appear a year ago and as I described it was deleted at least twice in quick succession. If TheDJ will explain what log he is consulting, I will investigate further.Smerus 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism --- unless someone can cite sources showing, e.g., that academics have published some papers which studied Spanish people in England, and that those papers used the name "Spanish-English". cab 22:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spanish people in England are just Spanish. Osomec 09:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I supposed this was an attempt to categorise Michael Portillo but find he is not there (he was born in England, father was Spanish, mother Scottish). So perhaps we need the Spanish-Scottish cat. I agree that there is no common succinct terminology in the UK to describe say people of Polish descent (of whom there have been plenty since WWII, and who do form a community - there is a Polish club in Sheffield). (I assume Michael Portillo is just British, in that his passport will be British.) roundhouse 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes all these "Xish-Yish" categories puzzle me. Don't they mean "People of Xish-Yish descent"...?  Apologies in advance if I'm missing something obvious, David Kernow (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, it's not obvious at all, and I become confused myself; it's only really possible to understand when you already know the subject. There's examples of "Foovian-Barian" meaning "Foovian descendants in Barland" (e.g. Category:Italian-Americans), "Barian descendants in Fooland (e.g. British Chinese), and also "People of mixed Foovian and Barian descent" (c.f. Category:Chinese Japanese people). Incidentally, I tried to get the last one renamed/deleted twice, but failed both times; half the comments in the CfDs showed that people weren't even sure what it was for. cab 14:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So British Chinese are Chinese-British. Chinese Japanese in contrast seem to be Chinese-Japanese, or of mixed descent. Japanese Chinese apparently includes Chinese-Japanese, Japanese-Chinese and those of mixed descent. It all seems clear enough. (There is Category:Scottish-Germans as well, with just 2 occupants. So these are Scottish descendants in Germany. Excellent. One is John Henry Mackay, who is in some 24 categories.) So I am Scottish English (which refers to a language), and Scottish-English, and my son (not as yet notable) is (Scottish English) Malawian, Malawian-English, Scottish-English and his passport is British. Let us hope he marries carefully. This is not going to work, is it? roundhouse 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's wrong if all categories are valid and correct ones? - Privacy 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Privacy, you are mistaking 'correctness of definition' (which is not a WP criterion for a category) for 'encyclopaedic purpose', which is. See below.--Smerus 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. What about renaming as British people with Spanish ancestry, and Spanish people with English ancestry (and also categories for Spanish people with Scottish ancestry, Welsh ancestry and Irish ancestry)? I suppose that's the only way to get rid of American-centrism. - Privacy 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't solve the problem - then we will get questions as to 'what is ancestry?' - i.e. does a grandparent count? - a greatgrandparent? There are many types of category that you *can* define - i.e. 'British citizens with a Turkish great-grandparent' (like Boris Johnson) or 'Wikipedians with spouses of Norwegian and Cornish descent' (like me) - but that doesn't mean that they serve any purpose, or that it is appropriate to make a WP category out of them. The justification for a WP category is not that it can be precisely defined, but whether (or not) it serves an encyclopaedic purpose. In the present case - not. --Smerus 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It makes the problem worse as it gives even more justification to carrying this system to absurd lengths. Nathanian 15:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This practice is the biggest source of bad categories on Wikipedia. Nathanian 15:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. Chicheley 01:13, 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:Republican Judges[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. First of all, unless renamed, this category cannot use who the person was appointed by as shorthand for his political party. Believe it or not, in the Good Old Days Democratic presidents and governors used to sometimes appoint Republican judges and vice versa. So as named it can only stand for (1) the person's private political partly affiliation on their voter registrations or (2) their party affiliation when they stood for election. But (1) is not an obtainable public record, and (2) is problematic because many judges never stand for election or, if they do, do not run under a party affiliation.

But I don't think a rename is in order here, either. What would we rename the category to?

There could be categories "Judges appointed to a court by a Republican President", or (better) "Judges appointed to XYZ court by a Republican President", as well as "Judges appointed to a court by a Republican governor. This closure is made without prejudice to the creation of those categories (although it is certainly debatable whether these categories would be good to have, but that's a different issue).

But I'm not sure what the person who categorized these articles meant - did he mean (1) the person's private party registration, (2) the person's affiliation inferred from his public statements and judicial decisions, (3) the person's party affiliation if elected on a party ballot (4) which party supported him for election if he was elected on on a nonpartisan ballot or (5) the political affiliation of the person(s) who appointed him to his post(s)?

Better to start over with more rigorously named categories, if someone wants to do that. Herostratus 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as overcategorization. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it useful to categorise judges, say, judges of the federal supreme court of the US, by the party affiliation? — Instantnood 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Judiciary has been increasingly politicized over last 20 years. Lots of states elect, although some are non-partisan (I think).
  • Delete the political positions of present and recent US Supreme Court justices is well know, and there is no difficulty characterising them. But this cat is much broader, and would include articles on all US and state judges--thousands of them. This is not really useful. There might be a point in the categories, Republican / Democratic US Supreme Court Justices. (the word is Justices not judges for this particular court.DGG 21:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The larger category is Category:Republicans (United States) and by the time you broke it down by court, which you would have to do, you would have a verrrry long category name, things like Category:Republican (United States) Judges of Alabama and Category:Republican (United States) Federal District Judges. The category might be useful, but the name is just awful. --lquilter 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may perhaps be a good thing to subcategorise by court and state, though. — Instantnood 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Delete: My last comments were deleted, I apologize, but I don't know why. If someone could please inform me? I oppose deletion because this is an excellent way to categorize basically every judge in the country. Every judge has a political origin. On the state level they are elected in partisan elections (or if the election is officially non-partisan, they are nominated and endorsed by political parties). On the federal level, the judges (district, circuit, and Supreme Court) are nominated by a partisan elected official. So the cat is accurate and very useful for those of us researching the political influence in the judiciary. The same way we cat politicans as connected to one party or another, it would be informative and accurate to do so with judges. ("Justices" does not present a problem either, as they are still judges. They just have a slightly fancier title. But just because David Souter is a Justice of the Supreme Court that does not change the fact that he is a judge.) My post is long in order to provide what I hope is informative info to answer the questions above.--Smashingworth 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pigeonholing. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the federal judiciary is non-partisan, and most states have non-partisan judicial elections and/or appointments. Politicians by contrast run and hold office as Republicans, Democrats, etc., so contrary to Smashingworth's comment, the analogy does not hold here. Yes, judicial appointments are politicized, but this doesn't help illuminate that, or explain anything about the philosophy of judges; the two most "liberal" justices on SCOTUS, for example, were appointed by Republican presidents. Consequently, this category just links an ostensibly non-political occupation to how someone (purportedly) has registered their voting affiliation, which doesn't accomplish anything but confusion. Postdlf 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judgeship records are sorted by ideology, not party. Xiner (talk, email) 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Judges elected as Republicans and remove inappropriate articles I think it's ok to sort all judges who specifically run for election on the Republican ticket in their state under the same category, since they are in essence both judges and politicians. However, judges who do not run for election don't need to be sorted by political affiliation. Dugwiki 17:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's definitely preferable to the current category, but I still question whether it's necessary to sort out such individuals from Republican politicians generally. Postdlf 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't oppose the re-name, but I would also support a category for Category: Judges Appointed by Republicans or perhaps for judges appointed by particular presidents. But to suggest that knowing the political party that endorsed the judge in a non-partisan election, or the political party of the appointing executive only "adds confusion" is to approach the judiciary with blinders on. Is that the goal of Wikipedia? It's true that two of the most liberal Justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans, but categorizing them according to political party is a more accurate and factually verifiable way of grouping them than according to interpretive "liberal" or "conservative" standards, which necessarily involve subjective opinions and philosophies, not to mention the amount of work that would have to be done before one could have even assert such a label. The party label is merely empirical fact that will offer readers fresh insight into the history of the judge's career. See pages like Federal judicial appointment history. This category is entirely in that factual, neutral, and convenient tradition. Not because it identifies bias of judges but because it tracks the political influence in the naming of judges. For many, the fact that Stevens and Souter were appointed by Republicans adds a particular irony to their careers. But is it verifiable fact? Yes.--Smashingworth 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I said that categorizing judges themselves by political party affiliation only adds confusion. But I'm also not sure it's appropriate for the category system to classify by the party of who appointed them. It just seems like an attempt at making a statement without having to write an article. What is gained by classifying every judge ever appointed by Bush43, Reagan, Bush41, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Hoover, Coolidge, Lincoln...etc. together? Postdlf 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you say "classify"? And what "confusion"? It's not like the judge pages on wikipedia are bursting at the seams with information. "What is gained by classifying every judge ever appointed ..." is the ability to group them together for research purposes. Some of us want to know which judges were appointed by Carter and which by Reagan. It's called learning about the federal judiciary and knowing all you can know on the topic. Grouping them together allows researchers to identify trends in the development of the law under a particular group of judges. I'm mystified as to why you think this would be confusing, or pointless, or whatever. It not only says something about the judge, it says something about the President, it says something about the Party, etc. The point is that it says something, and that something is empirically verifiable, not nebulous and vague. If factually verifiable information that is of service to readers, organizes hundreds of pages together, and provides a convenient tool for researchers and readers is not worthy of Wikipedia or not otherwise in its goals, then I'm at a loss as to what we're doing here. I think your objections are utterly meritless.--Smashingworth 20:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you're just confused by what my objections are. I say "classify" because we're talking about categories—that's what they do. And I say "confusion" because an unannotated classification of "Republican judge" strongly suggests that they were a judge as a Republican in some sense other than simply how they vote (and that's all that I said would be confusing). There are lots of things we want to know about the judiciary, but we can't make categories for every possible fact about an individual; that's what article text is for. I'd also like to know which judges were appointed by whom as well, and I'm not necessarily saying that fact would make a poor category system, but I still ask WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE DONE THROUGH CATEGORIES? Please don't confuse the question of whether it's of encyclopedic value (which I agree with) with the question as to how best to present that information, which must consider the limits of each form. Categories get more useless the more that a particular article is placed in them, and the more specific the categories get. Also, because categories just appear in articles as mute little labels without explanation or citation, if they aren't completely self-evident or based upon substantial, obvious relationships, they are ambiguous or misleading. At least federal judges are only appointed by one, maybe two presidents during their tenure on different courts, which makes it containable (which is a virtue for categories), so I don't know that I would mind a category such as Category:Judicial appointees of Ronald Reagan. But why a category instead of a list article such as List of judicial appointments made by Ronald Reagan, which could order them chronologically and by court? Postdlf 21:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, but it seems as if the objections (from you and others) are all over the place. Some think it too broad, others too narrow. Your suggestion of a list page is a good one, but I don't think they're mutually exclusive of each other. Obviously, a list page is a lot more work. Your point about ambiguity is a good one though. It is admittedly a broad category and intentionally so. But you misunderstand that I'm not labeling them according to how they're necessarily registered or vote. Of course, those judges who are elected in partisan elections, such as the Texas Supreme Court Justices, would easily fit into this Category, but it also applies to judges appointed by Republican governors or presidents. The Category is supposed to relate some of the history of the judge. In the case of Justice John Paul Stevens, this might be ironic. In the case of Clarence Thomas, it is prophetic. So the Category informs the researcher about the history of judges and parties. I am convinced that a category of judges appointed by a particular president would be very useful indeed though.--Smashingworth 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • How else would "Republican judge" be understood except as referring to how the judge has registered his political party affiliation as a private voter, if he was not elected to the bench on a partisan ticket? How does "Republican judge" mean "judges appointed by Republicans," when judges don't always belong to the party of the individual who appointed them? Unless you were talking about a proposed rename rather than the current category ("Judges appointed by Republicans"), which was not clear. But why don't you write an article about the history of judges and parties instead of trying to squeeze a "history" from a category? Postdlf 01:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and break down according to court. - Privacy 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the fact that whether a judge is affiliated with a particular party is important. I don't think we need to sub-cat these, though. (Basically, a breakdown and only sub-cat/list when it gets messy.) -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as deeply ambiguous category which could mean judges elected as Republican candidates, those appointed by Republican administrations, or those who had registered as Republicans (three very different things). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (rename?) in the general sense, but create new categories that are more precise, such as "appointed by Republicans" or "elected as Republicans" etc. so there is no ambiguity or vague interpretation involved in the proper filling of the category. Someone will have to work out just what categories we should have though, there are many good suggestions above. Plus we must have equivalent categories for the Democratic Party appointees. NoSeptember 18:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename Republican is very ambiguous, and this usage is US-centric. 132.205.44.134 23:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much potential for it to be misleading.--T. Anthony 14:28, 21 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:Helicopter 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 speedily deleted per below. David Kernow (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Helicopter crash victims. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. There was just one guy in the other category, and I moved him to the main one already. --Wizardman 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Wizardman. Budgiekiller 19:27, 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:Utilities of the United Kingdom[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 with apologies to British English. David Kernow (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow other "Public utilities of" subcategories of Public utilities. Prompted by #Category:Public utility below.
David Kernow (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see the advantage of consistency in cat names, but as most utilities in the UK are in private (ie non-state) ownership feel that the proposed name could be misleading to some users. DuncanHill 13:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose This is a British category and must not be named in American English. Carina22 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am curious as to why you have such a dislike for any thing American --- Safemariner 16:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The naming of this category has no more to do with liking or disliking America than spelling "colour" as "color" in the article Flag of the United States has to do with liking or disliking England. Carina22 10:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Wikipedia is a world wide forum with a world wide view and consistency is important --- Safemariner 16:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name the category as per the British English way of calling these companies/organisations. — Instantnood 21:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The language policy states unambiguously that British English is used for British material. In British English these organisations are called utilities, many if not most British people would take "Public utility" to mean only utilities in government ownership (which almost none of them are nowadays). Osomec 09:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination per above. David Kernow (talk) 13:22, 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:Territories under military occupation[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 20:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Territories under military occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The category is too controversial and open to many endless disputes on what constitutes occupation and what is only a disputed territory. Can't see how it's useful as any conflict has its own characteristics, and this is a very WP:POV taking of one side against the other in the conflict depending on who controls the territory. Amoruso 10:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. Amoruso 10:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I take the point about the POV dangers here, but the article List of military occupations uses commendably precise criteria, which seem to me to be reasonably NPOV. I suggest expanding the category definition to use similar text. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BrownhairedGirl, and very useful category for users. DuncanHill 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having looked at some of the nominators edits, have doubts about the NPOV of the nomination.DuncanHill 13:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The List of military occupations may be NPOV but articles in the Category are not --- Safemariner 15:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. If you think that the category is incomplete, then why not populate the category more fully? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the articles that already are in that category are already POV and contentious marking the whole category as POV. Adding to such a category will just contribute to furthering POV by legitimizing the existing articles status. --- Safemariner 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also catgorization is being used as a back door way of applying POV to articles --- Safemariner 02:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Privacy 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No POV around here. If a territory has military occupation forces, then the territory is, by definition, under military occupation. Varag 07:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the category was originally called "Territories with military occupation forces", and was intended to include, as its name sayd, territories were there are currently military occupation forces. I admit, the current name "Territories under milita...." might somehow cause a POV vision on what should be included or not. But that`s only subjective perception. Take the breakaway republic of Transdniester for example. De jure, this territory is part of the Republic of Moldova, and is recongnised as such by the whole world (except Russia), including the U.N.. Transdniester proclaimed it`s independence with the help of the Russian army, who has been stationed there from 1992. It is still stationed in what de facto is Moldovan territory, in breach of the undertakings to withdraw, made by Russia at the 1999 and 2001 O.S.C.E. summits. This territory has, by common sense, military occupation forces, and hence should be included in this cat.. Varag 08:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every country that ever had a military dictatorship will also qualify as well as any territory through which military forces camped in (i.e. most of the Roman empire, All of Europe during the middle ages and all of Eastern Europe till 1990) --- Safemariner 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, only territories which currently have military occupation forces are included (note regarding this characteristic: I think this is a usefull category for readers) Varag 10:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If, then, this category is retained, perhaps rename it to Territories currently under military occupation...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All the articles currently in this category are indisputably occupied (or at least most sources agree). The term itself just denotes the military act, which is not POV. Khoikhoi 04:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this isn't Wikinews. A bigger problem than POV (though I agree with the nom's reasoning too) is that the category is basically a current events classification; it's for territories currently under military occupation. Categories on Wikipedia should be based on intrinsic or defining characteristics, not transient conditions. Yes, we classify people based on conditions that become no longer true (for example, Bill Clinton is no longer the U.S. President but is still in Category:Presidents of the United States), but those classifications remain defining for those subjects; if the category were for every territory that was ever under military occupation at any time for any duration, it would probably include every territory on earth, making it hardly a defining characteristic. Postdlf 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep whether or not an area is under military occupation is a simple question of fact (per brownhair perhaps criteria shld be defined on page), the (il)legitimacy of the occupation is a matter of pov.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - nomination is just Israeli pov pushing (see nominator's edits). The minor problems noted here of definitions and ephemeracy can be fixed well enough by giving a more precise definition. --Zerotalk 12:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks and relate to the issue , not person. You've been warned about this many times. Amoruso 23:54, 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:Spinto Tenor[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 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spinto Tenor into Category:Vocal ranges
  • Merge with parent category, only used for a single stub article (Spinto), which is more general than the category (it also includes sopranos), and it's unclear what else would qualify—if it was intended for articles on individual singers, it should be plural. Incorrectly capitalized, to boot. — Gwalla | Talk 08:56, 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:World War II army corps[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 19:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II army corps to Category:Army corps of World War II
Propose renaming Category:World War II army groups to Category:Army groups of World War II
Xdamrtalk 01:05, 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:Turkish fascists[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 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish fascists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Found in doing cleanup from November. Appears to not have been correctly listed here. Vegaswikian 07:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This category appears to exist primarily to classify members of the ultra-nationalist Grey Wolves organisation. However, the Grey Wolves article is not itself categorised as fascist, and the article on Alparslan Türkeş contains an unreferenced assertion that "Türkeş is considered to be a fascist by many people ...". As a non-expert, it appears to me that the label may be legitimate, but I am concerned that it is being applied wihout citations; I think that an "ultra-nationalist" tag might be more appropriate, but the fascist label seems suspiciously POV. It is too loaded a term to be applied on the basis of unreferenced assertions aboiut individuals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much potential for POV. It seems that Categorization is being used as a back door way of applying POV to articles. --- Safemariner 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete will always be POV and result in edit war. Budgiekiller 19:28, 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:Public utility[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 to Category:Types of public utility. Timrollpickering 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public utility into Category:Public utilities
  • Merge, Could become a subcategory in Public utilities. Inwind 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with rename and subcategory per David Kernow. KP Botany 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and subcategorise per Inwind and David Kernow. - Privacy 20:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and subcat as above, except that Category:Utility infrastructure or Category:Utility technology would be better names, as the articles describe setups that utilities use. Note some of the articles deal with generic utility infrastructure, not necessarily public utility infrastructure. linas 14:36, 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:Online lyrics databases[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 redirected to Online music and lyrics databases as re-creation. David Kernow (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online lyrics databases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is most likely an ad for its single member. Anyone really concerned with making this category would have added several links, at least. In any case, the category has no place on Wikipedia: it would consist largely of external links, and should be deleted. Allispaul 05:33, 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.

Yes[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 all. Timrollpickering 19:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename as article name Yes (band).--Vndjf 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The category doesn't have to be the same exact name as the article. There aren't any other "Yes" categories that would create confusion. --dm (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't disambiguate unless we need to ... somehow I don't think anyone will think the category refers to Yes. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I landed on this category a few months ago and was puzzled at first so I am one of the persons that believed it referred to Yes. As I was new to Wikipedia then, I did not know how to report it as a problem. --- Safemariner 16:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The band is not the primary meaning of the term. Chicheley 07:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Without the rename, people will put weird stuff unrelated to the band in the category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity, per Dr. Submillimeter and Chicheley. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename The longer this miscategory exists, the more people are mislead. --- Safemariner 16:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as BrownHairedGirl has suggested. Budgiekiller 19:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category names should almost always match the name of their associated main article, in this case Yes (band). Dugwiki 17:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No... I mean, Keep all. Disambiguation in category titles should only be used when necessary - and since there's no other potential categories that could be created under the name "Category:Yes", there's no reason to rename this. (Really, what would be entered into a category called "Yes" that wouldn't be patently nonsense? Even a category about agreement wouldn't be named "Category:Yes".) The only reason for confusion is due to the fact that the category page itself had no actual content besides subcategorization; I've fixed that and made it obvious what the category is actually about. -Sean Curtin 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an issue of disambiguation, per se. It's that the category name should match the name of its associated main article, almost without exception. That way, for example, readers and editors know how to spell both when trying to search for one or the other. When category and article spellings differ, it leads to additional confusion. So since the main article is spelled "Yes (band)", the categories should be spelled that way too. Dugwiki
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.

Genesis[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 all. Timrollpickering 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename as article name Genesis (band).--Vndjf 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. See my explanation under the Yes discussion above. I more on the fence with this one because conceivably there could be a Genesis category that relates the the book in the Bible, but there isn't one now and there doesn't seem to be a need for one. --dm (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is reasonable for people to look for a category for information about the book in the Bible. Frankly, many more people know about the book in the Bible than about the band. --- Safemariner 16:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename confusion is possible here, since there are articles referring not just to the book, but to various elements of it.DGG 06:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The band is not the primary meaning of the term. Chicheley 07:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity --- Safemariner 16:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, there are many uses of Genesis out there in the world, let's make this clear. Budgiekiller 19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename As above with Yes (band), categories should almost always match the spelling of their main article, in this case Genesis (band). Dugwiki 17:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename main category: Genesis-->Genesis (band). But it may not be necessary to rename Genesis albums/songs -->Genesis (band) albums/songs, as no other "Genesis" out that would have albums/songs. Genesis members, maybe it could be argued that people in the Genesis chapter of the Bible are "members" of it though.....ah hell, rename them all, otherwise it would get confusing. --Montchav 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity. Honbicot 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Genesis and probably Category:Genesis members, but keep others. the wub "?!" 13:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Genesis and probably Category:Genesis members, but keep others. roundhouse 13:32, 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:Deep Democracy[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 19:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deep Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - This doesn't seem to have any potential for growth. --- RockMFR 03:48, 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:Missionary Bishops of the United Methodist Church[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:Methodist Missionary Bishops. This category can thus contain anyone who is or was (1) a Methodist of any stripe, flavor, or denomination AND who (2) ever held the title of Missionary Bishop (note capitalization).

The category thus specifically excludes anyone who could be described as a "missionary bishop" who did NOT hold the formal title of Missionary Bishop. For those, there could be separate category - I don't suppose it could be titled Category:Methodist missionary bishops, because that would be same name as this (newly renamed) category except for the capitalization, which I don't think would be a good idea, so some other name would have to be used, which would unfortunately have to be more wordy, I suppose.

This is one of the situations where maybe there is really no perfect solution. This seems the best way of sorting it all out that I can come up with, I hope this is at least acceptable to all parties. Herostratus 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Missionary Bishops of the United Methodist Church to Category:Methodist missionary bishops
  • Rename for historical accuracy, for similar reasons to those proposed below in the CFR for United Methodist college and university presidents.
    I set to removing from this category those bishops who were not members of the United Methodist Church (because they predeceased its creation in 1968), and found that the category was empty. The effect of the category as curently used has therefore been to apply to these bishops a denominational label which could not have been applied to them when alive, and which they might not have accepted if they had lived.
    Please note that I do understand and respect the fact that UM Church views bishops of its predecessor denominations as if they were bishops of the UM Church, and have no wish to suggest anything improper about that; however that recognition is not the same as a historically accurate enyclopedia retrospectively relabelling these bishops.
    I am aware that I may have acted inappropriately in unintentionally emptying this category: I didn't think that removing the inaccurately categorised articles would empty it. If there is a consensus that I should restore the removed category tags, I will do so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - The category with its current name may have been used for point-of-view pushing. The rename will be more historically accurate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename ONLY the Methodist part (from United Methodist). The office actually was "Missionary Bishop." It was NOT "missionary Bishop" or "missionary bishop." These would be historically INaccurate. The Missionary Bishop was an elected position in the Methodist Episcopal and Methodist Church (following 1939) for nearly 100 years, attested to by their Books of Discipline (many of which I have from various years over this period). I believe it still existed in 1968 and for a short time afterwards (i.e., in the United Methodist Church). Though at that time I do not believe clergy were being elected to the office (only to the office of Bishop). The Methodist Episcopal Church, South also deployed Bishops to mission fields. But I do not believe they had a specific title "Missionary Bisop." Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply renaming to Category:Missionary Bishops of the Methodist Church would create a new historical inaccuracy, by implying that they were bishops of the The Methodist Church (USA), whereas many of these bishops died before the creation of The Methodist Church (USA) and the article on Missionary Bishops ties them solely to to the ME Church. Using the title Category:Methodist missionary bishops both avoids that problems, and sidesteps the uncertainty over whether the formal title "Missionary Bishop" was applied to all of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply If it says in the article they were elected a "Missionary Bishop," and if I wrote the article, than it is accurate: that person was elected a Missionary Bishop. I will grant you the cat may have in some cases been too inclusively applied. But if the article says the person was a Missionary Bishop, he was. My sources are official Methodist histories and Council of Bishop materials -- highly authoritative! Thanks. Pastorwayne 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I am not disputing that they were appointed to the office of "Missionary Bishop": I know you have good sources, and I am sure you checked them carefully. However, the inaccuracy doesn't cut both ways. "Missionary Bishop" includes only those formally given the title, but "missionary bishop" includes both those with that title and the bishops who undertook a missionary role. It therefore sidesteps the uncertainty as to whether the UMC used that title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yet another confusing Methodist category. Can someone come up with a way of sorting out all the different Methodist categories at the same time? DuncanHill 14:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a discussion at ANI and in user talk space, PW appears for now to have stopped the hyperactive creation of new methodist categories (there were over 100 in December alone). I think that the recent flurry of CFDs has removed most of the excess, and we are now in a mopping-up phase. I don't think that there will be very many more unless the creation starts again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this is getting out of hand. I don't entirely follow PW's explanation, but I don't agree with bishops being moved around unilaterally. Plenty of categories involve minor historical inaccuracy. Eg all alumni cats of the former Polytechnics in the UK (30 or so of them). roundhouse 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't see where the unilateralism comes in (CFD operates by consensus), and I think that former polytechnics do not amount to quite the same issue, because those Polys were upgraded and renamed, not merged. Additionally, there is no reasonable alternative naming available for the former polys witout splitting the categories or creating huge category names such "Category:Alumni of Oxford Brookes University and its predecesor institution Oxford Polytechnic", whereas I see no need here to split the category: we have the option of a simple renaming which removes any inaccuracy, and creates a shorther title too.
May I try to clarify the situation here? The issues as I see it are:
  1. It is unclear whether the UMC ever appointed any missionary bishops, or whether it retained the title for those appointed by pedecessor denominations .
  2. None of the Bishops concerned was still serving when the UM Church was created in 1968 by a merger of previous denominations.
  3. The Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC) did have a post called "Missionary Bishop". According to PW, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (MECS) did not have such a formal title but did send bishops on missionary postings.
  4. The Methodist Church (USA) (created by a merger of the MEC and MECS) did have a post of Missionary Bishop; however many of the Bishops concerned predeceased that merger.
One option would be to simply delete the "Missionary Bishop" category, and categorise these bishops solely by denomination. However, I think that the missionary bishop category may be useful.
That leaves two further options:
  • Use the current category title, which describes a post which did not exist in the institution to which it refers, and where none of the persons concerned was serving when the institution was created.
  • Rename the category so that it includes all those bishops from methodist denominations who held the title of "Missionary Bishop". (that would be Category:Methodist Missionary Bishops)
  • Rename to include all those bishops from methodist denominations who were sent as bishops to do missionary work, removing historical inaccuracies about denminational labels and sidestepping the uncertainty about formal titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said not that long ago, you are not someone with whom I particularly wish to argue (cf the above; a proper rejoinder now requires section headings and footnotes), neither do I have any interest or specialist knowledge whatever in any aspect of any church. I would have preferred to discuss the category in its state before you de-populated it, as categories do not keep any history of their membership (I can't now readily find an example of a Missionary Bishop without looking at your contribution history). One possibility would be to modify the category text, much as you have suggested in the following discussion. (Do you have any problem with List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church? The title suggests that these are all UM bishops but the first paragraph clears up the matter.) Can we not move these UM discussions elsewhere, thrash out some general solutions and provide a succinct version to cfds? We had rampant creationism, and now seem to have rampant deletionism, or up-merging-ism; I am a moderationist. (De Montfort University is an example of a very merged ex-Poly. It claims Ken Shuttleworth as an alumnus - he studied 'at the City of Leicester Polytechnic School of Architecture'. Most of the other alleged alumni eg Angela Smith, MP, need a 'citation required' tag.) roundhouse 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a list of the Missionary Bishops, see Whatlinkshere:Missionary Bishops. And, yes, I think it would be a good idea to discuss these issues somewhere centrally, if someone wants to set up a place.
I think that the list would benefit from being annotated, with each bishop being labelled by which denom they were actually a member of, but the major difference between a list and a category is that with a list, the explanatory text is visible at the start, but with a category the cat title appears in the article without comment.
I'm sorry that this appears to be reampant deletionism, though I'm not sure why in this case: the proposal is for a fairly simple renaming, not for deltion or upmerging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further information The last Book of Discipline (i.e., law book) of the Methodist Church (1964) has the office "Missionary Bishop." The first Book of Discipline of the U.M. Church (1968) does not. Thus, it would be correct to not call them "of the United Methodist Church." It would be better to rename it to "Methodist Missionary Bishops" or something similar. Missionary Bishops were sortof an "under-Bishop" to the regularly elected Bishops. They were Bishops, but somewhat limited to their foreign fields of service. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:20, 9 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:United Methodist college and university presidents[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 upmerge to Category:American university presidents. the wub "?!" 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Methodist college and university presidents to Category:Methodist college and university presidents
  • Rename, to a more historically accurate title. This category is being used to retrospecpectively label as "United Methodist" persons whose active careers (and lives in many cases) predated the foundation in 1968 of the United Methodist Church. Whilst the UM Church regards those denominations as its predecessors (quite legitimately), it is not accurate to apply the "United Methodist" label to people who worked under a differently-named denomination (and it is important to note that at various stages in the merger processes, there were breakaway churches which did not merge; we cannot assume that historical figures would have followed the majority into a merged church).
    There have been many methodist denominations in the United States, and it would be most useful to start by classifying them simply as "Methodists" where appropriate, bearing in mind that this might not be an appropriate categorisation for the EUB.
    This may appear to be a niggly point, but I think it is an important one: if we start labelling people by labels which could not have been applied when they were alive, we risk all sorts of absurdities, including: classifying William Gladstone as a Liberal Democrat (he died 90 years before the LibDems were created by a meger); classifying Walter Ulbricht as a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany.
    If the renaming proceeds, I suggest that the category text should revised as follows (italics indicating new text): "Presidents of Colleges and Universities affiliated with the United Methodist Church Methodist denominations, both current institutions and former, both living Presidents and dead. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - The category with its current name may have been used for point-of-view pushing. The rename will be more historically accurate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because otherwise you have to "retrospectively" keep OUT any E.U.B. persons or colleges, since they were never Methodist (and would probably not like being called such, though they would not have rejected the U.M. label, since the E.U.B. church is now succeeded by the U.M.C.). Though the purpose of this cat was to cat presidents of U.M.-related schools, not that the presidents themselves were necessarily U.M. The schools ARE all U.M.-related today, even if only slightly (in some people's minds). So it IS correct to call them U.M. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply PW, if it would not be correct to retrospectively attach the label "Methodist" to these people, then it would not be correct to attach the "United Methodist" label. There is a further problem with people like Warren Akin Candler, who opposed reunification; using the broader "Methodist" label avoids that. There have been discussions elsewhere about the appropriateness of attaching the UMC label to some of the colleges involved, so it might be better to upmerge the category to American university presidents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - This just seems to be making the category less specific. Surely the United Methodists are a sort of methodist (small m, perhaps)? If not, I give up. This category is actually applying the label to existing colleges, rather than to deceased people; it is the college that is methodist, not the president, as is made clear by the suggested text. I would suggest "Presidents, past and present, of Colleges and Universities founded by one of the Methodist denominations" as foundation is fixed, whereas affiliations may alter. roundhouse 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. Xiner (talk, email) 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, otherwise Rename. (Changing my vote).
    This one is actually more of a minefield than it first appeared to me. It seems that the UMC has 13 official seminaries, and that other institutions have a varying degree of ties with the UMC (see for example Talk:Asbury Theological Seminary#Methodist_seminary). I'm not even sure that Roundhouse's helpful suggestion of "founded by" really works, because the nature of Church involvement in the foundations seems to cover everything from wholly-owned subsiduary to hand-off moral support. I have also noticed that there is no other religious categorisation of American universities (see the other subcats of Category:American university presidents). As PW acknowledges, many of these institutions are now only loosely and informally realted to the UMC, so essentially this becomes a category-by-founding-ethos. I don't think that's a helpful form of categorisation: for example, most of the older English Universities would be then be labelled as Anglican or Catholic, which is rather misleading because they are now all pretty much secular in practice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 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:Awards 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 no consensus to rename/delete, so defaulting to all categories at "Xish awards", which means moving the five or so categories that are already at "awards of X". —Mets501 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of rationalisation and standardisation of the contents of Category:Awards by country, I would like to propose that the following categories be renamed/deleted.

Firstly, I propose renaming the following, to standardise naming and to conform to the "X of Y" convention:

Category:Argentine awards to Category:Awards of Argentina
Category:Australian awards to Category:Awards of Australia
Category:Austrian awards to Category:Awards of Austria
Category:British awards to Category:Awards of the United Kingdom
Category:Canadian awards to Category:Awards of Canada
Category:Danish awards to Category:Awards of Denmark
Category:Dutch awards to Category:Awards of the Netherlands
Category:English awards to Category:Awards of England
Category:Finnish awards to Category:Awards of Finland
Category:Indian awards to Category:Awards of India
Category:Awards and decorations of Israel to Category:Awards of Israel
Category:Italian awards to Category:Awards of Italy
Category:Jamaican awards to Category:Awards of Jamaica
Category:Japanese awards to Category:Awards of Japan
Category:Jordanian awards to Category:Awards of Jordan
Category:Malaysian awards to Category:Awards of Malaysia
Category:Mexican awards to Category:Awards of Mexico
Category:Monegasque awards to Category:Awards of Monaco
Category:New Zealand awards to Category:Awards of New Zealand
Category:Norwegian awards to Category:Awards of Norway
Category:Philippine awards to Category:Awards of the Philippines
Category:Scottish awards to Category:Awards of Scotland
Category:Awards and decorations of Serbia to Category:Awards of Serbia
Category:South African awards to Category:Awards of South Africa
Category:Soviet awards to Category:Awards of the Soviet Union
Category:Spanish awards to Category:Awards of Spanish
Category:Swedish awards to Category:Awards of Sweden
Category:Swiss awards to Category:Awards of Switzerland
Category:Trinidad and Tobago Awards to Category:Awards of Trinidad and Tobago
Category:Welsh awards to Category:Awards of Wales


Secondly, although in the "X of Y" form, I propose renaming this category per the precedent set by Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Holy See (see CFD 17 December - Category:Orders and decorations of Australia):

Category:Awards of the Vatican to Category:Awards of the Holy See


Finally, I propose the deletion of this category - redundant given that we already have Category:Awards of the United States:

Category:American awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Rename and delete per nomination.
Xdamrtalk 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Not all subcats of Category:Categories by country take the form foo of country, some take fooish awards. These are also subcats of fooish culture, so it is unclear which form should take precedence, and as most are currently at fooish awards they might as well stay where they are. Tim! 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most may be in the "Xish" form at the moment, but looking through Category:Awards by country clearly shows us that practice is divided. I suggest that we conclusively adopt one form or another, whichever one—having two (actually three) separate naming styles for the same category type simply looks sloppy.
Xdamrtalk 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right re. Sweden, silly mistake on my part. I've altered the nomination accordingly - hopefully no support/opposition up to this point has been dependent on Sweden's category being Category:Awards of Swedish!
Xdamrtalk 01:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is awards of Spanish, too, which has perhaps gained more support than it deserves. roundhouse 16:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all renames - "X of Y" is a good format for "Awards of Country" and the awards category badly needs consistency & organization. --lquilter 02:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all The "X of Y" convention does not exist, at least as a blanket convention. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categories by country, which shows clearly that there are several different conventions which are applied as is best for each topic. No reason has been given for preferring "X of Y" in this case except for the incorrect assumption that it is used in all cases. I would suggest that "Fooish awards" is currently used in the majority of cases because it would seem to be the natural choice to most people. Osomec 09:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't assuming that the 'X of Y' convention was a blanket one, only proposing that it be extended to cover this category, one which presently has notable inconsistency with sub-category names. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categories by country seems broadly to prefer the XXX by/of/in country construction. According to the guideline, "Xish" can be used only if it is conventional use for an as yet undecided category. Given that usage in Category:Awards by country is divided, there doesn't seem too much harm in changing to a form (Awards of XXX) that accords with the broad spirit of the guideline. There are other arguments as well, but I think that this is the most significant.
Xdamrtalk 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, standardizing is a good thing. Stating that "a convention doesn't exist" is not a valid argument against creating such a convention here. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree we should standarize as suggested here even it is not a blanket convention. --Bduke 01:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Looking at this list there is a convention already - to use Fooish awards, and the nominator is trying to reverse that. Culture categories generally use "Fooish X" so that convention is also under attack. Nathanian 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Fooish is the most common, but it is not so overwhelmingly popular as to represent an established consensus. By my reckoning the split is 66% to 33% between the two - not a trivial division. One's mindset in approaching this will probably vary depending on whether you regard this as being a 'national' category or a 'cultural' one. As I note above, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categories by country consistently prefers XXX by/of/in country.
Xdamrtalk 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Awards of Denmark" sounds like a territorial dynastic disposition in the Holy Roman Empire. Honbicot 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and rename all to "Fooish awards". That form is currently used by 78.37% of the categories, excluding the literary subcategory, which is considerably more than the two thirds mentioned above. Twittenham 12:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I included the Awards and decorations of XXX along with the Awards of XXX categories in arriving at my figure. The 'and decorations' is a vestigial element from the time when military/civil decorations were included under this category—fundamentally the two follow the same naming convention—hence the 33/66 split.
Xdamrtalk 01:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: More importantly, I don't think that frequency of use is the best way to figure out something that is fundamentally a grammatical question and has consequences for meaning. So let me propose a grammatical reason: "Fooish awards" has, to me, a bit more of a suggestion that the awards are inherently tied to the nation from which they are made, but many awards, while sponsored or started from a particular nation, are international in consideration. So "Awards of Nation" makes a bit more sense to me. YMMV. --lquilter 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - 'New Zealand awards' is particularly clumsy. roundhouse 16:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Category:Monegasque awards also strikes me as being somewhat unhelpful. --Xdamrtalk 02:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all lquilter's argument is entirely the wrong way round imo as the "of" form implies that the award is made by the national government. Chicheley 01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should perhaps note that these categories do encompass awards made by the state in addition to those awarded by private national bodies. However, to my mind, 'of' suggests 'of the nation' rather than 'of the government'.
Xdamrtalk 02:07, 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:Wards of Seoul[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. We have a duplicate category - Category:Wards of Seoul amd Category:Gu of Seoul. We can't have both. The question is, should the single category that is left be called "Wards", "Gu", or "Administrative divisons"? There's lively argument here, and no consensus. I'm pretty much going to have to make a judgement call here, judging the arguments, and I hope I get it right and don't get too many people mad - or, at least, leave everyone equally mad.

I think the argument against "Ward" is pretty strong. At least in America, this has a very strong inference of an electoral division, which I gather the Seoul divisions don't have. So Ward is out. The arguments for "Gu" and "Administrative divison" are both good.

Partly, I'm thinking context here. Probably most people making use of this category - that is, people researching or at any rate browsing over info on Seoul to a fairly detailed level - will pretty much be able to pick up what a Gu is. So I don't see a pressing need to translate the term. And absent a pressing need, I suppose it's better to use the word that is actually used by Seoulians. This does give more exactitude; translations are necessarily approximations, generally. I guess, then, to "do least harm" to the term is to leave it untranslated. Too, Category:Gu of Seoul did recently survive a CfD, which counts for something, if not a lot.

Anyway, Delete and retain Category:Gu of Seoul is how I see it. Herostratus 07:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wards of Seoul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete and move contents to Category:Gu of Seoul, see CfD on Gu of Seoul. Not sure if this is speediable. cab 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in line with the article Wards of Seoul. Make Category:Gu of Seoul a redirect as Gu is a foreign term that very few non-Koreans will recognise. Chicheley 07:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And "ward" is virtually never used in the Korean context. The article you reference was created just a week ago from the content of Seoul#Administrative divisions, and should probably be redirected back to that. Clearly someone has been rather busy; the same editor also created Wards of Busan. Sigh... -- Visviva 14:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Delete, per previous discussion. Since we chose to keep Category:Gu of Seoul, I'll repopulate that category right now. "Wards" is not a standard translation of Korean gu. -- Visviva 14:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Repopulation complete (I think). The two categories are now 100% redundant with one another, pending resolution here. -- Visviva 15:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the category definition for Category:Gu of Seoul, it points to Administrative divisions of South Korea where Gu is defined in the overiew as a Ward and later on as a district in the Gu section header and then as a borough in the section description. This is the English wikipedia and wherever possible, English translations should be used that are more accessible to English readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Safemariner (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 January 2007.
    • Most, if not all, of the stuff about "wards" has been added very recently, and does not reflect established practice inside or outside of Wikipedia. Come to think of it, "borough" would be an excellent translation, but it isn't in common use either. -- Visviva 15:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a further thought: As a look at Ward (politics) shows, the meaning of "ward" varies considerably from one country to another. For instance, to a Chicagoan like me it suggests an impermanent electoral division; this is very different from the signification of gu in Korea. Even leaving aside the fact that it is not common, I don't think the translation "ward" is likely to be helpful to any users who are not already familiar with Japanese administrative divisions. I could be wrong, but that's how it seems to me. -- Visviva 15:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to whichever English term is the best fit. There are many examples of English terms being used in the category names for categories of subdivisions, and there is not an assumption that the definition is exactly the same for every case that uses the same term. Using hundreds of different terms for such categories would not help readers. Osomec 09:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renames can be considered, here or elsewhere; maybe Category:Administrative divisions of Seoul would be ideal (though not precisely isomorphic in scope). But given that this is a recently-created duplicate, is there any particular reason why we need two identical categories? -- Visviva 10:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not entirely sure that everyone understands: this is a duplicate category. It is completely redundant with a pre-existing category which has just survived CfD and appears to have general support from the editors active in the topic area. -- Visviva 10:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think fewer people discussed that CFD because they did not know what "Gu" means. There is more meaningful discussion here --- Safemariner 18:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must disagree in the strongest terms. "Wards" is not, and has not been since 1945, a correct or common translation of gu. Ergo, this is a neologistic and redundant category. The fact that so many people have !voted without noting the basic facts of the case is troubling, and does not indicate a "meaningful discussion," rather the opposite. -- Visviva 13:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, then if Wards has not been the correct or common translation, what has been the correct or common translation? Please remember that this is the English Wikipedia --- Safemariner 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Administrative divisions of Seoul as that is useful. The experts who are happy to use "Gu" because they know what it means seem to forget that Wikipedia is aimed at the general reader. Nathanian 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why this is any more of a problem than any other category name containing a technical term. However, I am OK with the proposed merge. -- Visviva 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's no generally accepted English equivalent for "gu", then the merge to the more generic Administrative divisions of Seoul seems reasonable; suggest a note then added to the category page to explain to future editors the absence of any "Gu of"/"Wards of" subcategories. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per Nathanian, as "Gu" is a Korean term with which most general readers will not be familar with. --MChew 11:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and reconsider name of existing category It's a meaningful distinction, but a better naming convention should be found. As a native English speaker residing in Uijeongbu (soon relocating to Seoul), I find both names linguistically awkward. Why not "Seoul Gu," or "Seoului Gu?" Presumably because these would be hard to understand for English speakers. But the half-translation of reversing the word order and using English grammatical structure, with the word "of," doesn't render it comprehensible to English speakers, and doesn't sound right to someone with the context to know what a "gu" is. Imagine calling it "Gus of Seoul," picking up the English convention of using an -s suffix to indicate a plural... or calling it "Goos..." to avoid linguistic confusion with the name "Gus." For a practical alternative, why not consider Category:Administrative divisions of Seoul: Gu, or something like it? In any event, we clearly don't need the duplicate category named "wards..."

zadignose 01:49, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_7&oldid=1115158107"