Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 10

< June 9	June 11 >

June 10[edit]

Category:Cape Cod Transit[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 09:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Transportation in Massachusetts, or at least Rename to Category:Transportation in Cape Cod. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note, BTW, that the stub template which (incorrectly) feeds this category has been on WP:SFD for the last few days and will likely be deleted. Grutness...wha? 05:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Medical Schools in New York[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 09:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Schools of medicine in the United States, or at least Rename to Category:Medical schools in New York. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If renamed it should be to Category:Schools of medicine in New York. Craig.Scott 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Daria[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 11:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Daria

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following extensive cleanup, the remaining material does not require a category for navigation. It's all interlinked and there's a navtemplate. Otto4711 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one has a fictional city, a fictional school, a fictional musical group, and a fictional television show, none of which have a Daria-associated category to go into if this category is deleted.--Mike Selinker 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete True, there are three or four articles that aren't characters or episodes. But those articles are easily navigated from the main article, and the bottom line question is "can a reader going to the main article easily navigate all the associated articles from there?" The answer appears to be yes, so this category can be safely deleted. Dugwiki 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I corrected a category in Lawndale High so the article won't be orphaned if this category is deleted. It's also under Category:Fictional schools now (previously it had a red-linked category that didnt' exist.) Dugwiki 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Users would be able to navigate all of Wikipedia's articles even if it didn't have a category system, but they can do it better with one, and the same applies on a smaller scale. Dugwiki seems to assume that a reader will always approach a subject via the main article, which is simply not how things work. Casperonline 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike Selinker. Tim! 09:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Stauffenberg[edit]

Propose rename Category:Stauffenberg to Category:Stauffenberg family

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 11:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in line with the convention for non-ruling families. Æthelwold 23:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete at Stauffenberg family, per many recent CFDs for categories named for families. An article is a better vehicle for illustrating family relationships, which an alphabetical category listing can't do. Otto4711 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Conditional Delete, else rename. Only if the article is written, and all of these prominently link to it. Otherwise we are giving up a navigation aid, and dab, in return for nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename and keep As with hundreds of other family categories. Mowsbury 13:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling reason for keeping this category. What makes this one different from the dozens of previously nominated categories for families which have almost uniformly been deleted? Otto4711 14:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Otto, that's just nonsense. The legitimacy of family categories has long been established, and many renaming of this type have been made. It should also be pointed out that for these European noble families these categories stand in lieu of placing the articles in the relevant national nobility category, so if they were deleted, thousands of articles would be torn out of their proper place in the category system unless another category was added in the place of the deleted one. Sumahoy 00:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that all family categories are illegitimate or that the overall "legitimacy" of family categories is in question. What I am saying is that this particualr family category is not necessary for the material within it. We have in the recent past deleted probably close to a hundred similar family categories, for sports families, "Hollywood families," political families and the like. In almost every instance of a family category's being nominated over the last several months, it has been deleted as being unnecessary for organizational or navigational purposes. Pointing to other categories which have not to date been considered for deletion and saying that this one should be kept because those ones are in place is the essence of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of other categories does not justify the existence of this category. As for the category's supposed use to de-clutter Category:German nobility, all of the articles in the category are also categorized in that cat, so this category is not being used in the manner you describe. The nominated category is in Category:German noble houses and none of the categorized articles are. I remain unconvinced that the category is serving any useful or necessary function that the article Stauffenberg family doesn't serve and I maintain that the article, which with the attention of a subject matter expert can be used to explain the actual realtionships between the various family members, is the far superior way to organize the information. Otto4711 15:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per convention. Sumahoy 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
Rename per nom and Sumahoy, in particular noting the point about the categorization of the nobility. Casperonline 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's not a single article in this category that isn't also in the German nobility category (unless someone's removed them since yesterday). Otto4711 03:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The recent precedents are for trivial showbiz families and the like, which are not comparable to noble houses. Showbiz people are notable for their own talents, but in traditional societies one had to be a member of the nobility to have power, and it is impossible to be a member of the nobility without belonging to a particular noble house. Only minor family categories have been nominated and deleted recently, so their power as precedents is weak. I note that Otto4711 is yet to nominate Category:Kennedy family or Category:House of Bourbon for deletion. Perhaps they should be nominated now to create some "keep" precedents. Oliver Han 10:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion this category is somehow more worthy than other categories is textbook bias. It is also not true that similar categories haven't been deleted. Here is a CFD for two Canadian political families. Here is the CFD that includes the Trump family. The importance of the family is irrelevant to whether there should be a category. Otto4711 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Weizsäcker[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, due to a)"propose delete" paired with "nominator's rationale: rename", and b)plenty of "rename per nom's". How on earth can you say rename per nom when the nom doesn't specify what to rename to? --Kbdank71 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Weizsäcker

Nominator's rationale: Rename in line with the convention for non-ruling families. Æthelwold 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of the article Weizsäcker, per many recent CFDs for categories named for families. The article clearly establishes the familial relationships between the people, something the category can't do. Otto4711 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The category provides access via the category system. Wikipedia has many access routes, not just one, and that is one of its great strengths. Mowsbury 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Conditional Delete, else rename. If all the articles have See also links to the family. Otherwise we are giving up a navigation aid, and dab, in return for nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename and keep As with hundreds of other family categories. I have moved the articles to the correct name. Mowsbury 13:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling reason for keeping this category. What makes this one different from the dozens of previously nominated categories for families which have almost uniformly been deleted? Otto4711 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per umpteen precedents. If Otto thinks that these categories are "almost uniformly deleted" he can't have been involved in the issue for long, as he is entirely wrong about as to the facts. Sumahoy 00:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can dig up the links to the CFDs for the hundred or so family categories that have been deleted over the last few months if you really need to see them. Regardless, even if some time before that some family categories were nominated and kept, consensus can change. Otto4711 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and Sumahoy, in particular noting the point about the categorization of the nobility. If the existence of one method of navigation rendered all the others redundant, most of Wikipedia's best functions would be deleted. The fact that they overlap, and that readers have a choice what they use, rather than being forced to use the method that best suits the way that someone else's mind works - say Otto4711's mind for example - whether or not it suits the way their own mind works, is one of Wikipedia's main strengths. Casperonline 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in particular regarding the notion that this category is depopulating the German nobility category, five of the eight people in this category are also in the nobility category (the other three don't appear to be nobles) so it is simply not true that the existence of this category is serving any role in diffusing the nobility cat. Otto4711 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The recent precedents are for trivial showbiz families and the like, which are not comparable to noble houses. Showbiz people are notable for their own talents, but in traditional societies one had to be a member of the nobility to have power, and it is impossible to be a member of the nobility without belonging to a particular noble house. Only minor family categories have been nominated and deleted recently, so their power as precedents is weak. I note that Otto4711 is yet to nominate Category:Kennedy family or Category:House of Bourbon for deletion. Perhaps they should be nominated now to create some "keep" precedents. Oliver Han 10:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion this category is somehow more worthy than other categories is textbook bias. It is also not true that similar categories haven't been deleted. Here is a CFD for two Canadian political families. Here is the CFD that includes the Trump family. The importance of the family is irrelevant to whether there should be a category. Otto4711 19:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kant[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Kant

Nominator's rationale: Rename in line with the convention for categories named after individuals. Æthelwold 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Immanuel Kant as nom presumably forgot to say. Please also change nom to rename not delete at top! Johnbod 23:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Immanuel Kant Mowsbury 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kenan & Kel[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Kenan & Kel

Nominator's rationale: Delete - minus the improperly categorized actors, now removed, the remaining three articles are easily interlinked and do not require an eponymous category. Otto4711 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 04:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tugs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Tug boats --Kbdank71 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Tugs to Category:Tugboats

Nominator's rationale: 1) Matches parent article name, tugboat, 2) Less ambiguous ~~3) An encyclopedia should prefer formal terms over colloquialisms/slang~~. Sohelpme 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by extension, Category:United States Navy tugs->Category:United States Navy tugboats. Sohelpme 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename per nom Johnbod 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)see below[reply]

Oppose Tug is, according to the OED, the older word in this sense, and it looks like more of the articles in the category use it. It is not slang. This may be another Anglo-American difference; which would be another reason to let sleeping tugs lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it didn't even occur to me that this one might be a AE/BE thing, so I didn't check. I still think (closer) matching the article name and being less ambiguous would be desirable, so Category:Tug boats is also fine by me. Sohelpme 03:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed again to Rename to Category:Tug boats, Oppose per PMA above. It does seem to be a AE/BE difference. I wonder if Category:Tug boats, which is another common term, would be clearer & split the difference? Johnbod 00:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category: Tug boats or Category: Tug-boats, because the OED says this:

  b. Any other towing craft or vehicle, spec.
   (a) = tug aircraft below;
   (b) a tractor used to tow aircraft on the ground or unpowered road vehicles.

132.205.44.134 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as I would like to see the category following the article name. If there is indeed an AE/EE, or any other issue, its venue should be at tugboat. Tewfik^Talk 04:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Foreign relations of Kurdistan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge --Kbdank71 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Foreign relations of Kurdistan

Nominator's rationale: The category is hopelessly underpopulated and since Kurdistan is a mere highly controversial geographic region with undefined borders we are better off without it. Also see similar noms:

The category appears to endorse a "country" status to Kurdistan. see: Category:Foreign relations by country -- Cat ^chi? 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep The phrase "hopelessly underpopulated" is pretty much meaningless. Postlebury 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. There is no Kurdistan claiming to be a country. So there is nothing out there to have foreign relations with countries. The only thing "close" to a Kurdish country is Iraqi Kurdistan which claims to be a part of Federal Iraq. It wouldn't even make sense to have a Category:Foreign relations of California or Category:Foreign relations of Iraqi Kurdistan even then. -- Cat ^chi? 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Kurdistan that could be involved in foreign relations does not (yet) exist. The single item inside is miscategorized. Pavel Vozenilek 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. The kurds in Irak have a historical friendship with USA. It exist still. See Iraq war. --Bohater 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Note that the (single) article in this cat deals with the nineteenth century and earlier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it can be tagged as "Kurdish history" or something along the line. -- Cat ^chi? 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep, per pov. --Bohater 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course Kurdistan should be a country but it isn't yet. -- Visviva 06:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; regardless of the status of Kurdistan, it seems that an upmerge would prevent WP:Overcategorization and excess hierarchies. Tewfik^Talk 04:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dynasties in New York[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Schuyler dynasty in New York to Category:Schuyler family

Nominator's rationale: Rename, if the Van Rensellaers make do with Category:Rensselaer family, so can these families. Categories should be short and neutral, these are neither Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with many other recently-deleted categories named for families, these are not needed for navigational purposes. An article on the family illustrates the familial relationships better than a category can and the volume of material is not such that it requires categorization. Otto4711 18:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I agree with Otto, but here there is no article. Johnbod 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have created stub articles for Schuyler family and Van Cortland family, similar to that created for Crumb family to allow for deletion of the Crumb family category. In the absence of such articles for other family categories, however, IMHO the cats can still be deleted as long as the articles within it are sufficiently interlinked. Otto4711 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to deletion in principle; I didn't make these cats. But these are slightly worse than the cats; they supply no information on the relationships and are harder to find. An article like Weizsäcker would be a real improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I will change my vote when all the category members are included in the articles, and all articles also include links to the family articles, which I think is necessary - otherwise information is being lost. For me deletion depends on the context; the Crumbs were probably as small a family as I would expect an article for; the Reichmann family not so long ago were the other side of the line - 3 brothers & some buildings would not have needed an article to delete the category, though in fact the article existed. The more spread out the family, the more an article is needed. Johnbod 23:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please big up the nomination font - I did not even see the Van Courtlands Johnbod 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to tweak Template:lcss. I don't mind things as they are, myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if used correctly (see noms above and below) it doesn't come out like this. I certainly do mind it - as I said I didn't see one nomination. Johnbod 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sections above and below look exactly the same as this on my computer; but the size is set by {{lcss}}, and I am reluctant to fool with it. Do go talk to them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, the small lines have both old & new categories in them? I doubt it! Johnbod 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per many, many precedents. They're not the only Schuylers in the world. "Dynasty" is a subjective term. Doczilla 07:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the standard form per many, many precedents. It has long been established that family categories are legitimate. Sumahoy 00:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the legitimacy of family categories in general is not in question in this nomination. This nomination is regarding the necessity of these categories. Otto4711 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Family categories are far more convenient for navigation than articles. Casperonline 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. These are helpful for navigation, just really poorly named. — Laura Scudder ☎ 12:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for "keep" !voters - Why, specifically, are these categories more necessary than the deleted Reichmann family category and the dozens of similarly deleted categories whose CFDs are linked to in the Reichmann family discussion? Otto4711 18:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - The only potentially notable Reichmanns were the three brothers with articles. The Schuylers already with articles span several generations, and the category is capable of considerable expansion. If there were an adequate article or list the category could go imho, but per myself and Pmanderson above a simple list with no information, which is not linked to in the articles, does not cut it. Would that survive AfD? Of course not - should be a category they would say. Johnbod 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arquette family, which replaced the category, appears to be surviving AFD. Otto4711 19:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Johnbod. Oliver Han 10:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I think the distinction drawn between the Reichmann family and the Category:Rothschild family on the CfD hints at a good principle to apply to the larger debate on families. Tewfik^Talk 04:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Shows on hiatus[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Shows on hiatus

Nominator's rationale: Delete - too loose of an association and too temporary of an association to warrant a category. Otto4711 17:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete transient category. Doczilla 07:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would require continual maintenance. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Not worth the effort. Mowsbury 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, and not defining either. Aren't they all on hiatus during the rerun season? Carlossuarez46 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Iron and steel mills[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Iron and steel mills to Category:Iron and Steel Works

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The usual term is "Works" not "Mills". The category should cover blast furnace, which would probably only be a "mill" if blown by measn of a waterwheel, but many from the Industrial Revolution onwards were powered by steam engines, and are thus not corectly described as "mills". Certainly modern electrically powered steelworks are not correctly described as mills, though no doubt the term is sometimes used for them. I believe that the category as renmed will rather more precisely fit the likely content. Peterkingiron 17:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the lead articles are Ironworks and Steel mill and the subcat is Category:Ironworks and steelworks in the United Kingdom so it's not clear to me that "works" is the common word for both things. Regardless of the outcome the final name should follow proper capitalization conventions (the proposed rename doesn't). Otto4711 17:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this is another Anglo-American difference; in which case Leave it alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To whatever extent it may be an AE/BE diff (steel mill says it is), agree with Septentrionalis to leave it alone. Even the Cambridge U. dictionary has "steel mill" seemingly equal with "steelworks" and doesn't limit "mill" to things driven by a waterwheel. Sohelpme 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Iron mill" does seem relatively uncommon, so I wouldn't oppose a rename to Category:Ironworks and steel mills, though it doesn't really seem necessary to me. Sohelpme 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only rename to Category:Ironworks and steel mills per Sohelpme, or leave it alone. There are plenty of N American "Iron works" in the category, and at least one "steel mill" (Brymbo) from the UK. Johnbod 22:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nom - The article Steel mill indicates that the British and Austrialian term is steelworks. This is a case where the USA and Britain are divdied by a common language. Brymbo started life as an ironworks. The article reads "Brymbo Steel Mill was a former large steelworks". The article is a stub and needs attention (which I may give it, now I know it exists). My problem is partly that before 1860 steel was almost never made in anything in as an ironworks. From the introduction of the Bessemer process that changed. I have been putting pre-1850 blast furnaces into this category, becasue there is nothing else, but it does feel odd to be describing a charocal blast furnace as a "steel mill", when it had nothing whatever to do with the production of steel. Do we need to divide this category or to create subcategories? I have not get discovered how to create categories; I am not an admin. Peterkingiron 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since writing the above, I have moved Brymbo to Brymbo Steelworks. I have also been through the category and moved USA examples to a new subcategory, having found how to do this. Peterkingiron 15:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the category name should be subject to whatever the current consensus on ironworks and steel mill is. In that spirit, I would support a procedural renaming to Category:Ironworks and steel mills per Johnbod. Tewfik^Talk 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Eurovision presenters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete/listify --Kbdank71 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Eurovision presenters

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as improper performer by performance categorization, or merge to the parent Category:Game show hosts. Otto4711 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I think the category is intended to be Category:Eurovision Song Contest hosts. Eurovision is an international network of TV stations enabling programmes from one country to be broadcast in others. This is a serious international competition (or perhaps not very serious - that is a matter of opinion). Eurovision Song Contest is certainly NOT a game show. Whether the hosts (and other commentators) need a category is another question, on which I do not express an opinion. Peterkingiron 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a list. Lugnuts 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify - Some users (such as Peterkingiron) may not know that a decision was made a few months ago to delete and listify all performer by performance categories. This was because some performers (including presenters) may have easily made appearances in one hundred or more different films or TV productions. The systems of categorization was impractical. This is why this category needs to be deleted. [[ 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not normally follow arguments about TV issues, so was certainly unfamiliar with the point raised by Dr. Submillimeter. My concern was that the nomination treated the programme as a "game show", which it is not; my objective was thus to oppose the suggested merge. Delete/listify would be acceptable to me. As far as i am concerned, so would plain delete. Peterkingiron 22:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & listify per nom's citation of precedent. Tewfik^Talk 04:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Towns and villages in southern Wirral[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this doesn't make sense. Either this category should be divided between Villages in Cheshire and Towns in Cheshire, or the parents should be merged to form Category:Towns and villages in Cheshire. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the Wirrall was a district that had been removed from Cheshire in 1974 to form a Metropolitan Borough within Merseyside. If places are within Wirrall District, I would suggest a category Category:Towns and Villages in Wirrall. If they are part of the Wirrall peninsula, but not within the Metrolitan Borough, I would agree the merger with Cheshire categories. I do not know the locval goegraphy well enough to comment further. Peterkingiron 17:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Towns and villages are not the same thing at all in the UK, and there is no difficulty at all as to whether a place is a town or a village, it is a straightforward question of fact. There should not be any combined categories for towns and villages. Postlebury 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~Delete The article on the Wirral Peninsula had a long list of places in it. The Wirral is a distinct geographic entity and it is legitimate to list the places in it but the list itself did look right in the article. Consequently it was decided to replace the list of places in the article with links to categories. Most of the places on the Wirral are in the Category:Towns and villages in Wirral but this can only contain places in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. Some other places are in Category:Ellesmere Port and Neston. However there are a small number of places on the Wirral which are in the district of Chester City. Not all the places in this district of Chester are in the Wirral and this category does fill the need for a complete list of places on the Wirral. If you decide to delete this category you also have to decide how the article on the Wirral Peninsula should also be amended. JMcC 11:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. I have re-listed the five villages in question back in the article on the Wirral Peninsula (note only one 'L'). I have removed the erroneous category from the villages in question. All that remains is for someone to zap the category. JMcC 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that not now make it a candidate for Speedy delete? Peterkingiron 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The decision mentioned above was a mistake. Southern Wirrall is a red link, and it is not a recognised subdivision with agreed boundaries. As this issue is confusing, it is better covered in an article, where context may be supplied. Mowsbury 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Prominent New York University Alumni[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:New York University alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Mowsbury 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Notable alumni of the Dalton School[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Dalton School alumni, see also June 9th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, who was presumably in too much of a rush to point out that if they are not notable they won't have articles. Johnbod 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pages over 100K[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Articles to be trimmed, which is populated by a template, see also June 2nd discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as arbitrary. Why 100K as opposed to some other length? Suggest also deleting the target category for the same reasons that the "Articles that are too long" category was deleted. The supposed need to shorten articles is completely subjective. Otto4711 13:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The target category is subjective; this is objective. Nor does it require anything to be done about the article; but some of us would prefer to see if a 200K article can be usefully divided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both This one is arbitary, and the other makes crude assumptions that may not be justified in all cases. Postlebury 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over about 90K trying to save an article takes forever--I strongly disagree that "the supposed need to shorten articles is completely subjective". Sohelpme 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be as long or as short as is needed to cover the topic in an encyclopedic fashion. If an encyclopedic treatment of a subject requires an article longer than 100K or whatever length, then it should be that long without pressure to trim it. Otto4711 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of many Wikipedians that believe that as an article gets too long it starts to lose value, as the important/high level details get lost in the minutia, and that it is much better to use Wikipedia:Summary style to get the main article down to a digestible length, and have the finer detail in sub-articles. Note "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." from the Featured Article Criteria, and having participated in many FAC discussions I've never seen a 100K article become Featured. Sohelpme 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbitary and inappropriate, especially so bearing in mind that complex tables can cause relatively short articles to take up many kilobytes. Mowsbury 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mowsbury. FWIW, the "to be trimmmed" ought to go also. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and subdivide articles to be trimmed into articles over 50k, and articles over the 32k warning size. 132.205.93.83 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and does not actually make a value judgment (although I have a hard time seeing what value there could be in 100K pages in mainspace). Wonder if it might be worthwhile to put some ParserFunctions in the appropriate MediaWiki page to populate this automatically. -- Visviva 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless to readers. As a minimum it should be moved to talk pages. Casperonline 22:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, and if policy would support it, some categorisation Talkside would be in order. Neither of these should appear in articlespace. Tewfik^Talk 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Actors of Native American Ancestory[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge, and delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Native American actors, misspelled duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Redundant and misspelled. Sohelpme 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above. --7Kim 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Primates of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Primates of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem into Category:Armenian Patriarchs of Jerusalem

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The two categories are redundant with each other. The term "Patriarch" is used more often than "Primate" to refer to these people, so the two categories should be merged into the "Patriarch" category. Dr. Submillimeter 10:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible suggestion - overlong names with redundant description are to be deplored. Peterkingiron 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of primatecruft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - always the same person. Johnbod 19:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This is a duplicate category whose only purpose is to allow the word "primate" to appear in the category list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, though I do find the word amusing. nadav (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom (I personally got lost in these categories last week - talk about karma). Tewfik^Talk 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Primates of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Primates of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople

Nominator's rationale: *Delete - This category is redundant with Category:Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople. Both categories contain the same articles. The title "Patriarch" is used much more frequently than "Primate" for these people. The "Primate" category therefore should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible suggestion - overlong names with redundant description are to be deplored. Peterkingiron 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remove primate cruft; make sure however that the category does have Primate somewhere in its tree. (At the moment, Category:Catholicoi of Armenia does not, although the article Catholicos of Armenia does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - always the same person. Johnbod 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a duplicate category whose only purpose is to allow the word "primate" to appear in the category list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and suggest that a general MOS be designed for this sort of subject matter - this would be as good a time as any. Tewfik^Talk 04:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Primates of the Macedonian Orthodox 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Macedonian Orthodox Church to Category:Archbishops of Ohrid and Macedonia

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The one article in this category refers to the person as the "Archbishop of Ohrid and Macedonia". The category should be renamed to match the term used in the article. Dr. Submillimeter 09:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think the present title is appropriate. There should be at least one other article in the category, on Dositheus, according to Macedonian Orthodox Church, but that article is at presetn a redirect to something completely unrelated. Peterkingiron 18:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, but keep the supercats. The Archbishop Dositheus mentioned in that article is an archbishop of Ohrid and Macedonia, so the new name will work as well for him. The redirect should go, since it is to a dab page for Agathias son of Dositheus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Primate is always the archbishop, it seems. Johnbod 19:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - but it should be Category:Archbishops of Ohrid and Macedonia (plural). -- roundhouse 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So it should. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I changed the name in the top line of the nomination. Dr. Submillimeter 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Archbishops of Ohrid and Macedonia, since the position is better known as the archbishop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, primate-->archbishop. Tewfik^Talk 04:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Primates of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church to Category:Bishops of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The one person in this category, Carlos Duarte Costa, is referred to as a bishop of this church and not as a primate. The category therefore should be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 09:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have just added the present head of this church, who is described as patriarch to the category, Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez. The church is said to have 48 dioceses, presumably each of which has a bishop; if this is correct, a separate category is needed for its head. I know nothing of the subject and am not qualified to say what the correct title of the head of the church is. Peterkingiron 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support When we have articles on all 48 bishops, we can worry about subcats. By that time we may even know what see these two assert; Mendez was Bishop of Brasilia, but that was before he was Primate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nom has I think misread Costa's article - the lead describes him as a bishop of the RC church before he was excommunicated. Afterwards he is described as primate. The current, 3rd, head Mendez is described as Patriarch in both articles. I think this one is best left; there is no duplication. Johnbod 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pastorwayne 21:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Pastorwayne appears not to understand that CfD is not a vote, and that the closing admin should weigh arguments rther than just count heads. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Patrirachs of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, since the holder of this post appears appears to be referred to as a patriarch (see Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bishop refers to before the split, while primate refers to after. Tewfik^Talk 04:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches into Category:Catholic bishops not in communion with Rome

Propose merge Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome into Category:Catholic bishops not in communion with Rome

Nominator's rationale: Merge - See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30#Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 29#Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome. At the moment, these two categories and Category:Primates of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church all form an extended category tree for one person, Carlos Duarte Costa. At least one of the categories should be deleted. In the last discussion, people thought that it would be appropriate to keep the "not in communion" category, as that term was more accurate. Also note that the final category should probably use "bishop" and not "primate", as both Wikipedia articles and pages outside Wikipedia refer to Carlos Duarte Costa as a "bishop" but not as a "primate". Dr. Submillimeter 09:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We probably only need one of these categories, not both. The Church of England claims to be a "Catholic" Church, or at least Anglo-Catholics do, so that the Archbishop of Canterbury as primate of the Anglican Communion might belong. There is also the Chinese Catholic Church, which the Peoples Republic of China forced to sever its links with Rome. Similarly there are Old Catholics. The solution is to populate the categories. If the two, I would suggest that Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome is the better one to retain. The proposed "Catholic bishops ..." Category is too wide-ranging, covering not only primates, but ordinary bishops. Peterkingiron 17:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a Category:Anglo-Catholicism. I would prefer to upmerge these all the way to Category:Catholics not in communion with Rome, and then sort that out. We need cats by Church, obviously; we have cats by see and should extend them. Do we need primate cats? Or can we get along with putting Costa, or his see, into Category:Primates? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome per Peterkingiron above. See previous discussion also. Johnbod 19:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Catholic bishops not in communion with Rome. Some of these groupings are so small that their only bishop is a primate, and the significance of the primate title is doubtful. An article or list would be a better way of explaining the issues of primacy in these breakaways. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom and BHG's remarks. Tewfik^Talk 03:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

South East Asian categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:South East Asian bishops

Propose delete Category:South East Asian Anglicans

Propose delete Category:South East Asian Christians

Propose delete Category:South East Asian bishops

Propose delete Category:South East Asian Anglican bishops

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is a complex category tree created for Category:Archbishops of South East Asia. While "Archbishops of South East Asia" refers to the title of an actual person, all of the other categories appear to be an attempt just to sort people according to a subregion of Asia (or the categories reflect the fact that their creator does not understand Wikipedia's categorization system at all). The nominated categories should all be deleted because "South East Asia" is a geographical region with vague boundaries and because categories for countries are usually more effective. Otherwise, editors will need to guess whether people in Bangladesh, the Philippines, Myanmar, Thailand, or southern China should be placed in these categories. (If Category:Archbishops of South East Asia needs parent categories to indicate its geography, then multiple categories for individual countries would be more appropriate than this one.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are certainly too many categories. I presume they all relate to Church of the Province of South East Asia, primarily covering Malaysia, but with the bishops of Singapore covering outposts in several countries of Southeast Asia, including Nepal, but not Bangladesh. This is an autonomous church within the Anglican communion. the category used for the archbishop correctly reflects the church name. A category will be needed for the other bishops of this church: I would suggest that Category:South East Asian Anglican bishops should be retained. A category will also be needed for other prominent members of the church, and I would suggest Category:South East Asian Anglicans. For the other categories, I would suggest that a check should be made that all persons in the category are indeed members of the church in question and the remaining categories should be merged with those whose retention I am suggesting. Peterkingiron 18:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In effect, Peterkingiron seems to be recommending that two "South East Asian Anglican" categories be kept for people and bishops who belong to the Church of the Province of South East Asia. Is that correct? If so, then I agree that the categories could be kept for this purpose, but textual descriptions will be needed to explain the categories' purpose. Otherwise, the categories will be used for anyone from South East Asia who belongs to any Anglican denomination. Dr. Submillimeter 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for now, as there is only one article between the lot of them. This without prejudice to recreation along the lines Pki suggests, if more articles come. Johnbod 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Redundant category clutter. Postlebury 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There's no need to create an all-Christianity regional hierarchy to work around one job title in a denomination with relatively few adherents in the region. Mowsbury 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Mowsbury. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all overcategorisation per Mowsbury. Tewfik^Talk 03:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Strigiformes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Strigiformes into Category:Owls

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The names seem to be identical. Strigiformes redirects to Owl. Eliyak T·C 06:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This category may be part of a hierarchy of articles sorted using a classification scheme with scientific names. While such category names have become the established convention on Wikipedia, it is unclear that people like using the names. However, I have encountered problems using common names to classify stars, as people are not necessarily certain as to what can or cannot be classified according to the common name. In contrast, the scientific name for stars are unambiguous. The same could probably be said for animals here. Hence, I advocate keeping the scientific name. Dr. Submillimeter 09:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have noticed a number of cases where the hierarchy uses the common name instead of the scientific one, when the two are synonymous.. For example, Category:Snakes and Category:Frogs. I have also just noticed that Category:Owls itself had been nominated for renaming to Category:Strigiformes, which it was not. The current Category:Strigiformes was created four months after that discussion. I see that there are a couple other categories that had a similar history, which I will also nominate for renaming if it turns out those names are also identical. --Eliyak T·C 14:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Categories has a policy that the common name should be used in cases like this. Looking deeper, there seems to be a widespread problem in the bird articles and categories, possibly the work of a single user. I have taken up the larger question at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Birds. --Eliyak T·C 16:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Wikipedia is aimed at the general public so it should use common names wherever possible. Postlebury 19:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two completely seperate classification schemes: Category:birds by common name and Category:Birds by classification. This seems a touch extravagant to an outsider like me, but chipping away at one corner of the mighty edifice is pointless. I note that the scientific names hierarchy is much larger and older. I might be prepared to change if there was a clear view from the project. Johnbod 22:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have the impression that no one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life is actively involved in category maintenance, which is too bad. Dr. Submillimeter 09:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that to "maintain" such a category scheme you have to watch every single bird articles. I had most of them on my watchlist after I actually created the "by classification scheme" (which was a way to avoid the feeding of bird species articles into category:Birds), but it was just swamping. Circeus 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Eliyak. Tewfik^Talk 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia poems[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 19:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Wikipedia poems

Nominator's rationale: Only one member, little possibility for development

Thehotelambush 03:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nominator. The single page in the category could go in Wikipedia essays, even if it is not strictly an essay... or maybe Wikipedia humour.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Obviously, we need more poems. -- Visviva 13:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Visviva. It's a valid category, and I intend on creating WP:LIMERICK shortly... ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 05:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just put in Wikipedia Humor category and be done with it. — Moe ε 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:808 State[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:808 State

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous category not needed for the two articles and subcat. Otto4711 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:40 Glocc[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:40 Glocc

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous category is not needed for the name article and an albums subcat. Otto4711 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep way to organize his stuff and its two categorys not oneTru Soulja 05:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tewfik^Talk 03:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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