Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 21

< June 20	June 22 >

June 21[edit]

Category:Historic houses[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 13:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historic houses to Category:Houses

Nominator's rationale: Merge, to complete the removal of redundant and subjective term per the listings below, and several renamings made at earlier dates. Wimstead 23:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a less damaging destination is found. As described in the big nomination below, this removes these houses from Heritage and vistor attractions trees and leaves them only in the "buildings and structures by country" trees. It will only have this effect for certain countries, mainly the UK, and NOT for the US, where purely on a quirk of legal terminology, such houses will remain in these trees. Johnbod 00:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. These categories should not be in the visitor attraction trees as most of the houses with articles with articles are not open to the public, and the heritage tree should not even exist as it is subjective and redundant. Abberley2 01:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that "most of the houses with articles with articles are not open to the public" - in the categories I have looked at that is clearly not true. The apparent statement that no categories dealing with heritage should be allowed as they are "subjective and redundant" is possibly the strangest I have yet seen in a CfD. Johnbod 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to standard, objective and flexible form. Haddiscoe 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As I have repeatedly stated elsewhere, "historic" is a subjective term that is really inappropriate for categorization. No objective definition has been given for "historic". It is really no more useful than the terms "famous" or "notable". Presumably, any house listed in Wikipedia already is "historic", even if it was only built recently, as "non-historic" houses would not be listed. Furthermore, not all houses are necessarily placed in historic registers or are open to the public, so keeping the parent categories for Category:Historic houses is highly inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and other renamers. Ravenhurst 10:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Johnbod's concerns could be addressed by making more use of Category:Historic house museums. Æthelwold 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now we'll get a deletion nomination for that tomorrow, so I doubt it! In any case the rather odd and narrow definition of that category would fit very few of these articles.Johnbod 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Historic house museum" appears to be a technical term used outside of Wikipedia for a class of museums; see, for example, http://www.housemuseums.us/ . The term should continued to be used in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 17:16, 22 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:Historic houses in Northern Ireland[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 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in Northern Ireland to Category:Houses in Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to reflect global convention and remove subjectivity and redundancy. See more detailed reasoning on the related group nomination for English county categories below. Wimstead 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a less damaging destination is found. As described in the big nomination below, this removes these houses from Heritage and vistor attractions trees and leaves them only in the "buildings and structures by country" trees. It will only have this effect for certain countries, mainly the UK, and NOT for the US, where purely on a quirk of legal terminology, such houses will remain in these trees. Johnbod 00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. These categories should not be in the visitor attraction trees as most of the houses with articles with articles are not open to the public, and the heritage tree should not even exist as it is subjective and redundant. Abberley2 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that "most of the houses with articles with articles are not open to the public" - in the categories I have looked at that is clearly not true. The apparent statement that no categories dealing with heritage should be allowed as they are "subjective and redundant" is possibly the strangest I have yet seen in a CfD. Johnbod 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many buildings with blue plaques in London could be considered "historic", but they still function as private residences. I am certain that similar examples can be identified. Dr. Submillimeter 08:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then, find one. A house with a blue plaque would not be notable for an article by itself. Plus the great majority of such houses (if the original building) will in fact be listed on the normal architectural grounds. I don't think you can ever have looked at a list, and seen how many things are on it. No one has yet attempted to answer my points, which I have repeated many times. Johnbod 11:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a house in London with a blue plaque that is not a visitors attraction: 20 Baron's Court Road, W14, previous home to Mahatma Gandhi. Just by having a blue plaque, the building probably crosses some minimum notability threshold for being on Wikipedia. The building is also a private residence that is not open to the public. I can't check whether the building is listed, but I still do not accept the assumption that all of these buildings must be listed. If they are listed buildings, they could always be placed in the appropriate subcategory of Category:Listed buildings as well as a subcategory of Category:Houses. Dr. Submillimeter 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept an article on that house would survive AfD; these are theoretical bogey-articles. Of course there are hundreds of blue plaques in London - far too many for it to be accepted as notable by itself. No doubt there is a policy on this somewhere. Johnbod 02:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to standard, objective and flexible form. Haddiscoe 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As I have repeatedly stated elsewhere, "historic" is a subjective term that is really inappropriate for categorization. No objective definition has been given for "historic". It is really no more useful than the terms "famous" or "notable". Presumably, any house listed in Wikipedia already is "historic", even if it was only built recently, as "non-historic" houses would not be listed. Furthermore, not all houses are necessarily placed in historic registers or are open to the public, so keeping the parent categories for Category:Historic houses is highly inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and other renamers. Ravenhurst 10:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Johnbod's concerns could be addressed by making more use of Category:Historic house museums. Æthelwold 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, hardly any of these meet the current description for that category:"Historic house museums — historic structures originally intended and/or used as inhabitations, and filled with home objects arranged as if the structure were still inhabited — are correctly identified as historic house museums. As in the rest of the world, others that are historic structures once intended and/or used as homes, but now filled with other kinds of displays, should be reclassified." - houses still lived appear to be ruled out, as do any used for other purposes, or indeed empty of contents. Johnbod 21:28, 22 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:Historic houses in 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 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 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic houses in the United Kingdom to Category:Houses in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to reflect global convention and to remove subjectivity. See more detailed reasoning on related group entry below. Wimstead 23:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a less damaging destination is found. As described in the big nomination below, this removes these houses from Heritage and vistor attractions trees and leaves them only in the "buildings and structures by country" trees. It will only have this effect for certain countries, mainly the UK, and NOT for the US, where purely on a quirk of legal terminology, such houses will remain in these trees. Johnbod 00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. These categories should not be in the visitor attraction trees as most of the houses with articles with articles are not open to the public, and the heritage tree should not even exist as it is subjective and redundant. Abberley2 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that "most of the houses with articles with articles are not open to the public" - in the categories I have looked at that is clearly not true. The apparent statement that no categories dealing with heritage should be allowed as they are "subjective and redundant" is possibly the strangest I have yet seen in a CfD. Johnbod 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to standard, objective and flexible form. Haddiscoe 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As I have repeatedly stated elsewhere, "historic" is a subjective term that is really inappropriate for categorization. No objective definition has been given for "historic". It is really no more useful than the terms "famous" or "notable". Presumably, any house listed in Wikipedia already is "historic", even if it was only built recently, as "non-historic" houses would not be listed. Furthermore, not all houses are necessarily placed in historic registers or are open to the public, so keeping the parent categories for Category:Historic houses is highly inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and other renamers. Ravenhurst 10:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Johnbod's concerns could be addressed by making more use of Category:Historic house museums. Æthelwold 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sadly this is narrowly defined and little help - see last nom. Johnbod 21:32, 22 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:Historic homes in Toronto[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 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic homes in Toronto to Category:Houses in Toronto

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to follow up recent nominations. "Historic" is subjective and redundant. The convention is not to use it, as in Category:Houses in Canada. Wimstead 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a less damaging destination is found. As described in the big nomination below, this removes these houses from Heritage and vistor attractions trees and leaves them only in the "buildings and structures by country" trees. It will only have this effect for certain countries, mainly the UK, and NOT for the US, where purely on a quirk of legal terminology, such houses will remain in these trees. Johnbod 00:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This category contains houses in Toronto, Canada. Also, the parent category for houses in the United States is Category:Houses in the United States; the word "historic" is not used. Dr. Submillimeter 08:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. These categories should not be in the visitor attraction trees as most of the houses with articles with articles are not open to the public, and the heritage tree should not even exist as it is subjective and redundant. Abberley2 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom to standard, objective and flexible form. Haddiscoe 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As I have repeatedly stated elsewhere, "historic" is a subjective term that is really inappropriate for categorization. No objective definition has been given for "historic". It is really no more useful than the terms "famous" or "notable". Presumably, any house listed in Wikipedia already is "historic", even if it was only built recently, as "non-historic" houses would not be listed. Furthermore, not all houses are necessarily placed in historic registers or are open to the public, so keeping the parent categories for Category:Historic houses is highly inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and other renamers. Ravenhurst 10:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Johnbod's concerns could be addressed by making more use of Category:Historic house museums. Æthelwold 15:52, 22 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:Ben 10[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Pages are split into suggested categories. Issue is moot. — Someguy0830 (T

Propose renaming Category:Ben 10 to Category:Ben 10 images

Nominator's rationale: Rename - of the 73 items currently in the category, 67 of them are images. Clearly there needs to be an images category. My understanding is that the least labor-intensive way to get the 67 images into an images category would be to rename this category and, once it's renamed, remove the seven non-image articles from it. If after the rename it is felt that a parent Ben 10 category is needed then it can be created. Otto4711 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see the point, I can move all of them into a new category right now and save the trouble of running this. Really, it's pointless. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment Me doing this won't be any more labor intensive, by the way. A bot doing the renaming wouldn't be much different than me doing it. Either way every image would have to be fixed. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that it would make more sense just to automatically create the new category. I could also move the images into the new category if necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 22:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Speedy close then? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close is fine. As I said, my impression was that what I suggested was the easiest way to do it. Otto4711 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Storm Hawks[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 13:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - another eponymous TV show category. The slight amount of material is extensively interlinked and the category is not required to navigate it. Otto4711 22:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 3 cats that are all interlinked. Precedent for deleting eponymous TV show categories.-Andrew c 03:11, 22 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 "Walled off" Eastern Orthodox 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 delete/merge per Johnbod --Kbdank71 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Primates of "Walled off" Eastern Orthodox Churches to Category:Eastern Orthodox primates

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The term "walled off Eastern Orthodox church" appears to be either a neologism or a very uncommonly-used term. A Google search on variations of this turned up almost nothing outside of Wikipedia. I therefore suggest merging the "walled off" category into Category:Eastern Orthodox primates. Another possibility is merging this into Category:Primates of Eastern Orthodox uncanonical churches, although it is not clear that the two terms mean the same thing. (The editor who created all of these categories did not understand Wikipedia's categorization system very well.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one article, delete restThere are only two articles in all this. One is already connected via Category:Primates of Eastern Orthodox uncanonical churches, and the other appears (?) to be "canonical". I would suggest categorising him (Metropolitan Iziaslav (Brutskiy) under Category:Eastern Orthodox primates & then deleting the category. Johnbod 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Johnbod's elegant solution. It's alarming just how many of these bizarrely-named categories have been created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with the above. Overcategorization and strange use of language in title.-Andrew c 03:13, 22 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:The Shadow 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 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 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization as a variety of performer by performance. Otto4711 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People who worked on the Shadow probably worked on many other subjects as well, and categories for all of these things are generally infeasible. Therefore, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Casperonline 21:31, 21 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:VeggieTales albums[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 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:VeggieTales. Only two entries, and not a big prospect for expansion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:VeggieTales. There doesn't appear to an "Albums by media franchise" category structure and these aren't per the articles strictly speaking soundtracks or albums by artist. Otto4711 17:44, 21 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:Muse[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, precedent --Kbdank71 13:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous band category. The material is interlinked and the subcats are included in the appropriate "by artist" category trees, no need for this category for navigation. Otto4711 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the natural parent of multiple subcategories. Tim! 16:44, 25 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:Karaims[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 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Karaims to Category:Crimean Karaites

Nominator's rationale: Rename, as discussed in the article Crimean Karaites, there is no perfect nomenclature for this group. The name "Crimean Karaites" is itself something of a misnomer, as many branches of this community found their way to locations throughout Europe and the Middle East. Nevertheless this name is used for the Turkic Karaite community which originated in Crimea to distinguish it from historically Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic-speaking Karaites of the Levant, Anatolia, and the Middle East (i.e. to show the difference between the ethnic group and the religious denomination). The word Karaim itself simply means "Karaites" and thus can be misleading when referring to this distinct group. Category:Qarays or Category:Eastern European Karaites might also be appropriate names. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as while there aren't any very good options, the categorisation should follow the main entry's name. Whatever future name should be worked out there. Tewfik^Talk 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. gidonb 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:55, 21 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:The Flaming Lips[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 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous band category. Following the move of member and song articles to the appropriate categories, the remaining material is so extensively interlinked through the articles and navtemplate that the category is unnecessary. Otto4711 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the natural parent of multiple subcategories. Tim! 16:44, 25 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.

Historic houses in England[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all as above.--Mike Selinker 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all using Category:Houses in X - The term "historic" is subjective. It could refer to buildings that are a set age (50, 100, or 500 years old, although most buildings here appear to be older than 100 years old), buildings on a list of "historic" places (such as listed buildings), buildings where historic events occurred, or buildings that no longer exist. Moreover, since only notable buildings are listed in Wikipedia, the term "historic", which really functions like a synonym for "notable" or "famous", should not be used in the category names simply because it is not necessary. Virtually any house listed in Wikipedia could be considered "historic", even if it was only built 20 years ago. Furthermore, similar categories for most other houses do not use "historic"; see Category:Houses by country. These categories for England are exceptions. While I recommend simply renaming using "houses", some users have suggested using "listed houses", which is the UK term for buildings in their historical register (an objective inclusion criterion, unlike "historic houses"). However, it is uncertain whether all of these houses are listed, so I would prefer to use just "houses". Dr. Submillimeter 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing adminsitrator - If renamed, the new name for the Isle of Wight category should use "on", not "in" (e.g. the new name should be Category:Houses on the Isle of Wight. Dr. Submillimeter 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also note that most other categories for "historical houses" have been nominated for renaming along similar lines at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19. I did not nominate these categories with the others only because preparing this nomination would take more time. (Geez, this category tree is large!) Dr. Submillimeter 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename/merge to listed houses categories All these will be listed, and these are the better categories to merge into. Plain "houses" is insufficiently informative, and will detatch these from the place in the heritage hierarchies. Johnbod 16:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Which heritage hierarchy is Johnbod referring to? Again, note that the relevant higher-level category for houses by country is Category:Houses by country, and that no other country's house category uses "historic". Dr. Submillimeter 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  These are all indirect sub-cats of:
  - as well as Category:Houses by country, which is part of Category:Buildings and structures by country. As I keep saying, these nominations are not paying nearly enough attention to wider schemes - how hard was it to find the information I have just given? The USA has hundreds of "Historic districts" and "historic landmarks, and just because the word "historic" is not part of the official title in the UK these are removed from the whole heritage hierarchies. It would be absurd to have the plain "houses" categories, mainly an architectural and planning category tree, included in any of the three categories quoted above. These nominations have not been thought through.Johnbod 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I am tired of these personal attacks by User:Johnbod. I have studied the category tree carefully, and I am well aware of the naming conventions used for categories on Wikipedia. Category:Historic houses is redundant with Category:Houses. "Historic" is a useless qualifier with vague interpretations. I have given ample explanations as to why "historic" is a vague term and how "historic" can be interpreted in multiple ways. Moreover Wikipedia:Overcategorization, under the header "subjective inclusion criteion", states that "Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category." I have already explained that "historic" could have multiple interpretations and is thus a subjective term. User:Johnbod, instead of addressing the problems in interpreting the word "historic" or reading my comments, which obviously took a lengthy amount of time to write, persists in attacking me personally and commenting that I do not think about my nominations, which I find highly offensive. Now then, as for the rest of User:Johnbod's analysis, I have repeatedly stated that whereas the United States uses National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmark, and Historic District, these are all OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DESIGNATIONS BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and not just the use of the word "historic" as a subjective qualifier. When a location is put in the National Register of Historic Places, it is in a government registry. It is not just something that some editor thought could be "historic" because it was over 100 years old or because the architect is dead. Unfortunately, the equivalent United Kingdom term is listed building because the United Kingdom government decided not to use the term "historic" in their government designations. If the United Kingdom used "historic house" or "Her Majesty's Historic Location" or any term other than listed building as an official government designation for houses with "cultural or historic significance", then I would not be advocating renaming these categories. So, unfortunately, the equivalent United Kingdom categories are Category:Listed buildings, such as Category:Listed buildings in England. However, it is UNSAFE to assume that all of these houses are actually listed buildings (e.g. listed in official goverment registries) or that they are open to visitors. Some of them might just be old buildings for all we know. Many buildings in London with blue plaques that could subjectively be called "historic buildings" are actually private homes that are not open to the public. Merging these into Category:Houses structure is safe; keeping the current "historic houses" category tree is contrary to what is done for almost all other places in the world, and the parent categories are both inaccurate and misleading. Dr. Submillimeter 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's doing personal attacks now? It is not unsafe to assume all these are listed. As I have explained in lengthy exchanges on our talk-pages, the criteria for listing in the UK are massively lower than WP notability criteria. There are about 500,000 listed buildings in the UK (442,000 listings, many for multiple buildings)- I challenge you to find any building currently categorised in one of these categories that is not listed (lists all on-line, I believe). Putting them in the "house" categories removes them from the heritage/tourist categories completely; it may be "safe" but it does damage to the project which far outweighs the benefit of any reduction of the "ambiguity" that so worries you. You have never produced a single piece of evidence that any damage or misclassification has actually resulted from the existing category names. Johnbod 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will damage the project to categorize things as what they are not. Abberley2 01:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- All of these should come out of the visitor attraction categories, as the majority of the articles are about houses that are not open to the public. Most likely the first few score houses to get articles were open to the public, but as the number of articles has increased, the balance has moved the other way. Wimstead 23:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "the majority of the articles are about houses that are not open to the public" - Really? Evidence or even examples please - it seems a highly unlikely claim for these UK categories, though it might be true for the US. Johnbod 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were familiar with the relevant content you wouldn't need to ask. I am familiar with it. I have edited List of historic houses in England over 200 times. Wimstead 01:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well since I am not so familiar with the content, I am asking. I have looked at the London category, and with the exception of 10, 11 & 12 Downing St all seem to be open to the public (Schomburg house being a special case as it is only a facade). One or two in Norfolk are not (and a couple no longer exist). You said a majority - I see absolutely no sign of this. Johnbod 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just counted the houses in London that are not open to the public - there are 69 of them! Wimstead 02:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must mean "not often open to the public", which is a very different thing. Are you counting 2 Willow Road, Seaford House etc? These are rarely, but regularly open. What a closer inspection reveals is how many houses no longer exist at all; these would be more seriously misclassified by the proposed nom than they are at present. Johnbod 15:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Johnbod, to avoid detaching these articles from Category:Historic houses etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - However, Category:Historic houses is redundant with Category:Houses. Dr. Submillimeter 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far from it - see above. Johnbod 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so, and worse than redundant. Abberley2 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per wider standard. "Historic" is subjective and adds nothing of value. Casperonline 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I've been thinking of nominating all of these UK categories for months. "Historic house" is the normal term in the UK for the main sense which makes British houses notable, ie the country houses that are (often) open to the public, but that's probably not a good enough reason not to use the same terminology as is used for the rest of the world. It also makes these categories fit better into the visitor attractions categories, but on the other hand there are so many articles about houses that are not open to the public, that they should really be placed in the local visitor attractions one by one as appropriate. Wimstead 23:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Abberley2 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to standard, objective and flexible form. Haddiscoe 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Ravenhurst 10:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Johnbod's concerns could be addressed by making more use of Category:Historic house museums. Æthelwold 15:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic house works better for the UK where the term is understood better than 'house'. There seems to be no confusion in the category's contents to date. Plain 'house' would lead to fusion with other architectural categories (e.g. BedZED) Ephebi 15:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If "historic" is so well understood, what is the objective definition of "historic" that can be used to determine whether or not to include houses in this category? No one can produce a useful definition of the term. Dr. Submillimeter 00:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chambers[1] already recognises the potential for confusion, and offers 'historic' as:famous, important or significant in history versus 'historical':a less judgemental word that refers to something as a fact or to its connection with history). Ephebi 08:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Given that "historic", as used by Chambers, is effectively a synonym for "famous", then the rename is still warranted. Wikipedia will only contain articles on "famous" buildings anyway, as articles on non-notable building will be deleted. Hence, having "famous", "important", "historic", or any other effective synonym in a category title is unnecessary. Dr. Submillimeter 09:12, 27 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:Star Wars Skywalker family[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 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - items in the category are extensively interlinked through the articles and any number of templates. The lead article Skywalker family which includes an extensive family tree is more than sufficient to serve as a navigational hub. Otto4711 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, because nominator seems to be a single-purpose deletion account, plus we're talking about one of the most successful film franchises in history and its central characters. --172.133.145.96 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas your edit history suggests someone who trounces into these things only to speedily keep everything. Doczilla 04:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who's been paying attention knows that I (who has a user ID as opposed to an anonymous IP address) am not a single-purpose account. The prominence of the film franchise is irrelevant as to whether this category is retained. Otto4711 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The characters' articles already connect through the Skywalker family article. That's sufficient. Doczilla 04:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Families -real or fictional- rarely merit an eponymous category. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 22 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:Missing Encyclopedic Articles requests for expansion[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 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Missing Encyclopedic Articles requests for expansion to Category:Move to talk

Nominator's rationale: Move to talk, in line with many other admin/project related categories, as this category is non-defining and not useful to readers. Brandon97 15:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why moving it into the stub list at the bottom of the article would not be acceptable? Its small and pretty much says that it is a stub needing expansion. On the talk page, it would not likely get deleted when the stub was expanded. Not that the stub tags get removed when articles pass that stage anyway. Vegaswikian 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move per nom. Casperonline 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been announced to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. - Andrew c 03:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (2nd choice) move per nom. Don't we want all articles expanded? Doesn't tagging something with stub substitute as a more specific request? Carlossuarez46 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at a few articles and the majority of the ones I looked at are more then a stub. The article talk pages lacked information on what expansion was needed. So at this point I don't see a reason for this maintenance category. I added to the comment on the project talk page so if the project needs this I'll listen to their comments here and change my position as needed. Vegaswikian 05:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian. Alex Middleton 12:08, 23 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:Star Wars Organa family[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 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little to no potential for growth. Eponymous category not required for this material. Otto4711 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tiny category lacking room for growth, per many precedents on deleting these fictional families' articles. While admittedly we're unlikely to find a real world Organa family, as opposed to the Stark family CfD, etc., keeping it would set a bad example. More importantly, the category just isn't useful. All of these characters are named in each others' articles. Doczilla 04:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:02, 22 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:Sitting Manchester MPs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The categories for current MPs were deleted, and this is just a variant on that theme. Brandon97 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What was the rationale for deleting the other categories? I personally see categories of sitting MPs as quite a useful type of categorisation. Far more useful than the ubiquitous and ambiguous "People from <place>" categories Pit-yacker 15:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I too think this is useful, specific and helpful. I'm surprised this does not exist at a national level. If the above can be answered adequately I may withdraw my straw of course. Jhamez84 16:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify per nom, and per the CfD for Category:Current British MPs (for reasoning please read the extensive discussion there). It would be great to have a list List of Manchester MPs 2005-, but we have not divided Category:UK MPs 2005- by any other geographical region, and doing so would create dozens of small categories of marginal use. However, a list could include constituency and party information, which a category cannot, so the list would be more useful. There are many ways in which MPs can be categorised, and to avoid category clutter the consensus has been to limit the number of categories to three groups: by party, by nation (England/Scotland/Wales/N. Ireland), and by Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl and because "Manchester" is ambiguous - is this category intended to cover the borough/city or the metropolitan county? Casperonline 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pit-yacker and Jhamez84. There was an overwhelming consensus for retention of the current MP categories, and zero valid reasons for their deletion were provided. In short, that CFD was a total scandal, and it should be reviewed at whatever the relevant page is (it has slipped my memory at present). I personally will not be getting involved as I am sick to the back teeth of the way I have been treated here at Wikipedia, and will not be wasting my time or energy on this particular issue. --Mais oui! 08:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mais Oui, I think that you are mistaking the effects of your votestacking eforts with a consensus, and with the balance of arguments (which is how a CfD is supposed to be closed). Your subsequent vanadalism wasn't a very persuasive argument either. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Comment, and while I am here, I will yet again voice my opposition to this mass-renaming to "People of foo". It is totally subjective, and almost totally unreferenced throughout the Wikipedia project, contrary to WP:CAT. "Natives of foo" was far better, because people can only actually be born in one place, and that place is usually recorded and citeable. However, I really am not going to get involved in that either, for exactly the same reasons. I strongly advise editors to read WP:OWN. --Mais oui! 08:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is too narrowly focused. Although I dislike the UK MP category tree, that seems to be sufficient for organization. Dr. Submillimeter 08:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The category includes only the five MPs from constituencies in the City of Manchester, not even the wider Greater Manchester region. Even if this sort of subdivision of MPs was considered generally useful (and the precdent says no), this is far too narrow a division to be useful. If divided up each Parliament's MPs in ths way, we'd have 125 extra sub-categories for each Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify per BHG & others above. Johnbod 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. I've got no problem with some subcategorisation, but this is too narrowly focussed. Warofdreams talk 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG & nom. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 22 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:Musical groups with head in its name[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 14:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorization by name is inappropriate, as the bands probably have little else in common. Besides, this is sillier than many of the other band categories in my humorous categories list. Why do people create these categories, anyway? Dr. Submillimeter 14:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete + off-topic comment - I can't believe the cat for Villages in Oxfordshire without Lamp Posts has gone! Lugnuts 17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems like stuff like this should be speediable. It's basically patent nonsense, right? Maybe a kind note on the talk page of the user who created this category wouldn't hurt. Anyway, I agree that this isn't want categories are for. Trivial semantic similarities are no where close to the most defining aspects of these bands. Overcategorization.-Andrew c 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining and per WP:OC#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. Doczilla 07:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. Ravenhurst 10:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not only is this extreme overcategorization by name, but it's actually more of a list than a category. Nine separate bands are listed in the description, but only one band is actually in the category! Someone appears to have been seriously confused about how these things work. Xtifr _tälk 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Alex Middleton 12:09, 23 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:Other Historic sites in the United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Other Historic sites in the United States to Category:Locally-designated historic sites in the United States

Delete Category:Other Historic sites in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Historic Sites in Virginia to Category:Locally-designated historic sites in Virginia

Merge Category:Historic Sites in Virginia to Category:Landmarks in Virginia

Nominator's rationale: ~~Rename~~ - Someone created Category:Other Historic sites in the United States and Category:Historic Sites in Virginia just for Category:Arlington County Historic Districts. The name "Arlington County Historic District" is even more confusing in that contains both landmarks and districts (and the county does use the term "Historic District" for individual buildings and structures; see [2]). The current names are unclear, as it is difficult to understand what is meant by "other", and the Virginia category was apparently not created for places in the National Register of Historic Places. I cannot locate an appropriate category tree for other locally-designated landmarks at the local level in the United States, so I recommend renaming the "other historic sites" category as Category:Locally-designated historic sites in the United States and the Virginia category as Category:Locally-designated historic sites in Virginia, as these names are clearer. Other suggestions, including suggestions on merging this into other categories, would be welcome, as I really struggled with this. Dr. Submillimeter 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - After writing this, I thought about checking the category tree for "landmarks" and found Category:Landmarks in Virginia. It seems like Category:Arlington County Historic Districts would fit into that category very nicely, so I have modified my proposal accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom as modified. Haddiscoe 02:51, 22 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:Buildings designed by I. M. Pei[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 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:I. M. Pei buildings, convention of Category:Buildings and structures by architect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Abberley2 01:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Doczilla 07:04, 22 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:Muse members[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 withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category only used to list 3 people. The category is underpopulated and impossible to add to, right now or for the forseeable future; and considering all 3 are mentioned on the band's page (Muse (band)) a category seems completely redundant. Members should most likely just be listed in the main category (Category:Muse): not sure if this would be a delete or merge request if the latter is the case, but I would suggest simply delete. AllynJ 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by conventions of Category:Musicians by band, which was missing and now added. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh. Wasn't aware this was actually a precedent, the only other band I'd seen before with a reasonably populated category was Category:The Flaming Lips, which doesn't have such a sub-cat. My apologies. Withdrawing nom. Not sure how to close as a non-admin; sorry. AllynJ 13:41, 21 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:Historic Scotland[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn --Kbdank71 14:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic Scotland to Category:Historic Scotland sites

Nominator's rationale: Rename - This is a category for sites owned or managed by Historic Scotland. Renaming the category would make this clearer. Dr. Submillimeter 12:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nominator is factually incorrect. Historic Scotland does not own or manage every listed building in Scotland, or every scheduled garden. It probably doesn't even own or manage 1% of them. This is actually a category covering the organisation's overall work. The articles about the places which are owned or managed by Scottish Heritage should be in Category:Historic Scotland sites, which should be a subcategory of Category:Historic Scotland. Haddiscoe 02:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Haddiscoe. This would clearly be a wrong move. Johnbod 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, although please note that there is no such body as "Scottish Heritage". It is called Historic Scotland. --Mais oui! 08:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If all the articles except the lead article were to be moved into Category:Historic Scotland sites, and that was made a subcategory rather than a redirect, the original objective would be achieved without introducing inaccuracy. Æthelwold 15:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No the problems are more fundamental than that; contrary to the nom, HS neither own nor manage the listed buildings which make up the vast bulk of the articles in the category group. Johnbod 21:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above, but Category:Historic Scotland sites should be used for appropriate entries, in line with the English Heritage and National Trust categories. Alex Middleton 12:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the buildings in this category are not owned or managed by Historic Scotland, then how are the buildings related to the organization? Dr. Submillimeter 00:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From their article, it seems HS control & create/maintain the lists, but most buildings of course remain private property. Johnbod 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - It seems that Historic Scotland functions as a government agency with multiple responsibilities regarding preservation. In that case, it deserves a general category for navigation. However, I suggest shifting all of the articles on castles and other buildings into subcategories if appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:01, 26 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:Dominican professional wrestlers[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 14:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dominican professional wrestlers to Category:Dominican Republic professional wrestlers

Nominator's rationale: All other sports categories about the Dominican Republic use "Dominican Republic" in the category name - not just "Dominican" (see Category:Dominican Republic sportspeople). Scott Alter 12:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Casperonline 21:35, 21 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:Dominican wrestlers[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 14:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dominican wrestlers to Category:Dominican Republic wrestlers

Nominator's rationale: All other sports categories about the Dominican Republic use "Dominican Republic" in the category name - not just "Dominican" (see Category:Dominican Republic sportspeople). Scott Alter 12:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, to avoid confusion with Category:Sportspeople of Dominica. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Doczilla 04:09, 22 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:African professional wrestlers[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; empty --Kbdank71 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category was within Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality and contained only Category:Ghanaian professional wrestlers. No other nationalities are broken up by continent, so this category should not be used and should be deleted. Ghanaian professional wrestlers are now located directly within Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality. Also, Category:African professional wrestlers may have been created by mistake, as the only article that was in it was about a South African wrestler (which is now located in its proper location - Category:South African professional wrestlers). Scott Alter 12:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; empty and redundant. Bencherlite 12:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Generally, people are not organized by continent but instead by country. Dr. Submillimeter 12:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of national categories. Casperonline 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 22 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:People of Jamaican heritage[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 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People of Jamaican heritage to Category:People of Jamaican descent

Nominator's rationale: Merge, To the name that reflects what the category actually means. Blood is certainly passed on, but culture may or may not be.Æthelwold 11:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Casperonline 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator makes a good point, but fails to articulate what about Fooian "blood" is notable or defining? The same can be said of all ethnic/racial categories, but this one's up now. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 12:11, 23 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:Burials[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Listify - People are generally defined by what they did when they are alive, not by their burial place. Although people can choose their burial places, their location of burial is generally not relevant to their notability. If being buried in a specific place is considered an honor, then the category should still be deleted following Wikipedia's guidelines on the overcategorization of people by award or honor. Moreover, people who are buried together may have little in common with each other aside from their place of burial. While this information should be given in lists on Wikipedia, it does not belong in categories. Therefore, I recommend deleting these categories. Note that one of the greatest objections to listifying is that the lists would be difficult to read because of their length. However, lists are a much more appropriate place for burials, as lists can also provide information on date of birth, date of death, and occupation, whereas categories cannot. (See WP:CLS for more information regarding this.) Also, lists can be formatted into tables very nicely and can even be split into multiple subpages. For an example, see list of NGC objects. Moreover, if people would like to show how the people in these categories may be related (as they held certain positions, died in certain wars, etc.), then lists are going to be the primary place that could supply this information. Categories can only supply names, which is far less interesting. Hence, I strongly advocate using lists instead of categories for these people.Dr. Submillimeter 11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This request is being made because a previous nomination for four of the categories received objections, mainly because it seemed focused on burials in only one area. Therefore, all of the categories are grouped together in this nomination. If people want to keep just one specific category, then please state so clearly. If the majority of people want to delete some categories but not others, then it may be appropriate to renominate these categories individually if this discussion is closed as "no consensus".Dr. Submillimeter 11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very very strong keep. Many cemeteries are notable. The reason they are notable is because of who is buried there. This is precisely what categories are for. Plus I hate these group listings. Hesperian 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Again, the group nomination is the result of complaints about a partial nomination. Dr. Submillimeter 11:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, I get it. And I still hate these group listings. Hesperian 12:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: the "location of burial is generally not relevant to their notability" argument is a red herring; I don't know why people keep bringing this argument up. A person's year of birth is generally not relevant to their notability, yet we have year of birth categories. Year of death is not relevant to notability, yet we have year of death categories. Where a person is from is not relevant to notability, yet we have "people from" categories. What school they went to is generally not relevant to notability, yet we have alumni categories. How a person died is not relevant to notability, yet we have Category:Cancer deaths. Heck, on George W. Bush, one of our most closely scrutinised articles, I count no fewer than 12 categories the membership of which does not confer notability. Hesperian 12:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree about the "people from" categories, as people's works and accomplishments are strongly influenced by their location. (For example, Isaac Newton probably would not have developed physics had he lived in Barbados instead of England.) Alumni categories are also influential on people's lives, as college educations (especially graduate educations) strongly influence people's career paths, and athletes' participation in specific college sports programs could also be strongly influential on their careers. Regarding the other categories, I personally do not like the "how people died" categories, either, and I think the year of birth and year of death categories may be related to WP:BLP issues. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, where a person is buried often says something about the way that person lead their life. Category:People buried in space is a good example of this. --Philip Stevens 11:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it does not breach any Wikipedia category criteria and, from the angle of where they are located *now*, is entirely relevant (not to mention easily verifiable). It may be of interest to note that many adversaries in life now rest together. Orderinchaos 12:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but standardize. These should all follow the same pattern. Since most of this category is "Burials at," I'd make the rest:

Category:Burials in Glasnevin Cemetery to Category:Burials at Glasnevin Cemetery

Category:Burials in Mount Jerome Cemetery to Category:Burials at Mount Jerome Cemetery

Category:Burials in St. Fintan's Cemetery, Sutton to Category:Burials at St. Fintan's Cemetery (no diasmbiguator needed)

Category:Buried in Karrakatta Cemetery to Category:Burials at Karrakatta Cemetery

Category:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills) to Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills)

Category:Forest Lawn Memorial-Parks & Mortuaries to Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) (if this is accurate)

Category:Jews buried in the Mount of Olives to Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives

Category:People buried at Imogiri to Category:Burials at Imogiri

Category:People buried at the Panthéon to Category:Burials at the Panthéon

Category:People buried at the Zentralfriedhof to Category:Burials at the Zentralfriedhof

Category:People buried in Brompton Cemetery to Category:Burials at Brompton Cemetery

Category:People buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard to Category:Burials at Greyfriars Kirkyard

Category:People buried in Highgate Cemetery to Category:Burials at Highgate Cemetery

Category:People buried in Kensal Green Cemetery to Category:Burials at Kensal Green Cemetery

Category:People buried in San Michele to Category:Burials at San Michele (or Isola di San Michele?)

Category:People buried in space to Category:Burials in space

Category:People buried in West Norwood Cemetery to Category:Burials at West Norwood Cemetery

Category:Woodlawn Cemetery, Bronx burials to Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery (Bronx) (or the Bronx?)

Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery, Chicago to Category:Burials at Graceland Cemetery (no disambiguator needed)

Category:Burials at Oakwood Cemetery, Syracuse to Category:Burials at Oakwood Cemetery (Syracuse)

You could also argue for "Burials in" across the board, as that would standardize with Category:Burials in Ireland. That'd be fine. (As for the Mount of Olives category, it's a Jewish cemetery, so it doesn't need the ethnic modifier.)--Mike Selinker 12:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, we also need to standardize the name dabs. We are proposing Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) and Category:Burials at Woodlawn Cemetery, Bronx. Are we using the comma or parentheses form to dab? Vegaswikian 16:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'd go with parentheses. I amended the suggested nominations above, and added two.--Mike Selinker 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being pedantic but standardising on the term 'Buried ...' will be technically incorrect for a small number of people - e.g. Golders Green Crematorium or West Norwood Cemetery have some of their 'notables' held above ground in urns in various places, or Columbaria, commemorated in Recordia or in Catacombs Ephebi 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep categories are meant to contain information on associated subjects, being in the same cemetery is a useful insight that doesnt need a detailed list. Gnan garra 12:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no conflict with current category inclusion criteria for these and while I have no problem with listifying an individual cemetery also, I cannot see what a group list would achieve. —Moondyne 14:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I know of one academic whose pre-doctoral studies related specifically to the inhabitants of one of the cemeteries listed above. In that case at least, its wrong to say "people who are buried together may have little in common with each other aside from their place of burial". —Moondyne 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hesperian, and Moondyne. Rebecca 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep How is this different than a category for places of birth, and university alumni. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and if there is a need to standardise, then standardise to "people buried at …" or something similar. Burials are events, not people (or their corpses), and I suspect we have very few articles about individual burials. A person can be buried, but he or she cannot be a burial. --Stemonitis 15:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also be fine with that, though I don't feel it's misleading to just use "burials." Merriam-Webster has its third definition of "burial" as "an interred human body or its remains."--Mike Selinker 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very useful for research, for example if I see the category "Buried in Karrakatta Cemetery" at the bottom of an article, I know I can go to the cemetery's web site and locate that individual's records for given names, age at death, year of death and the suburb they died in--Melburnian 15:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and standardize names per Mike Selinker et al above. Johnbod 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful for research and interesting KnightLago 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify, where someone is buried is not defining: it's often chosen by someone else and/or a matter of circumstance, also I don't think it is grammatically correct to say John Doe is a burial at XYZ. Carlossuarez46 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- where someone is buried is not defining. Nor is their year of birth, their place of birth, their school of attendance (usually), their year of death.... Hesperian 04:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per arguments by Carlossuarez46. The future tag based system, when implemented, should handle such trivial information but it is not convenient categorization scheme. A really large cemeteries may have millions of people interred there (e.g. one is in Prague). Pavel Vozenilek 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most, if not all, of the names listed now under this new category (Category:Burials in Glasnevin Cemetery) were previously included in a listing in the article on Glasnevin Cemetery. That article lost a lot of its richeness in recent edits and especially with the removal of the notables on the former list. Deleting this category - to which the cemetery's article refers - would deprive the cemetery article of most of its remaining usefulness. The notability of a cemetery is as much a result of its contents (human remains!) as a wiki article. Take the remains away, and only a construction site is left, empty! I would vote either not to delete this category, or to restore the list of notable burials to the main cemetery article. Tricky 14:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - (I shifted the above comment from the middle of the list of nominated categories to the end of this discussion. I also edited the comment to indicate the context. I hope this does not upset anyone.) The nomination clearly indicates that the category should be converted into a list. The contents would be kept in Wikipedia; it just would not be in category form. Dr. Submillimeter 19:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In fact, a new one is need for Burials at St Paul's Cathedral, London which holds a number of the most notable people in British history

Keep, and standardize names per Mike Selinker et al above. Category:Burials in Glasnevin Cemetery and (list of) Burials in Glasnevin Cemetery (for example) complement each other nicely and should both be maintained. Place of burial is generally one's only permanent address. (I agree with those who consider manner of death worthy of neither a list nor a category except in a very few cases.) -- roundhouse0 21:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original RFC wanted to do away with the category as an inappropriate use of categories. I originally disagreed, for similar reasons to User:Hesperian & User:Tricky, the place of death can be very relevant to the biography of the person. In addition, from a local studies perspective the sensible and comprehensive grouping of names across various categories can be illuminating. I dislike the use of very long lists in a cemetery description, which can render it almost illegible. The more [significant cemeteries] can have 100,000's of internments with several hundred 'notables', far too many to put in a list, but notwithstanding, a small list of notable internments in the wiki text can help describe some cemeteries. There can also be interest if a cemetery contain a lot of rivals or similar folk - e.g. sportsmen & engineers in West Norwood Cemetery, or communists in Golders Green Crematorium - then this is more easily shown in a category. User:Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion of using a list of NGC objects-style of listing might be good for stars but will be unworkable for people. Ephebi 13:34, 25 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:Linux on PDAs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not very focused cat, all sorts of random linux bad articles being added, appears to be todo list for creator from comments at top - SimonLyall 09:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from creator The list is a product of a review of linux distributions that highlighted problems with articles related to linux on PDAs. The articles in the category are not random, but are all related to linux PDAs. I did a thorough survey of many, many articles and chose all those I knew to be related to linux PDAs (hardware and software). Yes, there are a lot of bad articles. The articles relating to linux PDAs are in a sad state. However, anyone wanting to know more about linux PDAs (hardware and software) finding this category would have a fairly complete list of what is available. It is not a to do list, though it may appear so. And if all these bad articles are deleted, then there would be very little left on Wikipedia concerning linux PDAs! This is an attempt to bring some comprehensive order to what is a chaotic collection of articles. I was uncertain about the comment at the top, but I did want editors to work to improve the articles. Bdushaw 10:39, 21 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:Cults in Oregon[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 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Complete subjective POV by creator, user:Cult Watch. Sfacets 06:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The word "cult" suffers from POV problems. Categories using this word have been deleted in the past. Dr. Submillimeter 08:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete newly created. No article in it. No consensus on any of the two pages previously listed to in fact list those articles as "cults", possibly due to the POV inherent in that word. -Andrew c 03:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Cult.2C_sect. Doczilla 04:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 22 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:Novels by James Fenimore Cooper[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 voided. Nominator obviously meant the empty Category:Novels of James Fenimore Cooper, which I've deleted. The "Novels by" category is not in question.--Mike Selinker 07:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Novels by James Fenimore Cooper is the proper convention (see Category:Novels by James Fenimore Cooper and all relevant works appear to be there, as well as proper uplinks for the category. This is an empty category. Scarykitty 05:57, 21 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:Marketing terms[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 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Marketing terms to Category:Marketing terminology

Nominator's rationale: Category:Marketing terminology and Category:Marketing terms are the same, "terms" is less populated so should be merged into "terminology". Scarykitty 05:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename agree. Terminology seems more formal. Plus, see Category:Terminology. Most of the subcats are "terminology". It may be necessary to eventually standardize all of them to rename the terms to terminology. I will note that the Marketing terms cat is the older of the two cats. Regardless, there is no use for both of them, so merge.-Andrew c 03:36, 22 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:African American styles of music[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 per nomination --Kbdank71 15:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:African American music, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Scarykitty 05:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete There is only one article, which is already also in the correct sub-cat. Johnbod 00:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above--Sefringle^Talk 22:16, 26 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:White Star Line Vessels[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 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:White Star Line Vessels to Category:Ships of the White Star Line

Nominator's rationale: This rename brings the title closer to proper naming conventions, and also replaces "vessels" with "ships" to put it in plainer English. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom I never knew there were so many - just one little mistake and bang goes the reputation :). Johnbod 21:53, 23 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:Sherbro Afro-European Clans[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 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Sherbro Afro-European Clans to Category:Sherbro people

Nominator's rationale: Category:Sherbro people

See June 20th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Casperonline 21:37, 21 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:Tablighi jamaat approved author[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 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what Tablighi Jamaat approves of is non-defining characteristic of an author. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is very much a defining characteristic of these two. But this might well be a small category incapable of expansion. Also the approval is not referenced as such. Johnbod 00:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should not categorize people on the basis of their single opinions, or (like this, worse), opinions about them held by others. What's next: Category:Oprah approved author? Carlossuarez46 22:14, 22 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:Tablighi jamaat approved book[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 15:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what Tablighi Jamaat approves of is non-defining characteristic of a book. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is very much a defining characteristic of these two. But this might well be a small category incapable of expansion. Also the approval is not referenced as such. Johnbod 00:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or we'll have various imprimatur categories popping up. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Alex Middleton 12:12, 23 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:Stuttering Devices[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 t-t-t-t-that's not f-f-funny, BrownH-H-H-H- BHG. re-rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Anti-stuttering devices, current name is exactly backwards. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Casperonline 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and for correct capitalization. Doczilla 04:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rererererererenaaame per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 22 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.