Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 15 May 17 >

May 16[edit]

Category:People from Naples[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: egrem. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Naples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge / Redirect into Category:People from Naples (city), duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but salt not redirect. Naples (disambiguation) lists number of other towns called Naples, and if editors unaware of the distinction add articles to the Category:People from Naples intending to refer to a smaller Naples, the bots will recat to the city. Isn't it better to ensure that articles get added to this category only if the editor intended to add hem to the Italian category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - i.e., reverse merge into Category:People from Naples the city in Italy is in the article Naples (not in Naples (city)), the category should match the article; the fact that some people will add people from Naples, Florida or the Province of Naples to the category is not a reason to obscure the category; the same is true with other places, too: this logic would move Category:People from London to Category:People from London (city) because there are Londons in Ontario, several U.S. states, and elsewhere... Carlossuarez46 18:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Naples by itself is quite enough to imply the city rather than the province. And it’s shorter, which in the case of categories is good. —Ian Spackman 16:05, 21 May 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:WikiProject Stargate templates[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: merge. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Stargate templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Stargate templates, duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 22:59, 16 May 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:Greek mythological people[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: merge. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Greek mythological people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Almost entirely redundant with Category:Greek mythology, which in fact appears on most of the same articles. Not a useful way of breaking down Category:Greek mythology, which consists almost entirely of articles about people. We should get rid of this, and think of useful subdivisions. By place (Athens, Thebes, Thessaly) and type (Culture hero, founder, deified hero) seem reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 16 May 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:Reichmann family[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: delete. That we have categories for some families is not a priori an argument for having a category on this family, especially if the cat has only a handful of family members and the rest is about buildings. That the family is notable is grounds for keeping the article. The comparison with the Rothschilds lacks several orders of magnitude. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reichmann family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, Since when do we start categorizing families? -- Avi 21:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- since when does Wikipedia categorize families? Since forever:
  • Keep Since for ever. Dahn 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as with many previous CFDs for eponymous family categories, there must be a significant amount of material that is not conveniently interlinked between the articles to warrant categorization. In this instance, the members of the family are easily interlinked and so the category is not needed. Otto4711 21:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto -- why do you use the deletion of the same re-created category over and over as some kind of precedent for the deletion of all of the family categories? Only Category:Hollywood families and closely related categories is disputed (which you link to 5 times above), yet none of these others are. --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Otto. I don't know about the examples you have cited and the reasons why they were nominated etc. However, the question of what if an article performs the same function/s as a category is a serious one and I do not beleive that thus far there is a clear-cut policy that says that if an article "says it all" then the category related to it has to go. If there is such a policy, could you please point out the exact chapter and verse on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I would estimate that with that reasoning one could destroy about 80% of all the existing categories (since most articles are not that long, even with lots of links) and then what would that accomplish? But you would agree that the parent category of Category:Business families would stay wouldn't you? I don't know about the examples you have cited, but so far, all the sub-categories of Category:Business families that are of Jewish extraction happen to be very significant, especially since the factor of family is key to the over-all enterprise, like trying to understnd a monarchy yet saying that never pay attention to the royal family with all its extensions and how it functions. Let's keep some perspective please. IZAK 05:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothign to do with the religion or ethnicity of the families involved. There is no policy that addresses the issue. Probably WP:CLS is the closest thing. Regardless of the absence of a specific policy, there is a strong consensus that has emerged recently regarding categories named after families. In the vast majority of cases, in the CFDs I linked here and in many others, they are being deleted as unnecessary for navigational purposes. A well-written article on the family that clearly explains the relationships between the family members is far superior to a simple alphabetical category listing, and the article on the family can be placed in the Business families category. This family has an article (not particularly well-written, but I digress) and it along with family articles for a number of the oher families you cite are in the business families category. The articles on the family members themselves are linked to each other through the family article and through each other. Nothing is gained by having the family category. Otto4711 13:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto said: "[Family categories are being] "deleted as unnecessary for navigational purposes" -- this is untrue because navigation by categories is much easier than trying to navigate via the names in all of the disparate articles. For instance, just look at all of the families found in Category:Political families of the United States and tell me that it would be easier to navigate that topic if ALL of those names, families, and individuals weren't categorized? --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto. Only the 3 brothers & some of their companies and buildings have articles. Johnbod 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So create some more articles to add -- those are only the most public/prominent members of the family...others of course exist. --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Grouping Albert Reichmann, Canary Wharf, and Olympia Flooring and Tile under the title "Reichmann family" will not make sense to the average reader who is first reading about this subject. The connection between these articles is better explained through Wikilinks in the texts of these articles; using a category to connect these articles seems inappropriate. Moreover, in the past, such categories have generally been deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope...in the past such categories WERE NOT deleted, as a quick browse through Category:Business families will show you. If the family businesses of these individuals bother you in this category, delete them. --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto & precedent; families, in general, don't merit classification. There are exceptions, but the Reichmanns are your typical rather than atypical family category at WP. Carlossuarez46 15:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "precedent" as you claim -- have you looked at Category:Families lately? There are hundreds of different categories with families of all types. Again, it was only the Category:Hollywood families and closely related categories that have been deleted...no one disputes any of the others. --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A highly notable family as a collective identity.--Runcorn 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the Reichmann family is without a doubt one of the most wealthy and influential business families in Canada, so so course they are well known by anyone that knows anything about business. If and when more articles about other Reichmann family members are added to Wikipedia, we can add them to this category. --Wassermann 08:41, 22 May 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:Romani people[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: redirected. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Romani people to Category:Roma people
  • Merge, The two cats are actually about the same group of people. The duplication was probably the result of wires getting crossed. Dahn 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinon on which should be used, but the other should be kept as a redirect, and all the subcategories should be made consistent as well. Wilchett 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Witdrawn Dealt with through other means (including the suggested redirect). Dahn 21:14, 16 May 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:Jewish Americans[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: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jewish Americans to Category:American Jews
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, For consistency with every other member of Category:Jews by country. Also note that the page Jewish Americans is a redirect to American Jews. Lesnail 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- please note that the redirect to "American Jews" over the vastly preferred "Jewish Americans" or "Jews and Judaism in the United States" is under dispute, with a clique of Wikipedia:OWN editors preventing this article's title from being changed or even discussed. Look at this article's talk page for more info on this. --Wassermann 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No rename necessary: keep as is -- "Jewish American(s)" is BY FAR the most preferred and politically correct academic/scholarly term (just do some Google searches per the formula used around here). Some relevant discussion is found on this TP. --Wassermann 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious rename. It is the only category in a huge set of categories that follows this naming scheme, and it would also match American Jews. The fact that those opposing the move resort to uncivil conspiracy theories and bald assertions indicates the speciousness of their arguments. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - we should be consistent, and I don't understand why one would be more politically correct than the others. --Leifern 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to bring in line with similar categories. Beit Or 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MEDIATE (perhaps via Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) because this is a subcategory of BOTH Category:Jews by country AND Category:American people by ethnic or national origin which uses the present naming convention. IZAK 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per jossi. --tickle me 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Leifern, Jossi etc., although frankly my first preference would be to eliminate this kind of category... and probably about 75 percent or more of the other categories on Wikipedia, since I think they are more trouble than they're worth. But I know that's not happening anytime soon, so... 6SJ7 04:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency, although, like 6SJ7, my preference would be to get rid of all categories and lists that try to shove human beings into these neat little piles. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. -- Avi 12:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for crying out loud. Gzuckier 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The category was previously renamed after this cfr discussion. --Eliyak T·C 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator at that discussion said "Naming has to be standardized. I prefer the dash, but ultimately, whatever people decide is fine with me, as long as its standard." So I would say it's an obvious Rename. <<-armon->> 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: for consistency, do not rename all other Americans by ethnic group are Fooish Americans, now are we going to have American Foos to go with American Jews? Carlossuarez46 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- why even have this category? I see no positive or encyclopedic benefit to identifying and categorizing Americans by religion unless that religion is immediately relevant to their notability (i.e., Senator John Doe's religion may not merit categorization but you might want to categorize Cardinal John Doe in a list of American Catholic religious leaders). The header for this category even states "American adherents of Judaism, or Americans of Jewish heritage, including atheists born to Jewish parents". Who decides who go into these categories? (Answer: anybody) What if the subject doesn't like it? If I were an atheist of Jewish descent, I might very much not want to be categorized as Jewish. I realize this topic gets murkier when ethnicity overlaps with religion as it does with Jews; nevertheless I think we need to rethink the concept altogether. If we really must compile lists of people's religious affiliations, then perhaps an actual list (as opposed to a category) would be better since it could be monitored on watchlists and citations required for each entry.--A. B. (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And if we cannot delete this, rename it. But let's delete it. Do the people who don't want this really not outnumber those who do? Grace Note 09:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some people are obsessed with adding these almost completely OR and generally WP:BLP-violating, meaningless, and useless categories to articles - and if they can't do categories, they'll do Lists, or, even better, both. Good luck getting rid of them. Jayjg (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- as Eliyak pointed out (and which everyone voting to rename seems to ignore), this category was previously renamed from American Jews to Jewish Americans not too long ago, back in December 2006 [1]. Also, please take in to account that if this category is renamed it will bring it out of line with the standard/default naming scheme that we follow on Wikipedia. For example:
Please take these factors in to account before making this change. Why should Jews be different than all of the others? --Wassermann 06:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is a Category, not an article. Also, you seem to have completely ignored the fact that this category is the odd man out in Category:Jews by country. It's also the odd man out in Category:American people by religion: Category:American Sikhs, not Category:Sikh Americans etc. Finally, the sleight of hand you did on American Africans did not go unnoticed. Jayjg (talk) 07:09, 22 May 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:Evangelicals who teach Abstinence from Alcohol[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: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Evangelicals who teach Abstinence from Alcohol to Category:Christians who teach abstinence from alcohol or deletion.
Nominator's Rationale: Rename to broaden from Evangelicalism to all Christians and to fix caps per WP:NAME, OR delete as a violation of WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue. Which is more appropriate? --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorizing people by opinion is a bad idea, particularly as people opinions change. Lesnail 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't categorize by an opinion. Doczilla 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lesnail & Doczilla. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Abstinence activists (which is categorization by action rather than opinion, in line with any other category of activists). Wilchett 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query: would this no longer be limited the Christians, then? Should we include someone like St. Basil who taught that Christians should practice a general asceticism, including that abstinence from alcohol (except in the Mass, etc.)? "Activist" is a rather new term, but Basil was an advocate of the idea and wrote on it (about as much of an "activist" as one could be before modern media made other forms of communication possible). --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per useful categorization by self-designation; these names aren't arbitrarily chosen, each of these people is self-described or described by an attributable source. A list would not be appropriate; a category is useful. Support renaming the category to a larger group. - Freechild 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization by opinion or issue. The discussion on the deleted category structure for Teetotalers may be of interest, as the category description links these people to teetotalism. A rename to "Abstinence activists" would be a poor choice because of the obvious confusion with those who advocate sexual abstinence. Otto4711 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other arguments made above. Dahn 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since this is categorisation by opinion. However, support creation of Category:Temperance activists or Category:Temperance campaigners as a subcat of Category:Temperance movement. The activists/campaigners category should include only those notable fir actively promoting temperance, not their supporters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query: How does one define a campaigner/activist? Consider my comment about St. Basil above, and consider also someone like Daniel L. Akin who wrote "The case for alcohol abstinence" or Stephen Reynolds who has written several books and articles on the subject including The Biblical Approach to Alcohol, which advocates an outright prohibition for Christians if not the world. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Define it as "persons noted for their activities in promotion of temperance". That covers it nicely, and excludes those who shared that view but did not achieve notability for their position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How would you treat St. Basil or D. L. Akin? I wouldn't say either is notable in this vein in the same way that, say, Billy Sunday is, but they surely did promote and publish on the same idea. --Flex (talk/contribs) 11:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711 <<-armon->> 01:01, 18 May 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:Urban history[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: merge. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Urban history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant category. Merge to Category:History by city or the appropriate country subcategory. - EurekaLott 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as redundant. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as redundant. (Ooops.) - Freechild 17:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, I created the article, and I now see its redundancy. My original intention was to exhibit connections to the article called Urban history, which is a strong within the field of Urban studies. Not knowing another category existed before I created the topic, I wonder if having a category of this name is more effective than arbitrarily creating names, i.e. "History by city". - Freechild 23:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. OrchWyn 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:History by city as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then delete. <<-armon->> 01:02, 18 May 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.

Categoy:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Omaha[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: upmerge. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Omaha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This new sub-category is inconsistent with how the "Roman Catholic secondary schools" sub-categories have been set up. The State is the lowest sub-category necessary, especially in Nebraska where only 28 Catholic high schools exist. I suggest we merge into Roman Catholic secondary schools in Nebraska.EagleFan 15:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the decision is to merge, it should be into both Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Nebraska and Category:High schools in Omaha. - EurekaLott 16:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the size of a category is not necessarily relevant to its existence. Rather, its the relevance of grouping different articles together. This category is useful for providing a unique- but necessary- grouping that otherwise would not exist. That no other city has a category thus far is not a suitable argument; however, by way of precedent, WP does categorize libraries, churches and histories by city - why not Roman Catholic secondary schools? Additionally, this may set an important precedent for other cities, as the establishment and existence of Roman Catholic schools have greatly influenced the development of cities around the world. Categorizing these schools by city could highlight their historical contributions to the growth of particular urban areas, such as Omaha. - Freechild 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, size does matter. All of the library cats, except for one that should probably be deleted, are much larger than this; so are most of the church cats - and they have more churches to include. The way to link a half-dozen schools together is by a template, or by links in text; if the schools actually matter to each other, links in text should be easy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Omaha is not large enough or important enough for it's roman catholic schools to have their own category, regardless of size Adam McCormick 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Nebraska and Category:High schools in Omaha. There are too few RC secondary schools in Nebraska for that category to need subdivision, but the articles should not lose the Omaha categorisation. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Keep The cat provides information based on it's size. Just looking at the two cats I can tell that roughly a third of the state's Catholic schools are in Omaha, and almost half of Omaha's high schools are Catholic schools. That's not something you would be able to tell if the cats were merged. The additional cat provides additional information by the way that information already in school articles is organized, and that's kinda the point isn't it? Miss Mondegreen talk  07:04, May 17 2007
  • Delete This is a precedent that could unnecessarily explode the number of categories. Chicago, New York City, and Boston don't even have a separate category like this. I agree with the idea to use a Template instead. I can even help with that. EagleFan 16:48, 17 May 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:Appennines[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: redirect. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Appennines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Merge to Category:Apennines. Appennines is a common misspelling for Apennines. —Ian Spackman 13:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom and salt, because common spillung misteaks tend to be repeated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (which is the same as delete here since the cat is empty). --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to avoid repeated recreation. Wilchett 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Redirect -it also has the benefit of getting you there if you misspell it. <<-armon->> 01:05, 18 May 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:Quantum Leap[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: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Quantum Leap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - all material in the category is easily navigable through the lead article. The category is not needed as a navigational hub. Otto4711 13:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. and many precedents. Doczilla 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- also underpopulated and not much room for notable expansion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mutiple subcats and articles is sufficient content. Tim! 21:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two articles and two subcats. Despite the above comment, copied and pasted word-for-word into nearly every similar nomination, this amount of material has generally not been looked upon as warranting a category. Simply totting up the number of things in a category is simplistic, as pretty much any topic that might be a category could have a couple of articles assigned to it if one looked hard enough, and it does not address the question of whether the category is actually needed. Otto4711 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - Tim's stated rationale for keeping this category seems somewhat at odds with his statement here regarding TV show categories in general. None of the articles in this category would be undercategorized by the deletion of this container category and he seems to accept the notion that simply having episode and character categories doesn't warrant the eponymous container. Otto4711 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of multiple subcategories do you fail to understand? Tim! 16:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you at least partially contradict yourself. Otto4711 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the part where you added more to the comment a day after the fact. Otto4711 17:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified myself as you appear to have diffuclty understanding and have made the same comment multiple times across multiple nominations. Tim! 17:20, 20 May 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:Generals whose names sound like car brands[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 speedy delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Generals whose names sound like car brands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, Indiscriminate collection of information; no clear criteria for belonging to the category. Fg2 11:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obvious joke. — Brian (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delorianete - Neier 12:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as irrelevant. Postlebury 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - This could be interpreted as insulting, thus violating WP:BLP. Aside from that, this category has vaguely-defined inclusion criteria, and it is the categorization of unrelated subjects by name, both of which indicate that the category is disfunctional. Dr. Submillimeter 13:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Depending on the reader, this category could be seen as offensive or unnecessarily frivolous for an encyclopedia. At the very least, this category is subjective (how close must a name be to be considered similar to a car brand?) and unmanageable (car brands vary from country to country, car models even more so). --Kyoko 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Patent nonsense and empty anyway. Mangoe 14:11, 16 May 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:Plant diseases[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: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Plant diseases to Category:Plant pathogens and diseases
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, wikipedia articles on "plant disease" are typically written about the disease incorporating the pathogen, or the pathogen incorporating the disease/s it causes. While this is fairly sensible way to keep the articles organised, the category name should reflect the contents of the category - in this case these categories include the pathogens and the diseases. I won't list them here since the bot driver should be able to work it out, but all the subcats have been listed for renaming too using the foo pathogens and diseases format. Peta 07:53, 16 May 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:Insect vectors of plant disease[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: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Insect vectors of plant disease to Category:Insect vectors of plant pathogens
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, pathogens is more accurate than disease. Peta 07:31, 16 May 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:Human pest insects[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: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Human pest insects to Category:Insect vectors of human pathogens
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, clears up ambiguity in the category title. Peta 07:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Vector" seems too jargony, though I don't particularly like the current name either. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing jargony about using the correct and common terminology.--Peta 00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - are all "pest insects" by definition "vectors of human pathogens"? Otto4711 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No "pest insects" as it is being used on wikipedia is being applied to any insect that might disrupt human activity - insects that eat crops, insects that spread human, animal and plant disease, insects that bite people causing irritation - but not disease... and so on. Human pest insects as the category stands could be those that are just annoying, or those that carry disease. -Peta 00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I oppose the rename as it does not accurately reflect the content of the category. Perhaps creating a sub-category for insect who spread diseases to humans would be the appropriate scheme. Otto4711 04:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, this category does currently only include vectors of human disease. I suggested the remane to make the category name less ambiguous. --Peta 00:12, 21 May 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:Negro League teams[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: merge. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Negro League teams

Since a category for Negro League baseball teams exists, I propose deleting this category (putting all the articles into the baseball team category), unless there were Negro League teams for other sports. T@nn 06:59, 16 May 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:Articles with example Algol code[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: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles with example Algol code (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Replaced by two categories, for ALGOL 60 and ALGOL 68. Uncontroversial. Quuxplusone 04:59, 16 May 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:Cadet College Petaro[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: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cadet College Petaro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete and listify. Actually, the article Cadet College Petaro already has such a list (although one that looks like it could use a good cleanup!) but I see no hope of this cat bringing anything but category clutter. Pascal.Tesson 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Cadet College Petaro alumni, and populate. We routinely categorise alumni of colleges and universities; this is a military secondary school not a third-level institution, and although alumni of secondary schools are less frequently categorised, there are many such categories in Category:People by schools in the United Kingdom. Cadet College Petaro is clearly a very notable school in Pakistan whose alumni include a lot of important figures in Pakistan, so education here is clearly a distinguishing characteristic of the school's alumni. If we don't categorise school alumni in Pakistan, why do it n the United Kingdom? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:56, 17 May 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:Celebration Arts[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: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Celebration Arts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

First and foremost I don't find solid evidence that "Celebration arts" is widely used with that meaning (and it is actually also used with completely different contexts e.g. [2]). But even supposing for a moment that this is a legit terminology, the category is bound to be redundant with Category:Parades and the like. Pascal.Tesson 04:49, 16 May 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:Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico[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: egrem. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Puerto Rico
  • Comment - are there any members of Congress from P.R. who did not represent P.R. but were instead elected from a state, and if so should they be categorized in a P.R. category? Otto4711 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. No strong opinion on this either way then, but if the "Resident Commissioner" category is retained it needs to be pluralised. Otto4711 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Brown Haired Girl. If they aren't formally members of the house, they shouldn't be called that just for our consistency. (Otherwise, we might as well rename Canada's Provinces to States... :-) ) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'll agree with a reverse merge. —Markles 00:57, 17 May 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:United States Delegates from Dakota Territory[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: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Delegates from Dakota Territory to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Dakota Territory
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other territories. See Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives. —Markles 02:00, 16 May 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:Delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives from Alaska Territory[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: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives from Alaska Territory to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Alaska Territory
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other territories. See Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives. —Markles 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives from the District of Alaska[edit]

Category:Delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives from the District of Alaska to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Alaska Territory

Category:United States Delegates from Oklahoma Territory[edit]

Propose renaming Category:United States Delegates from Oklahoma Territory to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Oklahoma Territory
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other territories. See Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives. —Markles 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Delegates from Florida Territory[edit]

Propose renaming Category:United States Delegates from Florida Territory to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Florida Territory
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other territories. See Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives. —Markles 02:00, 16 May 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.

Political parties in the UK[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: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:UK Liberal Democrats to Category:Liberal Democrats (UK)
Category:UK Labour Party to Category:Labour Party (UK)
Category:UK Conservative Party to Category:Conservative Party (UK)
Category:UK Co-operative Party to Category:Co-operative Party (UK)
Category:UK National Liberal Party to Category:National Liberal Party (UK)
Nominator's Rationale: Rename with disambiguator as as prefix, rather than as a suffix. This matches the name of the main articles on Labour Party (UK) and the Conservative Party (UK). Although the Liberal Democrats and Co-operative Party main articles do not have the (UK) disambiguator, there are other similar named parties elsewhere in the world (see Liberal Democratic Party and Co-operative Party (disambiguation)), and using the disambiguator will avoid confusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Also, some subcategories of the above:
Category:UK National Liberal Party politicians to Category:National Liberal Party politicians (UK)
Category:UK Co-operative Party politicians to Category:Co-operative Party politicians (UK)
Category:UK Conservative Party breakaway groups to Category:Conservative Party (UK) breakaway groups
Category:UK Conservative Party politicians to Category:Conservative Party politicians (UK)
Category:UK Labour Party breakaway groups to Category:Labour Party (UK) breakaway groups
Category:UK Labour Party politicians to Category:Labour Party politicians (UK)
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 10#Category:UK Liberal Party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom Johnbod 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there a reason for using abbreviations and not spelling out United Kingdom per categorization guidelines? 02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Yes, two reasons. The first is for consistency with other subcats of Category:Political parties in the United Kingdom, though obviously those could be changed. The substantive reason is that these categories (and particularly the politician categories) are used for articles which are in most cases heavily categorised in other respects, and overlong category names cause category clutter and make the categories harder to read. The abbreviation UK is widely understood, and it is being used here in a context where its meaning should be clear. Note how UK is used for nearly all the articles in these categories which require a United Kingdom disambiguator; the term is usually spelt out only for container categories such as Category:Political parties in the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom.--Red Deathy 07:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and to match article titles, would not object to spelling out United Kingdom in full either. Tim! 21:51, 18 May 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.

Barbadian sportspeople[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: rename footballers, no consensus on cricketers. However, the latter is an inconsistent state which should be considered in a group nomination later on. See for example category:Scottish cricketers and Category:Scotland cricketers. The Scotland category declares it is only for non-Scottish players who play for Scotland, while the Barbados category makes no such claim. Thus, it is possible that non-Barbadian players can be in this category, which would make it a difficult fit for category:Barbadian sportspeople. Some global rename should be considered.--Mike Selinker 11:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per standard of Category:Cricketers by nationality and Category:Football (soccer) players by country. jwillburtalk 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mayumashu 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Lankiveil 11:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose for the cricketers, as this is a team category, not a national category. In cricket terms, Barbados is a first class team, not a Test team (see West Indian cricket team). It is not necessary to come from Barbados to play for Barbados, and there are players in the category who did not do so. The existing name is consistent with the other subcategories of Category:Players in West Indian domestic cricket by team, as well as similar categories in other test cricket countries. Jamie Mercer 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for cricketers per Jamie Mercer. Note that for soccer players, there are two separate sets of categories for nationality and international team. Wilchett 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for footballers per nom, oppose for cricketers per Jamie. — Dale Arnett 22:33, 16 May 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:American heroes[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: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

POV - jwillburtalk 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete subjective category. Doczilla 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Thesloth 07:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsalvageablely POV. Lankiveil 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Postlebury 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to have been created by User:Ace Telephone to promote Ray Zirkelbach, as his bio is the only other entry besides Audie Murphy. Mangoe 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A Musing 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block Wilchett 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heroic delete completely inappropriate. But I did get a good chuckle from the inclusion of Ray Zirkelbach in this category. Pascal.Tesson 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per extreme POV. — Dale Arnett 22:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know there was a heroes of the Soviet Union. Is there anything comparable to that in the USA? If so, only limit to those. Bulldog123 16:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing with that specific name. Mangoe 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete subjective Queerudite 22:19, 18 May 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:Jay Wolpert game shows[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: delete. >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jay Wolpert game shows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unnecessary and nn category. Produced a few game shows, but none were particularly long-running or influential. Unneeded category. Biggspowd 00:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per deletion of other TV production company categories, like the Quinn Martin category from months ago. Doczilla 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creates category clutter and all the info can be found in the Jay Wolpert article anyways. Pascal.Tesson 22:09, 16 May 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:Uncials[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Greek New Testament uncials. Vegaswikian 07:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Uncials to Category:Category:Greek New Testament uncial manuscripts
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I created the current category while I wasn't clearly thinking. In New Testament textual criticism (the scholarly discipline that studies manuscripts of the new testament), "uncial" is a term of art to represent a specific categorization of roughly 300 manuscripts. However, uncial is also a generic name for the type of handwriting used in that era. The category is not a place to hold any manuscript that is writing in uncials. Being the creator of the cat, the purpose of it is to house the articles on the manuscripts that are categorized as "uncials" in the discipline of textual criticism. We need to specify that the manuscripts are Greek, because there are vulgate (latin) and other language manuscripts that are written in uncials that are not categorized as "uncials". We need to specify "new testament" because there are non-biblical manuscripts written in uncials. I'm open to any other name suggestions, but these are the considerations that I neglected to consider when first creating the category.Andrew c 00:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the exceptional ugliness and intrusiveness of the template infobox. Might be acceptable if it were at the bottom of the page, but really these should be in a list only. Johnbod 01:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: can't follow the sense of this. Infoboxes generally go top-right, with images and standard common information. The infobox covers the features considered standard by scholars and tabulated in many publications and online locations. This could be a constructive comment if the subjective aesthetic judgements like "ugliness" and "intrusiveness" were specified more clearly. Then we could understand how the infobox differs in any objective way from other book infoboxes, and writer and military history infoboxes, for example. There is a very extensive literature on the relative importance of specific New Testament manuscripts. There are dozens of extant illuminated manuscripts articles here at Wiki. Some are without much value for textual critism, but that's no argument to delete them, since they are valuable for art history. As for the notability of textual criticism of the Bible, consider List of best-selling books. Cheers. Alastair Haines 03:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not in question. I understood the category was a template one, but it seems this is not so, so I accept my comment is not relevant here. But if anyone wants to see the problems this infobox causes, see Rossano Gospels. Johnbod 00:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on a way of providing one of those "hideable" infoboxes for cases where mss are illuminated. In the majority of cases relevant to textual criticism, the manuscripts are not illuminated, so there is no aesthetic issue. As I recall, I deliberately only added the infobox to a couple of existing illuminated articles, because I wanted to test reaction. Two distinct groups share interest in these articles, I appreciate your willingness to accept some kind of infobox, so long as it's not as prominent as the default style. I'm sure this issue has come up in other areas, which is why it is possible to make "hideable" boxes. I'll enjoy the challenge of learning how to do this. Cheers. Alastair Haines 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued this at Talk:Rossano Gospels Johnbod 21:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? What does a template info box have to do with renaming this cat? The two are independent, AFAICT. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative rename to Greek New Testament uncials, which would match Greek New Testament papyri and Greek New Testament miniscules and the lists that follow the same scheme. Alastair Haines 03:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queries: Codex Bezae has both Greek and Latin. I presume you mean this cat to be inclusive (i.e., Bezae isn't excluded because it is not purely Greek), yes? Are you also creating a cat for Latin (and other) uncials? --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, it isn't an exclusive category. I initially didn't want to specify "Greek" for the exact same reason you bring up. Diglots definitely confuse matters. The purpose of this category is to group all of the Gregory # 01-0301 manuscripts that have articles. This is the grouping and numbering system used almost exclusively in the field of NT textual criticism. One day, we will probably have a need for various non-Greek categories (Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, Peshitta, Gothic, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, etc). For manuscripts that have multiple languages, they would presumably be placed in multiple categories based on language. We just haven't got that far yet (one day, though).-Andrew c 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why not keep Category:Uncials and create subcategories for the various classifications? Pascal.Tesson 22:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't a bad idea. However, I was trying to limit my focus on just the Gregory-Aland numbered manuscripts (all Greek manuscripts of the NT). So as of now, the only articles in this category are articles appropriate for the proposed renamed category. I wouldn't mind at all recreating Category:Uncials to include other uncial manuscripts, and having the renamed cat a subcategory of Category:Uncials.-Andrew c 23:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And, outside Biblical scholarship, few MSS are notable as such. Most of those are unique for their author, and best described under the author (and the script is not defining). If we develop other uncial cats, Category:uncials can be revived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is already a list, which is all that is needed. Changed to Rename per amended nom, in view of this discussion Johnbod 15:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've changed my alternative name proposal above. Higher level categories are more inclusive and flexible. There are many independent ways of classifying mss: contents (Gospel books), date (4th century books), papyrus/vellum (papyrus mss), provenance (Oxyrhynchus mss), current housing (Athos mss), language (Syriac mss), script (miniscule mss), function (lectionary mss), presentation (Illuminated mss). All these categories are significant to different scholars, and to different people. More categories is better than fewer, categories don't even take disk space. Categories provide a quick way to navigate existing articles, lists can provide a picture of what future articles might be needed.
The main issue seems to be ensuring we don't step on one-anothers' toes when articles are relevant to more than one group. Illustrations are of marginal importance to text criticism, the text is of marginal importance to art history, together they assist in dating, which is relevant to both. I would argue that differences of opinion be settled in favour of the group for whom a manuscript is most specifically relevant. For example, an illuminated manuscript should be handled primarily by art historians. An Old Testament manuscript should be handled primarily by Jewish text critics. Christian text criticism covers so many more manuscripts than the other fields, and has a narrow focus of interest in them, that it should respect the others' primary involvement with mss of more particular interest to these other groups. Alastair Haines 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I still don't see why a list will not do the job just as well - in fact much better. The category is defined by Gregory-Alands original list and, unusually in these circumstances, each member has a number, which is easier to reproduce and show in a list article than in a category. If you just want an alternate sort of the list, then a sortable list table would do that better. Johnbod 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is Category:Biblical manuscripts was getting too large, and one of the most obvious ways to break the category up is by the groupings established and used by textual scholars. Are you going to propose Category:New Testament papyri for deletion next? When it comes to textual criticism, saying it is a uncial, or papyri, or lectionary, or miniscule is more helpful and specific than saying it's simpy a "biblical manuscript". I believe this categorization used by scholars is more useful as a category than a list.-Andrew c 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have helped you there earlier tonight by removing several MS that were in an illuminated sub-cat of Biblical MS & had also been added to that cat, mostly I think by Alastair Haines. I only removed ones with no textual or linguistic significance - several with one or the other remain in the main cat & one of its sub-cats. I would have thought categories by language, or by date, were more useful than this category which, lets face it, is not comprehensible to most readers looking for the Codex Sinaiticus. You could also remove, either completely or to a sub-cat, things like the Ostromir Gospel which are linguistically rather than textually significant. Johnbod 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed to support the nom above, as I accept this is a step in the right direction. Johnbod 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, because I'm not clear about the issue. It's a good thing if we have a lot of articles, isn't it? There are more than 20,000 New Testament manuscripts alone. For various, quite different reasons, editors have cared to contribute articles on many of these manuscripts already. That says a lot for the value and notability of the manuscripts they have addressed.

People want to do different things with some of these articles, depending on their academic discipline. Categories can help define the lines of demarcation. If a manuscript is in the Illuminated category, we'd be crazy not to listen to the opinion of the art historians regarding presentation of those articles.

We already have a complete list of NT papyri, and it is sortable, as are the incomplete lists of Greek uncials and miniscules. We'll never have a complete list of the 10,000 Latin manuscripts. A category for Latin NT manuscripts makes sense because we can check it from time to time and people will have added articles to it, that we can then add to the list. If any of the subgroups get too big we can split again by date, or split by date in addition to other splits -- a good reason for a template, and one that places information like date in a default location, for ease of maintenance.

Anyway, that'll do from me. I think Andrew's the one doing the bulk of the high level work. I expect we'll be able to work with whatever he comes up with. I'm mainly just concerned with adding content, and helping readers navigate that content. Alastair Haines 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I support the amended nom Category:Greek New Testament uncials in order to be more congruent with the existing Category:New Testament papyri. -Andrew c 21:26, 23 May 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 by city in the United Kingdom[edit]

Category:People by city in Wales[edit]

Category:People by city in Northern Ireland[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: rename x3 >Radiant< 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People by city in the United Kingdom to Category:People by city or town in the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:People by city in Wales to Category:People by city or town in the Wales
Propose renaming Category:People by city in Northern Ireland to Category:People by city or town in Northern Ireland
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, City status in the United Kingdom is strictly and narrowly defined, and the vast majority of the places with categories are towns. The names of the English and Scottish categories already include the word "town". Honbicot 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. Mayumashu 07:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, but note that other countries all seem to use the "People by city" format. Since the notion of "city" will be defined very differently in difft countries, wouldn't it be best follow this with a similar nomination for all "People by city" categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
second this Mayumashu 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I can imagine how "by city" became the norm, because the categories for the largest places would have been created first, but a change seems appropriate, and probably for other countries too. Postlebury 12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People in the United Kingdom by place. Cats should be short. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "Place" would cover the counties, the local government areas, the constituent countries etc, but they have their own categories, and the point of this category is to categorize by town or city. Jamie Mercer 20:29, 17 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_16&oldid=1138388684"