Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 27

< May 26	May 28 >

May 27[edit]

Category:Neighbourhoods of Thailand[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, as nominated and per convention.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Neighbourhoods of Thailand to Category:Neighbourhoods in Thailand

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Neighbourhoods by country. Jamie Mercer 22:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Blockinblox 13:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 10:03, 3 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.

Law firms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, to X of <country> convention.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian law firms to Category:Law firms of Australia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To follow guideline by using 'companies of country'. Vegaswikian 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Jamie Mercer 22:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment don't we used "based in" formulations for organizations - for profit or not? Carlossuarez46 23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply so far as I can see, Category:Companies by country uses "Companies of Foo", and its parent category Category:Organizations by country uses "Organisations based in Foo". There might be a case for standardising on one form or the other, but that would require a huge group nomination, and for now it seems better to use the existing convention of "Law firms of Foo". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that event, I wouldn't oppose a rename here without prejudice to re-doing it if and when some global rename is proposed; the issue remains that many lawfirms are global these days so is a lawfirm "of" every nation in which it has a registered office, perhaps, or where general partners are resident? Carlossuarez46 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and per convention of both Category:Companies by country and Category:Law firms (only Category:United Kingdom-based law firms used the "based" formulation). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 12:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rename - if 6 of one is as good as half a dozen of the other, I say go with the one that is shorter to type. Blockinblox 13:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Across the board 99% of categories of firms use the "of" form. Inconsistency does not save time, quite the opposite in fact, it wastes a great deal of it. Haddiscoe 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention. Haddiscoe 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Craig.Scott 12:47, 29 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:Mythological ships[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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Procedural transfer of deletion proposal and discussion originally started on Category talk:Mythological ships to correct forum. Shirahadasha 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Original deletion proposal was:I propose that the category Category:Mythological ships be deleted. The reasons are 1. The very low number of entries makes it of limited usefulness. 2. It is controversial (see Talk:Noah's Ark) that Noah's Ark, the most well known 'ship' listed is in this category. WP:CAT states "be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category". ^ross ^nixon 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the category is serving exactly the function it supposed to, capturing ships from the mythologies of various cultures. If people are upset that Noah's Ark is included then they should resolve it as a content dispute not as a deletion attempt. Otto4711 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the category is currently underpopulated does not mean that there are not many mythological ships that could be put in this category. There are many ships which appear in fables and legends, as well as ships whose dimensions or character indicate that they would be suitable for this category. I would include Noah's Ark, Zeng He's Treasure ships, Jason's Argo and many others, including ships from Norse and Greek mythology, "ghost ships", ships from myths of the Pacific native peoples, and many others.--Filll 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 7 members already, it is not "small and unlikely to expand" - the policy specifies 3 for this. Johnbod 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711, Filll.-gadfium 20:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above, content disputes should not be made into deletion debates. Carlossuarez46 23:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and there is no reason a mythological ship can't be real. Troy is a mythological city, but it's also real. Charlemagne is a real king that has large mythological elements to his story. Religion is a type of mythology anyways. 70.55.88.63 23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note to closing admin: This issue raised a lot of contentious discussion on Talk:Noah's Ark and this is a Memorial Day weekend in the United States when doubtless many are away. I'd ask the closing admin to wait the full week, give the other side a chance to come back from vacation and comment, and make sure we have a discussion that includes the most vocal members of all sides so that we can close this matter in a way that can be respected by all as final. I'd suggest that WP:SNOW based on early comments would not be a good idea here. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did a thorough cleanout of this category and harmonizing with Category:Legendary ships, Category:Ghost ships and Category:Nautical lore while this was getting prodded. The category is clear about what it is for and is not uninhabited.--ZayZayEM 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fill, John, Otto and the anon 70.55.99.63. Also, echoing Shira's point that we shouldn't snow this. JoshuaZ 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete Keep~~Delete For the record I think Noah's ark was 100% mythological. However it is not at all clear that it was really a ship. The word ark only means vessel. There is no special reason to think that the ark could be steered, as a ship must or else it would be a barge. On the second thought I will just go ahead and remove the category from that article and that should take care of the "controversy." Sorry to have to change my vote back to delete. It seems like the category is doing more harm than good if it is a source of contention. Please check out the discussion page of the Ark article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My proposed compromise was quickly reverted. I can see that feelings run high on both sides of the "controversy." However I still think it is the best solution. Steve Dufour 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't maybe ships in mythology work better for the intents of this category? Bulldog123 09:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is really an issue about whether Noah's Ark belongs in this category. Except for Johan's Ark (which is a real ship), the other articles (Argo, Naglfar, Skíðblaðnir, and solar barge) are about ships that appeared in stories that are commonly referred to as mythology. Grouping the mythological ships together is appropriate. Whether Noah's Ark belongs in this category is a separate subject. Dr. Submillimeter 11:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Noah's Ark is an outstanding source of information on the subject and covers all points of view. However, I get the feeling that the main reason for putting it in the category, or maybe even for the existence of the category itself, is to mock people who believe in the Bible literally; not to add to our understanding of the subject. Steve Dufour 12:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps, assuming good faith, it's an attempt to present the topic with a more expansive, less biased worldview. Otto4711 13:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be an article on mythological ships for people who are interested in the topic. The articles on individual ships could be linked from there, as well as Noah's Ark - which is kind of like a ship. Why is a category needed as well? Steve Dufour 00:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, I still think that this category is needed for Argo, Naglfar, Skíðblaðnir, and solar barge. I suggest removing Noah's Ark until the debate on its inclusion at Talk:Noah's Ark reaches a consensus. Dr. Submillimeter 08:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Come on, everyone knows this category was only created for purposes of one POV to antagonize another POV, and has no genuine value. I'd like to AGF, but Steve is right. Blockinblox 13:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone" knows it? I don't know it. The other people wanting this kept don't know it. Unless you're a mindreader or someone posted a message stating that they created the category for purposes of antagonism, you don't know it. Otto4711 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I am asserting that "deep down" everyone knows this is what it's for, even the people voting to keep and even the onees who created the article. Of course it can't be proven, it's just my assertion, okay? Blockinblox 14:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll bet that this category is up for deletion is purely as a result of Noah's Ark. Now that I know the category exists, I'm going to add some more mythical ships to it. Orangemarlin 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category is useful and NPOV. --Gene_poole 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is too small and indeed POV (concerning the meaning of "mythology"), better place contents in "legendary ships". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Comment - make a more hard-and-fast distinction between "ships in myth" (eg, for sake of argument, those in the Iliad) and "ships that are so big that we can scarcely believe they were true" (eg tessarakonteres, treasure ship) - the former should be in this category, the latter should not. Suggest the latter are thrown out of the category and the category renamed, as suggested above, to something like Category:Ships in mythology. Neddyseagoon - talk 11:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The controversy over inclusion on Noah's Ark has been addressed multiple times, and the consensus has been to keep the tag, though a small minority have fought it. Mythology is well-defined on Wikipedia, and it does not mean "fictional". Sxeptomaniac 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "epic ships", "ships in religion", and/or similar. User:Orangemarlin wrote on Talk:Noah's Ark "This ship is a myth using the following definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, the foremost dictionary in the English Language: A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing. We do not mean myth in the form of something of supernatural origin. This ship is a myth, because it is a widespread story with no supporting documentation, save for a biblical account. There has been no archeological or historical proof of its existence. Hence it is mythological." Other editors have used the phrase "nothing more than mythology" in this discussion. I believe using a term that is nothing more than a synonym for "untrue or erroneous" in a category directly violates a fundamental tenet of WP:NPOV, that Wikipedia does not express an editorial opinion on the truth or falsity of beliefs, claims, or doctrines. ("None of the views should be...asserted as being the truth.") Accordingly, I would propose renaming the category to a more neutral and hence Wikipedia-appropriate term such as "epic ships" or similar (perhaps "ships in religion") that carries the idea of being the subject of culturally significant narratives without having the baggage accompanying a word that User:Orangemarlin and many other editors have claimed is simply a synonym for "bogus". I had intended to be neutral on this issue with the idea that a "myth" could connote a culturally significant or culture-defining narrative, but the repeated use of the term "myth" to connote "falsehood" has convinced me that the term currently seems to carry too much baggage to be supportable. I could support the continued use of the term only if it meant, and was intended to mean, something consistent with WP:NPOV. --Shirahadasha 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Epic ships" works for me. Steve Dufour 04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epic does not have the meaning that Mythological does. I would oppose that wording more than Legendary, which was previously suggested. I'll gladly support a change in wording if someone comes up with something close to the meaning of "mythological", but neither of those have quite the meaning we're looking for. I've watched Noah's Ark long enough to notice that User:Orangemarlin has a tendency to troll the talk page, antagonizing Christians (particularly biblical literalists). Once again, Orangemarlin has designed his/her wording in order to pick a fight, rather than make a reasoned point. The primary definition of Myth is: "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."[1] Neither "epic" nor "legendary" have that particular meaning, and I don't think we should change it just because some people have a bad vocabulary. Sxeptomaniac 05:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epic would work if we were a little more informal here. In common American useage the Ark, the Titanic, and the Argo could all be called epic ships. As in, "That's really, like, epic!" Steve Dufour 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a formal definition of "epic" used as adjective. Miriam-Webster's on-line dictionary hsas: "1. of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an epic; 2. extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope." Definition 3. of epic used as a noun is much more to the point, however: "a series of events or body of legend or tradition thought to form the proper subject of an epic." (Note:1 term is fair use). Epic has the sense of "great story" without the contemporary connotation of "bogus" or "false". I'm not tied to epic. Any word or phrase that gets the point across without also having a history of being potential troll-bait would do fine. --Shirahadasha 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym for bogus? No, I don't think so. Bogus is the Creation museum. Bogus is Intelligent design. I put Noah's Ark way above those ideas, in that it is a myth that is a powerful part of our cultural memory. I don't think it ever was around, but I don't think it is bogus. It is an important allegory, and should always be a part of Judeo-Christian teachings. The search for Noah's Ark, on the other hand, is the height of bogosity. You see, I think myth or mythological is much more positive than you are attributing to me. BTW, why is everyone attempting to read my mind????? Finally, epic may be acceptable, but not sure the meaning fits with this story.Orangemarlin 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made the category because it needed to be made; prior to the extistance of this category someone put Noah's Ark, along with the other ships in this category, into Category:Fictional ships. While accurate, I think that the new category is much -more- accurate and indicates precisely what belongs in the category, though obviously the people who objected to its categorization as a fictional ship continue to argue over it. This is essentially an attempt to get the word "mythological" off of the Noah's Ark page by fundamentalist Christians, and has been the source of much friction. This arises from a misunderstanding on their part of the word mythology and they have apparently steadfastly refused to read that article. Please note that Category:Abrahamic mythology exists. The fundies just don't like to see their religion categorized along with every other one, because they think they are special for some reason. Titanium Dragon 01:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 1) You say you made the cat? Looks like Csernica did, unless you are he. 2) "Along with every other one": If this is a case of treating the Judaeo-Christian Bible like other currently-popular religious books (let's avoid blatant pejoratives intended to insult, like "fundie"), can you show what other books considered sacred scripture by religions widely practised today, have had elements of them declared to be "mythology"? E.g. Are there any other articles about the miraclulous / supernatural stories and concepts from the Quran, the Buddhist Sutras, etc. that have been proclaimed by Wikipedia to be "mythology"? To me, it appears more like this one particular miraculous / supernatural story has been singled out for such treatment, for reasons that are unknown to me. Blockinblox 12:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right; I misremembered. I suggested it but didn't do so. That's what I get for writing late at night and not thinking. I'll be glad to take the credit though :P

More seriously... you mean other than every other religion? You know this as well as I. It took me 5 seconds to find Islamic mythology. See also Hindu mythology and Buddhist mythology. As those are the four biggest religions in the world, I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes, in fact, we are treating them equally. Some fundamentalist Christians have this bizzare idea that Christianity is under more attack than any other religion; Islam is also extremely heavily criticized. Hinduism is much less criticized in the West because it is an Eastern religion, and Buddhism is much the same way (but has the added advantage of being, generally, a much more progressive and less offensive religion than the Abrahamic religions, and far less predisposed to try and teach fundamentalism in schools in the west). Yes, there are articles about other religions, and yes, we do in fact use the word mythology. It would take you five seconds to find these articles, and the fact that you didn't bother is certainly indicative of something... Titanium Dragon 08:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that you didn't bother is certainly indicative of something"? This sure sounds like you are trying real hard to point at a speck in my eye! But the fact is, I did bother. Right after I posted that yesterday, I spent two hours making a list of all articles from EVERY modern religion that are mislabeled as "mythology". I found there is actually very uneven application across Wikipedia: some religions like Zoroastrianism escape being stuck with mythology categories altogether, while "Mesoamerican" religions sidestep the distinction entirely. This is now being resolved at the appropriate place. Blockinblox 11:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Correct usage. AshbyJnr 10:04, 3 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.

University presidents[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming all subcategories of Category:American university and college presidents to take the form "Presidents of (institution)" rather than "(Institution) presidents," for consistency. This nomination follows up on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#University presidents. In the prior CfD, the same rename was proposed and apparently gained (minimal) consensus, but the rename was not completed for the entire category when the CfD was closed.

These proposed new category names should be checked for consistency, particularly in the use of "the." Please feel free to correct or amend this proposal. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Why is one any better than the other? I almost prefer the way these are now, as they fit in with school-related alumni/people/etc categories. Do you also propose renaming Category:Georgia Institute of Technology alumni to Category:Alumni of the Georgia Institute of Technology? The phrasing is more awkward in the proposed names, too... at least on names that don't involve "University." —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main reason to favor renaming is consistency, as the categories are named inconsistently now using both forms, even though the prior CfD was done explicitly in the interest of a consistent form for all the categories. I favor the rename to "presidents of (X)" rather than "(X) presidents" because of (a) the analogy with Category:Presidents by country, (b) the fact that (as one user objected during the previous CfD) the "(X) presidents" form is clearly not used in several specific cases, and (c) my limited Google spot-checking on several specific instances always indicated that usages of the former significantly outnumbered usages of the latter. And, just to be clear, this CfD is intended to apply only to these above-listed university-president categories, not to alumni or people or any other set of categories. (Also, in a few specific cases like Georgia Tech, which you mentioned, and MIT, there seems to me to be no overwhelming reason to use the full formal name of the university in the category name -- e.g. Virginia Tech's category is a counterexample -- but this should be discussed in a separate CfD at some other time. My proposal just stuck to the existing category names as closely as possible.) -- Rbellin|Talk 03:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, okay. Objection withdrawn. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The new names will slip off the tongue more easily. Jamie Mercer 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. JoshuaZ 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rename - go with the shorter formulation, less typing. Otherwise, same difference. Blockinblox 13:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this objection. Are the two characters in "of" really that onerous to type? That's the entire difference in length here. -- Rbellin|Talk 13:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three characters, actually, if you include the space. But even three characters isn't going to give anyone RSI, and the "of" formulation also has the benefit of consistency with Category:Canadian university and college chief executives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:American University presidents should be renamed to to Category:Presidents of American University, as it is for presidents of American University, not a general category. Mairi 16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. I've fixed it. I'm not sure why that was changed; it was clearly a mistake. In fact, this ambiguity in the "(X) presidents" category names for some universities (the ones with states or countries in their names) is an additional good reason to favor the "Presidents of (X)" form. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One thing that is good about the system we use now is it is consistent with other categories for university people, for instance (x) alumni and (x) faculty, so it looks good on the university pages, for instance Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a good example. Danski14^(talk) 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's true (though there are some subcategories of Category: People by university using the other form, they're exceptions). But as User:Pmanderson pointed out during the previous CfD, some institutions really rarely or never use this form of the title for their presidents. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom for accuracy and good style. Craig.Scott 12:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. I nominated the last set the other direction, but I like this way just as much.--Mike Selinker 22:19, 29 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.

Merge into Comics conventions[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 Category:Comic conventions into Category:Comic book conventions. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comic conventions to Category:Comics convention
Propose renaming Category:Comic book conventions to Category:Comics convention

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Merge these two categories as they are redundant. Change the name to the plural form "comics". Comics is more inclusive as it also includes comic strips. Also, I have seen some discussion that "comic book" is an American idiom, so this will be a more universal name. Finally, it helps distinguish this category from a potential category for conventions of comedians. There was some discussion of this at WikiProject Comics a few months ago. GentlemanGhost 17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that these should be merged as redundant, and your reasoning makes sense. I just can't find enough consistency in what the conventions themselves are called. Look at their names.[2] I only found one with "Comics Convention" in the name, but then again, I only found one with "Comic Convention" in the name. There are a number with either "Comic Con" or "Comic Book Convention". Doczilla 17:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not absolutely married to a particular name. Any one of these three is fine with me; what's most important is that they are merged. In choosing what name to use, I tried to follow what was the consensus in the previous (linked) discussion. However, if a new consensus is reached for a different name, I will happily assent to it. Thanks for being on the ball, Doczilla! --GentlemanGhost 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename and merge I spotted these during the tidy and there is no reason for having the two. "comics" is more general than "comic book" but I thought these were usually plural. So I'd support them both being move/merged/renamed to:Category:Comics conventions. Obviously if they aren't plural then go with the current proposal as whatever the final name this does need doing. (Emperor 17:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Different rename and merge. The fact that the site I cited is named Comic Book Conventions tips the scales for me. They should all merge into the existing Category:Comic book conventions. Doczilla 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MergePhoenix741 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Comic conventions to Category:Comic book conventions. It is an already established category and seems to follow the convention of using 'comic book' in the names of categories on this topic. Vegaswikian 22:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything to Category:Comic book conventions. If it just says Comic or Comics some people will think you are talking about comedy or comedians. I am not a comic book fan and that is what would come to mind first for me. Steve Dufour 04:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Comic book conventions. "Comic convention" wouldn't be said by any attendee of San Diego Comicon, I don't think.--Mike Selinker 22:24, 29 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 opposed to apartheid[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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "People opposed to apartheid" is just about everybody, save a few. Category:Anti-apartheid activists adequately covers those people whose work or stance against apartheid is notable. Ezeu 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jamie Mercer 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything has someone that dislikes it. What next? People opposed to smoking? TheBlazikenMaster 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by-opinion categories need to be really special to be useful; this ain't. Carlossuarez46 23:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. Apart from our general disdain of by-opinion categories, this one shows up the limits of categories without time constraints. Anyone following South African events in the 1980s would have injured themselves laughing at the suggestion that (as this category claims) FW de Klerk was "opposed to apartheid" before his 1989 volte-face. And since apartheid ended, it's near-impossible to find anyone who admits to having supported it over its 4 decades. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic is completely open-ended. Perspicacite 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Carlos and BrownHaired. JoshuaZ 03:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only activists deserve a category. Just having an opinion shouldn't count. How can we know someone's opinion anyway, without reading their mind? Steve Dufour 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About as useful a category as Category:People who breathe oxygen. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, using Category:Anti-apartheid activists instead. On a similar note, Category:Supporters of apartheid is also too broad and POV. Most current members of that category should be moved to Category:Apartheid government which is a NPOV definition. Zaian 11:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Almost all people support the government they happen to live under. That's just human nature, for better or worse. Steve Dufour 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we do need a cat like this, but we've already got one. Blockinblox 13:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Axl 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (along with Category:Supporters of apartheid). Deon Steyn 09:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nominated Category:Supporters of apartheid separately: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30#Category:Supporters_of_apartheid.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Category:Anti-apartheid activists does nicely. gren グレン 10:34, 3 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:Church of Ireland archbishops[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Empty apart from an inappropriately-placed sub-category, and a functional duplicate of Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland. The creator appears not have been aware that the Church of Ireland is an Anglican church. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only one of the duplicates is needed, but unless this one is strictly incorrect nomenclature, it is at least less verbose. Blockinblox 13:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There are only two Anglican archbishoprics in Ireland, each of has its own category: Category:Anglican Archbishops of Dublin, Category:Anglican bishops and archbishops of Armagh. Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland and Category:Church of Ireland archbishops are both only container categories, and neither needs to be used for articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as duplication (or possible triplication as there is also Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of Ireland) One's head begins to spin. -- roundhouse 16:44, 29 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:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University[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 moved to WP:UCFD

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University Belfast

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To differentiate Queen's University Belfast from Queen's University in Canada. Cordless Larry 16:20, 27 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.

Prelates[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 or delete per nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:South African prelates to Category:South African bishops
Category:Austrian prelates to Category:Austrian bishops
Category:Peruvian prelates to Category:Peruvian bishops
Category:Puerto Rican prelates to Category:Puerto Rican bishops

Propose deleting Category:Armenian prelates, Category:Bolivian prelates, Category:English prelates, Category:American prelates, Category:Argentine prelates, Category:Belgian prelates, Category:Canadian prelates, Category:Norwegian prelates, Category:Spanish prelates and Category:Swiss prelates.

Nominator's Rationale: The articles and sub-categories of these categories are all bishops, and there is no need to use the less familiar term "prelate". (Prelate does appear to have a broader meaning of "religious leader", but we already have Category:Religious leaders and its subcats for that purpose).
Where an appropriate bishops category already exists (such as Category:English bishops) for Category:English prelates, I have proposed deleting the prelates category, and in the other cases they should be renamed to the more familiar term "bishop", which is how the office-holders concerned are usually known.
Note that I have not nominated some prelates by nationality categories such as Category:German_prelates, which appears to consist mostly of abbots. I don't now whether it is worth keeping those prelates categories, and while I reckon they would probably be better named as "Fooian religious leaders", that is best left to a separate discussion
I note that there is also a post in the Roman Catholic Church called Territorial Prelate, but so far as I can see there are no articles on any holders of that post, which in any case ranks below that of a bishop and is unlikely to be notable of itself. To avoid confusion, if a "prelate" category is needed for such people, they would be better in a Category:Territorial prelates ... although I would question whether it is appropriate to create a category for every obscure rank in the complex hierarchies of large religions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Argentine prelates include both sub-categories Bishops and Cardinals. --Mariano(t/c) 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply All the Argentine Cardinals on whom there were articles are (or were) also bishops or archbishops. There is no no useful purpose served by maintaining a separate layer of categorisation by country merely to group together two near-identical categories of senior Roman Catholic clergy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and delete per nom. I am confident that BHG had considered these carefully - I looked at the 3 persons in the first one, and prelate is not mentioned in any of the 3 articles. I also looked at the English ones and they are just the archbishops and bishops. This adds nothing but confusion to the categorisation of clerics. -- roundhouse 19:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly as none of the subcategories of English prelates is entirely correct - Archbishops in England can be Welsh or Ugandan. English bishops is a correct subcat but it contains all the Catholic Archbishops in England (not necessarily English) and also Patrick O'Donoghue who looks more likely to be Irish. -- roundhouse 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Although "prelate" may be a technically correct title for these people, these categories will confuse people looking up information on bishops. The rename seems appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 08:22, 29 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:Adrenocortial cancer deaths[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title of the category is misspelled. I have already created a new category with the correct spelling and moved the only article in the category. Axl 14:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question to what category have you moved the article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to Category:Adrenocortical cancer deaths. The article in question is Garry Betty. Steevo714 18:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The new spelling appears to be the correct one. Steevo714 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as misspelling; good job of being WP:BOLD, Axl. Carlossuarez46 23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Lugnuts 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Beloved freak 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the point of categories like this? Isn't it pretty much just a matter of chance what people happen to die of? Nathanian 02:34, 4 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:Category:Indian comic book publishers[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 Category:Indian comic book publishers to Category:Comic book publishing companies of India. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I moved everything to Comic book publishing companies of India, to match the formatting for everything else. Didn't know how to CFD at the time. Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Comic book publishing companies of India, per convention of Category:Comic book publishing companies by country. (Note in the case of an empty category such as this, it is better to merge rather than delete, in case the category is re-populated before the CfD closure is picked up by the bots. If the category is still empty, then the "merge" will amount to deletion, so no harm done). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 10:05, 3 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 who have at some stage claimed they are not gay[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. I know that this exact name hasn't been on CFD before, but I still believe that this is recreated content. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious really. WP:BLP issues, unencylcopedic etc. No doubt we could have "people who have a some stage claimed they don't beat their wife" too. WjBscribe 14:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke, right? Maybe Uncyclopedia would host it. Delete. Axl 14:49, 27 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:Fertilizer Producers[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 Category:Fertilizer Producers to Category:Fertilizer companies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fertilizer companies, since animals also produce fertilizer. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think Category:Fertilizer manufacturing companies would be clearer. Otherwise it could include companies that sell the product. Vegaswikian 21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fertilizer manufacturing companies. Haddiscoe 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fertilizer Companies. Most of the listed companies also sell the product. I created the category, and think Fertilizer Companies fits better (didn't like the "producer" name so much either) Shocklord 00:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fertilizer manufacturers. Sorry to introduce yet another permutation, but manufacturers removes the ambiguity about animals which make fertiliser, and the manufacturers are not necessarily companies: some may be state entities in socialist countries, others may be farmers co-ops or other such entities. --00:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- But they would still fall under the company umbrella in those cases so company would not be incorrect. Vegaswikian 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fertilizer manufacturers. unambigious.--ZayZayEM 03:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fertilizer Companies. I don't think "manufacturing" is the correct term to describe the production of chemicals. And Animals cannot be "Companies" so it is unambiguous. Shocklord 04:58, 30 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:WikiProject Color articles needing infobox sources[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ASR.--Encu555 13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The template that includes this category is similar in purpose to the unsourced and fact templates. The use of the category is to be able to track down unsourced Color infoboxes and fix or remove them. The intent is that as pages are fixed the occurrence of this category would naturally disappear. Bias disclaimer: I was the one that created this category) PaleAqua 18:02, 27 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:Places in Brunei[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge (and since this category is empty, that means delete). Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places in Brunei to Category:Geography of Brunei

Merge, "Places" is a very vague term. Standard "Geography" form fits better. Darwinek 10:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Postlebury 11:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to standardize. See Category:Geography by country. CloudNine 13:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to its parent Category:Settlements in Brunei which is the category for places that people live. This is the existing standard. No reason to go up to Geography. Hmains 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to its parent Category:Settlements in Brunei --Novelty 17:47, 4 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:Marvel Comics heroes, non-superpowered[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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Marvel Comics superheroes as situationally redundant and potentially POV. (Does Captain America's enhanced strength count as a power? Would he be categorized here for that brief period when he did have superhuman strength? Does Iron Man count as a hero with powers, or merely a non-powered human who uses technology? How would a character be categorized if they used to have powers but currently don't?) See related discussion for Category:DC Comics villains, non-superpowered here. -Sean Curtin 02:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. For the record, isn't Iron Man a cyborg now? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom., but don't post CfDs if you can't sign them. Doczilla 18:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Some discussion of this has taken place before. --GentlemanGhost 18:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some of the heroes (like the powerpuff girls and superman) are confirmed to have superpowers. But some of them are unconfirmable, how can we tell if some of them used machines to get the powers and not have it in them? TheBlazikenMaster 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Axl 19:02, 28 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:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered[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 to Category:DC Comics superheroes. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:DC Comics superheroes as situationally redundant and potentially POV. See related discussion for Category:DC Comics villains, non-superpowered here. -Sean Curtin 02:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom., but don't post CfDs if you can't sign them. Doczilla 18:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Some discussion of this has taken place before. --GentlemanGhost 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per my reasoning on Marvel. TheBlazikenMaster 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Axl 19:03, 28 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:Fictional ninja[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. Vegaswikian 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet the first one, and hopefully the last category that isn't plural. So move it to Fictonal ninjas. TheBlazikenMaster 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Ninja" is both the singular and plural form of the word; in fact, it was renamed from Category:Fictional ninjas to this by this CfD. -Sean Curtin 05:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, exactly. "Ninjas" is a silly word, like "peoples" or "fishes" when its not being used as a verb. – Lilwik 06:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sean Curtin. Since for some bizarre reason wikipedia has found it appropriate to retain zillions on article on these fictional characters, we should use the correct plural. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Keep. This is the correct title. Axl 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, fine. But can I at least make a category redirect? Sometimes they are called ninjas. TheBlazikenMaster 18:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, a redirect is a good idea. Axl 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, then I'll withdraw this nomination. But still, I often watch movies, and then reffering to ninjas in them, they rarely say ninja. TheBlazikenMaster 19:01, 27 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.