Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2[edit]

Category:Disambiguation lists of 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 rename to Category:Ship disambiguation. The sentiment against including "ambiguous" or "lists" in the title is fairly strong. Of the remaining options, Category:Ship disambiguation has more support and more closely corresponds to the pattern of Category:Disambiguation. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disambiguation lists of ships to Category:Lists of ambiguous ship names
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous and does not correctly identify the contents of the category. Template:Shipindex may need updating. Vegaswikian 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is perhaps true of the first alternative, but not the second. The category does not really contain "Lists of ambiguous ship names". It contains very short disambiguation pages, titled after a short version, with the "lists" giving versions that are not ambiguous. Eg:HMS Astute lists HMS Astute (P447) and HMS Astute (S119). So the names in the lists are not ambiguous, as the proposed title suggests. I just don't think I like using "ambiguous" in a category name. It begs the question "Why don't you do something about it, then?" Using "disambiguation" makes it clear something has been done. Johnbod 04:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Lists of disambiguated ship names or Category:Disambiguated ship names. Vegaswikian 05:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are better. I prefer the second, but would support whichever gets consensus. Johnbod 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to different name Why hello friends, I see some familiar names :) I strongly oppose categorizing thousands of pages as "Lists of..." when they are not, technically, lists (note that the current name has this 'lists' problem also). Propose rename to Category:Ship disambiguation, which follows the most prevalent naming pattern in parent category Category:Disambiguation. Maralia 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, though Category:Ship disambiguation pages is clearer yet. Johnbod 19:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
A circular argument, as that is likely to be renamed to match the new name for this - see the other debate. Johnbod 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, I misunderstood the situation. I'm sorry. Let me think about this a little. TomTheHand 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, forget my previous reasoning ;-) but Ship disambiguation does seem like the best name to me, while any renaming with the word "ambiguous" is horrible. TomTheHand 23:12, 5 November 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.

Poetry by X[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, including Category:Shakespeare's sonnets. There isn't any Sonnets by author categorisation scheme that might reveal a convention for such categories; indeed, Category:Sonnets has only that one subcategory. The subcategories of Category:William Shakespeare consists of a mix of "Shakespeare X" and "Shakespearean X", but only one that starts with "Shakespeare's". If an alternate name is desired, please initiate a new nomination. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These are the last works to be of the author, not by the author. The rest of the others in Category:Poems by author follow the by pattern. (By the way, I'm not sure why it's not "Poetry by author" rather than "Poems by author.")--Mike Selinker 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That enables them to also go in book categories, so I think is ok. Johnbod 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all EXCEPT Shakespeare's sonnets - that format is the most familiar and does not require standardizing in relation to other categories. See Shakespeare category hierarchies. DionysosProteus 01:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Including Shakespeare, it maybe a common form but so are the alternatives (Keat's poems) for others and there are sonnets written by others however not many that we now think that notable. Consistency of format is ideal and make nothing significant harder. 10:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinalewis (talk • contribs)
  • Rename all as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as a creator of more than one of the categories, I was simply following the poetry category precedent, which I found a little odd. This is better. ~Eliz81(C) 09:18, 11 November 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:Portuguese anti-communists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.-Andrew c [talk] 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portuguese anti-communists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Members of WP: PT have brought into question if this category is worth existing as it's pretty much irrelevant and should probably be deleted.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves talk / contribs (join WP:PT) 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete presumably all factions politically that weren't communist could be deemed "anti-" regardless of how close or far they would be; think of the same sort of category for the UK or US - in the latter you get everything from Tim McVeigh to Jimmy Carter; nothing really in common. Carlossuarez46 18:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it wasn't a clear vote from me above.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves talk / contribs (join WP:PT) 18:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Carlossuarez46 above. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What possibly could 'irrelevant' mean? That is not a deletion criteria. The 'Anti-communist' category and its national subcategories are legitimate and have been Kept in past discussions; this category is part of an entire pattern. Hmains 03:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "irrelevant" I meant there's just one entry in it and there won't be any other any time soon. I'm Portuguese and I can't even guess who else notable should be listed on that category. And if one starts looking at people who aren't openly anti-communist to put there, just because they just choose a different political stance, then the category is more than irrelevant. It is a problem. Before it becomes one, I think it should be taken down.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves talk / contribs (join WP:PT) 23:35, 8 November 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:Ahle Sunnat[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. All of the articles, except one which will be manually tagged with {{uncategorized}}, are already otherwise categorised in various subcategories of Category:Islam and/or Category:Sunni Islam. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ahle Sunnat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete we don't have an article Ahle Sunnat, and these articles are all about Muslim topics but nothing else really ties them together - some organizations, some music, a surname, etc. Carlossuarez46 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP,though there is no article by this a name but it is short form or short name of Ahle sunnah wal jamah which means sunni Branch of Islam.All the Artciles in this Category belong to sunni though some other articles also need to be mentioned here but it should not be Deleted.Shabiha 17:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabiha (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - the use of a foreign language for a category is undesirable. The category should either be renamed or merged to soemtthing else. I appreciate that language of Islamic worship is Arabic, so that theological discussions are also in Arabic, but this is the English WP, so that (except well-known technical terms) Englsih should be used. Peterkingiron 18:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge contents into Category:Sunni Islam. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:16, 5 November 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:AFL Draft templates[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AFL Draft templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete orphan cat, not needed for the 2 entries. If kept, parents need to be found as well. Carlossuarez46 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll add the parent cat. I think this nomination is way too hasty as this category was just created and it is being populate. A category less than a week old with 3 members and growing can't really be orphaned. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks valid as per WikiProject Templates's navigational categories. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 5 November 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 with diabetes type 1[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 (also see the 2007 Apr 6 discussion). – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with diabetes type 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining. We previously deleted several versions of diabetic categories. Doczilla 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent--nothing new this time. LeSnail 22:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent, non-defining. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you mean by non-defining. If it's a good enough reason for deleting, should there be a wikipedia page that explains it? Karl 10:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per precedent. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Type 1 diabetes is defining. Don't delete! JonahDiabetic —Preceding comment was added at 04:36, 6 November 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:Quadriplegics[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 and redirect.--Mike Selinker 13:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Quadriplegics to Category:People with quadriplegia
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with Category:People with epilepsy, Category:Americans with disabilities, Category:People on the autistic spectrum, and the category's own definition. Although I just added that definition myself because there was none, I derived it directly from the definition for the paraplegic category. Doczilla 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, but maintain a redirect from Category:Quadriplegics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and redirect per nom. and BHG. LeSnail 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Quadriplegics" is clear and concise, no reason beyond political correctness offered for the rename. Otto4711 13:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Otto4711. The longer category name adds nothing. The best category names are short. Similarly for paraplegics (next item). These should both be dealt with in the same way. Peterkingiron 18:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to standardized name as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for standardization purposes. If we've chosen to go down the "PC" track, so be it. We need consistency. Keep a category redirect, though. Snocrates 22:34, 6 November 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:Paraplegics[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 and redirect.--Mike Selinker 13:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Paraplegics to Category:People with paraplegia
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with Category:People with epilepsy, Category:Americans with disabilities, Category:People on the autistic spectrum, and the category's own definition. Doczilla 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, but maintain a redirect from Category:Paraplegics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and redirect per nom. and BHG. LeSnail 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This proposal seems counter-intuitive. When are paraplegics referred to as if paraplegia is a disease? Paraplegics is much clearer, imo. IvoShandor 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per IvoShander. "Paraplegics" is clear and concise, no reason beyond political correctness offered for the rename. Otto4711 13:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to standardized name as per nom. (I was always taught not to characterize people by their afflictions, as my mother would say "they are `people with epilepsy` not `epileptics`!") --Kralizec! (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for standardization purposes. If we've chosen to go down the "PC" track, so be it. We need consistency. Keep a catgory redirect, though. Snocrates 22:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Novels by Barbara Kingsolver[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, convention of Category:Novels by author. As noted by Kevinalewis, the books in this category are novels. Separate categories for non-fiction books by ... and works by Barbara Kingsolver may be created when material exists that necessitates such categorisation. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Novels by Barbara Kingsolver to Category:Books by Barbara Kingsolver
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Author has written both fictional novels and nonfictional works, but doesn't have enough books to have separate categories for novels and nonfiction. --TexasDex 19:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with that. On reflection the most generic version is probably a good idea since it could include poetry or short essays by Kingsolver as well. --TexasDex 21:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - Just realised the novels should be kept together & a works category created above them for the other stuff. Johnbod 03:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and structures in Reno[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.--Mike Selinker 13:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all to conform to the title of the parent category (Category:Reno, Nevada) and the main article (Reno, Nevada), and to avoid confusion with any other places called 'Reno' (see Reno (disambiguation)). Please note that I am not nominating Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno, whose title corresponds with the title of the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Is this really, really necessary. The only pages on the dab page that are places include three counties, not cities, (two of which have less than 3000 people). Reno, PA, the only listed settlement has no article and is a tiny, tiny place near Oil City, Pennsylvania (I visit PA regularly and have never heard of it) I can't imagine that anyone on Earth would be looking for another category of Reno buildings than that in Nevada. Neutral because it won't hurt anything to change it. IvoShandor 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I am not opposed to it, mostly because it isn't a big deal, but don't most county cats include the fact that it is a county, like say Category:Stephenson County, Illinois? I am all for consistency however, so that alone is probably enough of a reason to rename.IvoShandor 17:59, 2 November 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:University of London Institute in Paris[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 relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of London Institute in Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category has only one entry, that being itself. Moglex 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reasonable prospect of significant expansion. Note that the category doesn't actually include itself, but rather includes the eponymous article University of London Institute in Paris. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and updated information. There are now sub-categories for people associated with the institute. Whilst these are currently small, this is not uncommon for small colleges and institutes of the University and this keeps the overall category structure consistent and navigateable. Removing this category will make it harder to follow. Timrollpickering 13:28, 4 November 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:War on Terror[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Clearly, the decision of one user to change the article name despite consensus to the contrary has influenced this debate, as several voters endorse the nomination for matching the article name. This is a discussion that needs to resolve (or fail to resolve) on the article talk page, and then the category can be brought into line if the new article name sticks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming Category:War on Terror to Category:War on Terrorism
Nominator's rationale, see the discussion on Talk:War on Terrorism no consensus for the move of this page to "War on Terror"--Southern Texas 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. The article (now War on Terrorism) seems to have had all its references to "War of Terror" changed to "War on Terrorism" very recently. But the phrase as used by President Bush and others is "War on Terror," and both the article and the category should reflect that.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the phrase is "Global war on terrorism" and although it was initiated by George Bush his dialect should not obscure the term and as is noted on the talk page, although the name is more common it misrepresents its subject.--Southern Texas 05:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. The official White House website actually uses the phrase War on Terrorism in War on Terrorism FAQ, despite the fact that its leader doesn't. All right, that's at least enough to make me go neutral on the name change.--Mike Selinker 13:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Good to have the category conform with the article name. As also pointed out by nom, "war on terrorism" is, strictly speaking, a more correct terminology. Use of "terror" in this context just seems to be a lazy abbreviation for "terrorism" anyway, so we may as well use "terrorism" to avoid any possible confusion. Snocrates 08:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Good to see grammar winning out now & again. However to stop it growing uncontrollably can we make sure that the cat text includes a note that it relates to the "American" incarnation of the war on terrorism, and not everything else going on around the world. Ephebi 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the category was not tagged at the time of nomination. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:22, 2 November 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:Rapcore Artist[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rapcore Artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Rapcore musicians, convention of Category:Musicians by genre. -- Prove It (talk) 13:14, 2 November 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:University of London External Programme[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 relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of London External Programme to Category:University of London External System
Propose renaming Category:People associated with the University of London External Programme to Category:People associated with the University of London External System
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the University of London External Programme to Category:Alumni of the University of London External System
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to reflect the university changing the name. The main article is now at University of London External System. Timrollpickering 12:05, 2 November 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:Country radio stations in the United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Country radio stations in the United States to Category:Country radio stations
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization, underpopulation of parent category, organization by country serves little purpose since this format is popular in only a few countries. Rtphokie 11:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the others. Johnbod 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for reasons set out at the other country stations below, namely that with over 400 C+W stations, sub-categorisation helps make the categories useable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yea, you could say the parent is underpopulated. But you could also make the same claim for any category that has well used sub categories. Good organization is not a reason to object to 'under population'. Vegaswikian 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sub categories are not well used in any of these examples. One country specific sub category is well populated and few if any other categories exist. It would make more sense to merge them all into the single parent category.--Rtphokie 17:38, 4 November 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:Country radio stations in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Country radio stations in the United Kingdom to Category:Country radio stations
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization, underpopulation. only 2 articles in this category, no hope. Rtphokie 11:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose There are over 400 US stations, in which these would be totally lost. See next two nominations. To say "serves little purpose since this format is popular in only a few countries" is a novel and erroneous argument in this context. Size is justified as part of a wider scheme, according to WP:OCAT. It is a nice change to see a group of categories with all articles nicely tidied into useful sub-cats. These nominations would produce a single unwieldy list of over 400 stations. Johnbod 13:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Johnbod. I hope that the nominator will consider withdrawing this series nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yea, you could say the parent is underpopulated. But you could also make the same claim for any category that has well used sub categories. Good organization is not a reason to object to 'under population'. Vegaswikian 23:50, 2 November 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:Country radio stations in Canada[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Country radio stations in Canada to Category:Country radio stations
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization, underpopulation. organization by country serves little purpose since this format is popular in only a few countries Rtphokie 11:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. There are 59 articles in this category, which is quite sufficient to justify its presence as a distinction from the stations in the US. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the size of the category isn't an issue, the necessity of further categorization is the issue. Do we really need to seperate country stations by country? It's pretty obvious from the first letter of the call sign.--Rtphokie 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bhg. Most of us have no idea what the first letter of the call sign means, plus not all stations use this. Johnbod 13:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A note can be placed at the top of the category identifying the call letter scheme used by Canada and the US. I wouldn't be opposed to sub categorization by country if it were being done for more than one country. As it exists it's too Canada or USA centric. --Rtphokie 17:41, 4 November 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:Classic country radio stations in the United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Classic country radio stations in the United States to Category:Country radio stations
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization, underpopulation of parent category, organization by country serves little purpose since this format is popular in only a few countries. Rtphokie 11:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Canada above. Johnbod 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per above. There are 27 articles in this category, and hundreds in the parent category, so splitting the category in this way is quite appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yea, you could say the parent is underpopulated. But you could also make the same claim for any category that has well used sub categories. Good organization is not a reason to object to 'under population'. Vegaswikian 23:51, 2 November 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:Whitney Independent Study Program alumni[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whitney Independent Study Program alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, unsourced article in category space, with no evidence of notability. This orphaned category contains only 1 article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 2 November 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:Style[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 under G7, C1, and this discussion. Did not salt though.-Andrew c [talk] 16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Style (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, orphaned category with no clear purpose, containing two very differing articles. The word "style" has so many disparate meanings that I don't see how it can be rescued as a useable category, so I suggest salt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom. Johnbod 13:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; prevention of recreation is also probably wise. Carlossuarez46 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vaguely named, orphaned category. Doczilla 19:43, 2 November 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:State Tech Prep[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State Tech Prep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, single-article orphaned category relating to an educational initiative; the lone article in the category is already well-categorised. The head article State Tech Prep was deleted in December 2006 as a copyvio of http://www.dvc.edu/techprep/history.htm and http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/tpreptopic.html. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 2 November 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:Strike (attack)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -Andrew c [talk] 16:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strike (attack) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-article orphaned category whose description makes no sense at all to me. If kept, it needs to be parented, but possible speedy delete as nonsense per WP:CSD#G1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I understand it, this is a category for articles about fighting techniques that focus mainly on striking an opponent. It is problematic in at least two respects. First, it is a category whose inclusion criteria requires an interpretation of what constitutes the "main focus" of an technique; thus, it is prone to or requires original research (it really depends on how clearly fighting techniques are classified by reliable sources). Second, even if the scope of the term strike (attack) is limited to physical blows only, this category would include virtually all offensive fighting styles and many or most defensive ones; after all, exclusive of techniques that involve no-contact attrition, mindplay, or long-distance weapons (throwing knives, guns, and the like), fights are won through physical blows. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & BF. Johnbod 20:44, 2 November 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:Shugo[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. The category's sole member is a biographical article that can be reached from Category:Government of feudal Japan (a category reserved for general topic articles) via Category:Daimyo (a biographical category). – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Shugo to Category:Government of feudal Japan
Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-article category rescued from the orphanage, limited growth potential. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 2 November 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:Rusyn historical regions[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 as overcategorization/underpopulated, with no prejudice against a recreation if it can be sufficiently verified and populated (per Peterkingiron).-Andrew c [talk] 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Rusyn historical regions to Category:Regions of Slovakia
Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-article category, limited growth potential. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only article is already in the target cat, and I wouldn't want to set a precedent because the Rusyn people stretched over parts of modern-day Slovakia, Belarus, and Ukraine. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. They are not even mentioned in the article. Johnbod 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also article Rusyns - also known as Ruthenian. This article seeks to identify the Rusyns with the Rus (at least in some degree), something that is no dount controversial. Do I not recall that an area to the east of Slovakia was absorbed by USSR during the World War II (or immediately after)? I suspect there is more to this question than meets the eye. One problem is that in eastern Europe, particularly before WWII, ethnicity and nationality did (and do) not always conform. It may be the answer is populate. However I am not qualified to do this. This is something for an expert, not general WP editors, or those specialising in other areas. Peterkingiron 18:52, 4 November 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:Rusyn saints[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 without prejudice to the creation of Category:Ruthenian Catholic Church or recreation of this category if there is additional material to categorise (or if a clearer convention is established for the categorisation of saints). Given the ambiguity associated with whether classifying Alexis Toth as a "Slovak saint" is accurate, deletion seems preferable to merging: undercategorisation is always easier to identify and fix than miscategorisation. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Rusyn saints to Category:Slovak saints
Nominator's rationale: Merge this single-article rescued-from-the-orphanage rescued with its underpopulated parent category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose this guy is a saint in the Ruthenian Catholic Church a self governing body within the Roman Catholic Church, there is probably something better than nationality on which to classify him, as he probably didn't self-identify as "Slovak"- which was part of the main body of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Carlossuarez46 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply If there are other Rusyn or Ruthenina-specific saints, it might make sense to have a category for them. But otherwise wouldn't it be best create Category:Ruthenian Catholic Church, to include for now the head article and Alexis Toth? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's probably the best solution; I would guess that there may be other notables associated with that church - probably each of their patriarchs would meet WP:BIO & WP:N - so there is room to grow. Carlossuarez46 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, Toth left the Ruthenian Catholic Church for Russian Orthodoxy, & is an Orthodox saint only - having spent his whole time in that church in the USA. I've made that a tad clearer in his article. On the whole, I would delete this category, or merge to Slovak saints. Johnbod 20:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That evidences an inherent problem with our categorization of saints by nationality - it really needs to be by demonimation and nationality as Russian orthodoxy has many saints not canonized by the Roman Catholic Church and v.v. and dumping them together in "Slovak saints" or "Russian saints" is mixing apples and oranges, like mixing Golden Globe winners with Oscar winners by nationality - two organizations handing out a prize in some sense. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But then vast numbers of older saints would have to be categorised by many denominations. I think this is an issue for the saints project anyway. There will be few if any Russian Catholic saints. Johnbod 01:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - see my comments on Rusyn Historical REgions above. This is likely to be a sensitive issue politically, and it is probably safer to Keep and hope it will be populated. Peterkingiron 18:56, 4 November 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:Personality Rights[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, without prejudice to recreation of an alternatively-named category if Template:Personality rights is kept at TFD. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Personality Rights to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename to something which clarifies the category's purpose as a wikipedia legal caution category used by Template:Personality rights. I found this one in the orphanage, so it also needs parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Well, it looks like Category:Wikipedia categories has very few legal issues categories, of which copyright is the behemoth. Maybe create a Category:Wikipedia content with legal issues category (parent: Category:Wikipedia categories); children Category:Wikipedia copyright and Category:Wikipedia disclaimers and Category:Wikipedia personality rights modeled along the WP-copyright category. Subcats could develop "personality rights approved", "personality rights questioned", etc. --lquilter 15:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment lquilter's idea makes sense, but when I came across this, I asked the cat's creator here what purpose it served. Having received no response to date, I guess I could infer "none", but placing it somewhere in a tree under lquilter's top cat may be fine - although we have 1000s of images of people who are identifiable so this particular "personality right" is somewhat limited; particularly when we are talking about notable people. Carlossuarez46 17:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - yeah i didn't take on the existence of the category, just the name. i agree that it is potentially boundless. isn't this the kind of thing that Category:Living people is supposed to handle? the array of privacy, defamation, false light, right of publicity, and so on rights? ... it's a bigger debate than we can probably have here, but to some extent it seems to me that having a legal-issues category that is maintained in a hit-and-miss fashion is worse than having no such category at all, as people could be misled by negative implication to believe that where there is no category, there is no problem. --lquilter 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: The template populating this category has been nominated for deletion here. Please note that while deletion of the template would require deletion of the category, retention of the template does not necessitate retention (under this name or any other) of the category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If {{Personality rights}} is deleted, this cat. has no purpose. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:50, 12 November 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:Racine Legion[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Racine Legion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for defunct team team from Wisconsin, containing only one article and one category, both of which are already well-ctegorised. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to save this from the orphanage, and since most (even defunct) NFL teams have cats. But upon further reflection, this probably is unnecessary. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of The Nineteen Year Winter[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of The Nineteen Year Winter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete this rescused-from-the-orphanage category, which looks like trivia. There is no head article Nineteen Year Winter, and the only mention of the phrase in any of the articles in the category is Stephen_of_England#Reconciliation_and_death, in a quotation from a chronicle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we shouldn't be taking snippets of time and making people of categories. Carlossuarez46 17:37, 2 November 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:Miss Earth 2007 delegates[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miss Earth 2007 delegates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete this orphaned categ per WP:OCAT#Performers_by_performance.2C_and_vice_versa. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 2 November 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:Free Lance-Star media[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free Lance-Star media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category (rescued from the orphanage) for a small regional media company, with limited potential for growth. All the articles are linked to from the main article The Free Lance-Star. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 2 November 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:Construction equipment rental companies[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 relisting see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_8#Category:Construction_equipment_rental_companies.-Andrew c [talk] 16:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Construction equipment rental companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, article/list in category space, with only one categorised article and lots of redlinks in the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 2 November 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:Coffer[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -Andrew c [talk] 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Coffer to Category:Architecture
Nominator's rationale: Merge, overly narrow category rescued from the orphanage, limited potential for growth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete both members are in the proper sub-cats of Architecture. Johnbod 13:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not really a defining characteristic like architectural styles are, overcategorization.IvoShandor 15:38, 2 November 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:British Army Portal officers[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. I am also deleting all subcategories, per a combination of CSD G6 (all categories are empty except for a userbox and this page) and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY (the intent of the categories seems to be to establish a 19-level hierarchy of editors for Portal:British Army). To discuss the closure, please contact me at my talk page or e-mail me. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British Army Portal officers to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to something which reflects the category's use as a maintenace category for subpages of Portal:British Army; or alternatively delete. If kept, the catgory needs to be parented (it is currently an orphan listed at Special:Uncategorizedcategories). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are userpages, holding templates etc for "ranks" in the Portal Project Group, & the userboxes. Move to userspace. Johnbod 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the users at the portal can explain why this is needed; apparently no other portal has such a construct - or at least I haven't come across one - so without something persuasive from them, delete.Carlossuarez46 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The portal was notified ten days ago [1], but there has been zero response. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:45, 12 November 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 from Greenville, Illinois[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:People from Bond County, Illinois.-Andrew c [talk] 15:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Greenville, Illinois to Category:People from Bond County, Illinois
Nominator's rationale: Merge, small and with limited potential for growth. 7-article subcat of a 4-article parent; the town of Greenville, Illinois has a population of only 7,000, whereas Bond County, Illinois has a pop of 17,000. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Reason being is there is already 7 people in the Category, with room possible room for more growth. Reason being is that the county used to be one of the more important areas of the state, and even though today's population leads you to believe that there won't be more growth in the future, it can and will still happen. Categories can be created when there is at least 2-3 articles that pertain to the subject, with more growth possible in the future, which I see.--Kranar drogin 10:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Splitting a category which contains only 11 articles in total only impedes navigation by the reader. No objection to the category being recreated if there are enough articles to populate it, but right now there aren't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Ok, what is "Enough". I have been told more than 3 in other category nominations, and now that we have that, I am being told more. I even thought the rules stated "more than three with the potential for growth a category can be created". So, having said that, what is "enough" for a category to be created as the Wikipedia guidelines say?--Kranar drogin 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Without prejudice to recreation if necessary. IvoShandor 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:36, 2 November 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 from Sullivan, Missouri[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:People from Franklin County, Missouri.-Andrew c [talk] 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Sullivan, Missouri to Category:People from Franklin County, Missouri
Nominator's rationale: Merge, 3-article subcat of a 7-article parent, limited potential for growth. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 2 November 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:Hospital disambiguation[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:Lists of ambiguous hospital names. While there wasn't much discussion, the rationale BHG used is basically a speedy criteria (CSD C.2.4).-Andrew c [talk] 15:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hospital disambiguation to Category:Lists of hospitals with disambiguation articles Category:Lists of ambiguous hospital names
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous and does not correctly identify the contents of the category. I'm not happy with the proposed name, so if there are other suggestions... Vegaswikian 07:52, 2 November 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:Specialist hospitals[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -Andrew c [talk] 15:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Specialist hospitals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: At this time, there are entries for some sub groupings at Category:Hospitals. This adds an unnecessary level without creating the needed underlying catgories. The point of the category is fine. Additional categories by type should be directly created at the parent (Category:Orthopedic Hospitals and Category:Eye Hospitals as examples). If in the future that category is unmanageable then this one could be recreated. But right now it is not needed. Vegaswikian 07:45, 2 November 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:Religious architecture[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.-Andrew c [talk] 15:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Religious architecture to Category:Sacred architecture
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination - Originally proposed for speedy rename, but did not fit criteria. Discussion so far follows.
Not all sacred architecture is religious, but all religious architecture is sacred.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this being done as a speedy: not an uncontroversial change within the criteria. BencherliteTalk 09:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion ends here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as "sacred" generally implies a holy site or site of significant religious importance, such as the Wailing Wall or the Sistine Chapel, respectively. A neighborhood church may be a religious building, but I wouldn't consider it particularly sacred. Obviously certain parts of it should be considered sacred, and the services held within would have a sacred manner, but the building itself wouldn't be sacred. Categorizing it as such would be potentially misleading and unhelpful to the project. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I don't think there is a huge difference in terminology here and the difference is probably negligible once differing interpretations are taken into account. I support keeping "religious" because it is more likely to be recognized/searched for by someone looking for this category, IMO. Snocrates 06:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Sacred" is harder to define objectively. Look at the subcats and articles. They use religious more. Doczilla 06:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hersfold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The other categories use religious. The comments above show there is no general agreement as to the distinction between the terms. Johnbod 14:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Makes the category more ambiguous than it already is. In my opinion, and probably many others opinions, a category that applies the term "sacred" to architecture would have to include works like the Farnsworth House which people practically worship. IvoShandor 15:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the nominator's own description that acknowledges these are not interchangeable category names, and no discussion of contents has been provided that suggests a content-based reason for changing. --lquilter 18:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Hersfold (buildings can be religious without being sacred) and per Iquilter (not interchangeable, inadequate reasons for change). BencherliteTalk 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Doczilla, Johnbod, Bencherlite. Carlossuarez46 20:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since the main article is Sacred architecture. So either we rename the category or we rename the article. Pick your poison. Vegaswikian 03:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was moved from religious architecture by the nominator here on Oct 29, without any discussion, and should be moved back after the conclusion of this. Johnbod 15:31, 8 November 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:Werewolves in fiction[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 relisting to generate more discussion see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_8#Category:Werewolves_in_fiction.-Andrew c [talk] 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Werewolves in fiction to Category:Werewolf fiction
Nominator's rationale: More specific names distinguish b/w articles about characters, which belong to Category:Fictional werewolves, and those about media which would belong to proposed cats. - Tobogganoggin talk 02:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also proposing:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobogganoggin (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose. Werewolves appear in fiction that is not werewolf fiction. For example, the character Man-Wolf debuts in The Amazing Spider-Man, a publication which no one would call werewolf fiction. Use the more inclusive terms with in in them. Doczilla 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. per Doczilla, and whether comics are literature is open to debate, and for werewolf films and television, that should be deleted because it suffers from the same problems that most "films about" have: how much about the subject matter must the film be and what 3rd party RSes will tell us it is at least that much? Are werewolf films any film in which a werewolf apprears. God help us! Carlossuarez46 22:32, 6 November 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:Jim Jones[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -Andrew c [talk] 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jim Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people and multiple precedents - material is sufficiently linked through the main article (Jim Jones (rapper)) and an infobox. BencherliteTalk 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for eponymous category and certainly not for the lesser-known of the Jim Jones-es of the world. --lquilter 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eponymous cat. Doczilla 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify and delete subcategories, if not adequately listed in the main (and discography) articles. The article Jim Jones refers to the religious leader responsible for the Jonestown massacre or mass-suicide (whichever it was). If this category were kept it should (like the amin article) be "Jim Jones (rapper). Peterkingiron 19:06, 4 November 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:Revelation[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:Supernatural revelation as everyone wants some change and this seems the closest to consensus, but with no prejudice to bringing this up again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Revelation to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename or Delete, not used in the sense of the last book of the Bible - as per the title of our article Revelation. This may be of some worth to categorize this, but it is rather open-ended and not all scripture is believed to be "revealed" by even those in the denominations concerned. No subjectivity, but if properly limited, a new name needs to be found. Carlossuarez46 00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Divine revelation or something similar and weed out texts that do not claim to be revelatory. I'd be happy to do the weeding. Snocrates 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that renaming to something like "divine revelation" would be best. There is clearly a need for a category that expresses this concept, yet "revelation" without a qualifier such as divine may be vague. However, given that budhists, hindus etc. also think that they get revelations, and given that Marian Apparitions are considered revelations, there is probably need for another term, rather than divine. The term "supernatural" does not seem to fit, however. How about Category: Religious Revelation as a category name? History2007 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Combines a very partial selection of categories from Category:Religious texts with Apparitions and few other articles. We already have too many overlapping categories in this area, and this one is certainly not needed. Johnbod 02:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It should be pointed out that not all religious revelations are texts. Some are texts and some have remained as unwritten folklore for centuries. Hence to get the hierarchy right, the tree structure here needs two branches: revelations in "text form" and those not in text form. Clearly many of the reported Marian Apparitions were never written as religious texts and hence will not fit under that structure.From a formal, shall I say computer science view, I would say that each Wiki-Category is really a leaf in an Ontology_(computer_science) and hence suitable attribute overlap considerations need to apply. Hence non-textual revelations need to be treated as well and there is need for an umbrella categry that sits above religious texts. Else it will be inconsistent from a logical point of view. History2007 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cat nam is poor. Definition is absent. Read the categorized articles. "Revelation" is not the defining feature of all of them. Doczilla 06:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure whether to rename or delete, but if the category is kept, it needs some parent categories, to rescue it from the orphanage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation should be added to this category anyway. If you look back at the history page for the category, I had an explanation for what it was but some users kept saying that explanations were not supposed to be in the category page and kept deleting it. I did not want to start fighting him, but it is clear that an explanation is needed for what a revelation category is. If you look at the history page there was a long explanation once. By the way, what is the Wiki-policy on explanations for what categories are. It seems that explanations are necessary. Is there a policy against them? Anyway, here was the short explanation when the parent category was "supernatural":

"This category refers to the religious concept of revelation. A revelation refers to a communication between a living human being and a diety or other supernatural entity, e.g. an angel. Many religions not only accept divine revelations, but base their fundamental beliefs on such revelations. For instance, Orthodox Judaism holds that the Torah was received from God on Mount Sinai, Catholics believe that the Book of Revelation was supernaturally communicated to the apostle Saint John the Divine and the Muslims consider the Qur'an to have been revealed word by word and letter by letter."

There was even more explanation of Buddhist and Hindu approaches, etc. It is still probably on the history page. History2007 03:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - I agree with PeterKingiron. The new name Category:Supernatural revelation seems the most suitable one. Now, does anyone have a pointer to a Wiki-policy on whether explanations are supposed to be in the category page or not? History2007 13:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category is extremely small, and the inclusion of the "Christian texts" and "Jewish texts" subcategory is POV (we cannot objectively say that any religious text is a revelation (whether supernatural or religious). We can only say that certain denominations feel that way. On top of that, Christian texts include writings of church fathers and scholars and non-biblical texts that hardly anyone feels is a divine revelation. Take away the subcats and you are left with 3 articles. This category is unnecessary and an example of overcategorization (with POV issues).-Andrew c [talk] 15:27, 8 November 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:Pugad Baboy templates[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pugad Baboy templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: eponymous cat for comic strip housing templates used in some articles related thereto, not needed. Carlossuarez46 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tiny, unneeded cat lacking room for growth. Doczilla 06:49, 2 November 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:Psychology NOS[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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Psychology NOS to Category:Psychology
Nominator's rationale: Merge, category by its terms is for things that belong in Category:Psychology but not in any of its subcats, just leave them at the higher level, so merge. Carlossuarez46 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Designed purpose seems to be for what the parent category is for. Snocrates 02:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This is an odd use of the DSM's NOS terminology. Doczilla 06:43, 2 November 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:Great Migration[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.-Andrew c [talk] 15:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Great Migration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective & POV; Great Migration is a dab of many migrations termed "great". Carlossuarez46 00:03, 2 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_2&oldid=1138388901"