Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6[edit]

Category:Songs by other artists recorded by The Ramones[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Ramones songs. Kbdank71 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs by other artists recorded by The Ramones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • I regretfully acknowledge your point... but I was sort of hoping not to validate the practice. I think our approach to song categorization could use some rethinking (as I've suggested previously elsewhere). Cgingold (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it could, but I am not volunteering. Occuli (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article & head category are both currently at "Ramones" -- but it seems to me that they probably should be at The Ramones. Cgingold (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I have already posted a long comment under the Bob Dylan discussion below in favour of this kind of categorization, although it does strike me that renaming both categories "Songs covered by ......" might be worth a thought, but I think the problem then would be that any song played in concert, if only once, and unverified would be added to that category. So all in all I think this category should be renamed "Songs recorded by The Ramones." That would set principle we could all adhere to and I will be amongst those amending a shedload of categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB – there was a previous cfd which dropped the 'the' - cfd on The Ramones albums. (I think we will need a Richhonchobot. I agree that 'Songs recorded by XXX' is clearer than 'XXX songs'.) Occuli (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Ramones songs. We have previously deleted/merged categories for cover songs, and lists of cover songs are routinely deleted at AFD. While a wider discussion on the songs by performer structure may be worthwhile, this is not the appropriate venue. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I totally agree that this should be debated as widely as possible. I added a note to the song portal this morning to alert them. In the meanwhile the present category is Category:Songs by other artists recorded by The Ramones which tells us definatively they are NOT Ramones songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no it doesn't. It tells us that these are songs originally performed by someone else and then also recorded by the Ramones, which as the categorization of songs by performer currently works on Wikipedia, means that they are Ramones songs. Otto4711 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please analyse the words, "Ramones songs" it's a grammatical thing, (think "my plane," "my radio" etc) not a WP thing, to make "Ramone songs" mean other things would entail re-writing dictonaries. It's sloppy and meaningless. You even confirm yourself that it's sloppy by saying "categorization of songs by performer currently works on Wikipedia, means that they are Ramones songs." But they are NOT Ramones songs, they are songs recorded by the Ramones. I can't see what the problem is, save that there's literally 100s of badly named categories. OTOH If we don't improve WP, ensure it is factual, understandable, readable, verifiable etc it is no more than the biggest grafitti filled wall in the world. The more I think about it the more I am certain there is a fundamental difference between writing and recording a song and "XXX songs" fails to convey the difference. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point still stands that this is one isolated category out of thousands and what you're doing amounts to hair-splitting. Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be hair-splitting, but it is also about the correct use of english, it's about clarity, it's about the casual reader understanding what is meant by a phrase, it's about accuracy, all the things Wikipeans should hold dear to their heart. "Songs recorded by XXX" is precise, cannot be misinterpreted and is factually accurate. All the things that listing, say Street Fighting Man in a category called Category:Ramones songs is not. History and WP is littered with "conventions" that are no longer used. I do appreciate the problems incurred and the wasps' nest I have stirred up here, but it is easier to rewrite WP than change the use of the english language! I never thought I'd be arguing about the proper use of english anywhere! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguing about the proper use of English is a favorite pastime hereabouts. While not definitive, Ramones song gets several hundred Google news hits, including from such august sources as the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, whose editors presumably know something of the workings of the English as she is spoken. Songs recorded by the Ramones gets zero. Otto4711 (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, the first article refers to another band covering a “Ramones Song” which I assume to mean a song written by the Ramones. The following 2 articles were along a similar vein, referring a Ramones song as opposed to somebody’s else’s song covered by the Ramones. You should also do a search for “Ramones covers” which is far more enlightening – but I don’t like “covers” for the reason I have already stated, but still prefer it to the option on offer. I am not that familiar with the Ramones, but I do know that under no circumstance can Blue Moon, Can’t Help Falling in love, House of the Rising Sun, Mr. Bojangles, or Big Yellow Taxi be considered to be “Bob Dylan songs,” although he did record each of these songs, whereas Blowing in the Wind and Like A Rolling Stone etc are most certainly Bob Dylan songs. I had decided not to post anymore on this matter, my POV in entrenched, yours in entrenched and there’s nothing I can do about that. I do apologise if anybody has been offended by my stance, but I am not changing it. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to say "you should be proud of yourself". LOL (Bashereyre is the category's creator.) Cgingold (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs recorded by Bob Dylan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Songs recorded by Bob Dylan to Category:Bob Dylan songs
Nominator's rationale: No other artist uses "Songs recorded by ____" as far as I can tell. The (rather well established) precedent is to use "_____ songs" for songs that the artist recorded, and "Songs written by _____" for songs that the artist wrote, even if there is a significant overlap. Compare, say, Category:Hank Williams songs and Category:Songs written by Hank Williams, which isn't a heck of a lot smaller and is almost totally overlapped. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - this is also my understanding of the convention. Occuli (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I declare an interest, I separated the category. The reason is simple, the two different categories are factually correct. "Songs by [anybody]" is flabby and meaningless. There is a difference between writing a song and recording a song, so, for example, Dylan has recorded Gershwin's "Soon" but that does not make it a "Bob Dylan song", it must remain a song written by Gershwin. However it would fit into a category, "Songs recorded by Bob Dylan." Is "All Along the Watchtower" a Jimi Hendrix song? No, it's a Bob Dylan song, Hendrix recorded a version of the song. There are categories "songs produced by ...." and, I think I have seen, "Songs arranged by ...." both which I would approve of. If you change the categories back can you tell me who wrote the song Just Like a Woman (song), is Dylan, Buckley, Morrison or Simone or one of the other artists that have recorded the song? There is a category "Songs by Irving Berlin" because he didn't record as well, so the concept is already there in Wikipedia. Going back to Hank Williams which has been used as an example, many people have recorded songs written by Hank Williams, it would be demeaning to Hank Williams to put any of his songs into a category "......songs" Also there is Category:Songs written by Hank Williams, which is correct.
  • Songs are like ships, they are designed in one place, laid down in another place, then sail the seven seas under different flags. For factual reasons it is appropriate for Wikipedia to acknowledge the facts.
  • Thanks for the note on my talkpage. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree entirely with all this. Category:Songs has: Songs by artist (3,229), Songs by lyricist (261), Songs by producer (36), Songs by songwriter (180), Songs by composer (181), which could all do with a little thought. (The first is the 'XXX songs' one, with just 3229 subcats.) But it should be merged pending a revamp. Occuli (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as the categorization system currently exists, "Foo songs" means "songs recorded by Foo" so these categories are redundant. A wider discussion on the naming convention may be warranted but this is not the venue for it. As an aside, Hank Williams is dead and thus probably has no opinion about how his songs are categorized. The notion that someone is "demeaned" by having his songs identified as his songs is...odd. Otto4711 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does somebody want to think exactly what "XXX songs" means? It suggests possession, but you can't possess a song, especially true of a traditional song, "Foo Songs" suggests belonging to or written by, not "Songs recorded by Foo" - if we MEAN songs recorded by Foo, then that's what we should say. As I said earlier "XXX songs" is flabby, meaningless and fails to distinguish the underlying meaning - as confirmed by Otto4771. As for the Hank Williams comment, it's simple, the song Cold, Cold Heart was written by Williams, and recorded by Presley, Bennett et al, it can't become a Category:Tony Bennett songs or a Category:Elvis Presley songs as it is categorized at the moment, but it can be a song recorded by both of them. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever "XXX songs" means elsewhere, as it currently stands on Wikipedia it means "songs recorded by XXX". "Songs written by XXX" currently means on Wikipedia "songs with music and lyrics by XXX". So "Cold, Cold Heart" is correctly categorized, as things now stand, as a song written by Williams, a Tony Bennett song and an Elvis Presley song. A single CFD of an isolated category is not how over 3,200 categories should be discussed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, this isn't the place to discuss 3,200 categories, Nor is "convention" a reason to rename this particular category. Take this discussion to where you think it belongs. Please let me know. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not changing conventions, is this a good reason to tell Mr Barack Obama he should be sitting on the back of a bus and not in the White House? OK A low punch, but a timely reminder that sometimes "conventions" are just plain wrong. I'm outta here. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may very well be that you're right and that hundreds if not thousands of other editors who created the Foo songs categories are wrong, but nothing you've said here supports that notion. Comparing how a category series is named to Jim Crow is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in a CFD. It's good that you're cutting your losses now before you invoke the Nazis. Otto4711 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beg your pardon? This is why I keep coming back. EVERYTHING you have said and the link you gave confirms that "Foo songs" is wrong, then you, and some other editors rely on "convention" to defend the present wording. If you are going to use "convention" to defend something which you know is wrong, then it seemed only fair that I could emphasis that "conventions" are neither always right, nor always immutable, no other meaning should inferred from my Obama reference, save that I am happy those particular conventions are changed. You really shouldn't take it so personal. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not taking it "personal" (sic). I'm just bemused at reading arguments on the basis of what is and isn't good English that are riddled with usage errors. Otto4711 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, 'You shouldn't take it so personal' is a Dylan quote. Occuli (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "personal" as in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It's not as if I haven't already acknowledged the hilarity of me arguing grammatical points, or my two apologies for any misunderstanding......--Richhoncho (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to conform to the existing convention. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:To do[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists. Kbdank71 14:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:To do to Category:Wikipedia to do
Nominator's rationale: Given its current name one would expect this to contain articles about "To do" which is clearly not the case. This should be renamed to make its designation as a Wikipedia maintenance category more clear. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: To Category:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists, or Category:Wikipedia to-do if that would be too long. Both "To do" and "Wikipedia to do" don't exactly describe the pages in the cat, and the dash is also needed to conform with WP:To-do list. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no prejudice about the name as long it contains "Wikipedia" in there somewhere. Cheers, ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Symbols of Oregon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify to List of Oregon state symbols as overcategorization. Kbdank71 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:Symbols of Oregon to article Symbols of Oregon
Nominator's rationale: This category is fine for articles like Oregon State Seal and Miss Oregon, but it also includes Milk, Pear etc. Being a symbol of Oregon is not a defining attribute of milk or pear, and is overcategorization for those articles. I suggest removing the articles that are not directly related to Oregon and instead creating Symbols of Oregon or List of symbols of Oregon. There are other categories like this, but mass nominations get messy so let's discuss this one first. Apoc2400 (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is one category of a series for each state. There is no reason stated for targeting this Oregon category for deletion. And no reason for targeting all of them either. If the pear is the state fruit of Oregon, certainly it is harmless to include it here, just as harmless as Oregon making the designation in the first place. What is needed to supplement this category is a list article describing what each symbol is, when it was adopted, etc. Other states have such lists (e.g.,List of California state symbols). Nominator should now write such lists instead of trying to delete things. What we certainly do not need is for all these symbol articles to be upmerged back to the 'Culture of foostate' categories which is where I found them before I made these Symbols categories. Hmains (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oregon was the first one I found. I have nothing against Oregon. Also, I am not looking to delete these categories, just removed articles like pear from them. Basically, when I am reading the article on pear and scroll down to the categories, I want to see categories that are relevant and defining for pears. Oregon is not all that important for pears, even if pears are important for Oregon. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion on the category, but note that per naming conventions it should be at List of Oregon state symbols, which is currently a redirect to Oregon#State symbols. There are already states with stand-alone lists, such as List of California state symbols, so I don't see a problem with breaking out the subsection of the Oregon article into a separate list article. Above all, the state symbol list names should be consistent. Katr67 (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can some one figure out how to get the Michigan and North Dakota portals out of the above cat? I can't figure out which template is making them transclude there. Katr67 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete - with few exceptions the contents of this category are not defined by their association with Oregon. I mean come on, milk? Is Oregon in the top ten things that come to mind when thinking about milk? The top one hundred? A list, either stand-alone or in another article, can include information about the selection of the official state gewgaw, when it was selected, etc. that a category can't and eliminates the accumulation of trivial category clutter on articles that are quite likely official gewgaws in multiple states. BTW, pear is back in the category. Otto4711 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify as nominated to List of Oregon state symbols. This really seems like the way to approach things like this, because there are probably scores of things that are "symbols" of Oregon that are not defined by having been "adopted" in this way. If the category is kept, it will always be incomplete because it can't contain milk, pears, etc. But if we make a list, it can be complete, and we can provide the reference or at least the reason why the thing is a symbol of the place. There is a reason for the numerous list articles in Category:Lists of United States state symbols by state—because it makes sense to do it that way! It does not make sense to create accompanying categories. To justify keeping the category by stating that "it is harmless" to so categorize pear should be taken for what it's worth. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Eponymous schools[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. If lisification is desired, I can provide the article/category list to anyone who wants it. Kbdank71 14:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Schools named after individuals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Schools named after Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Educational institutions named for Saint Ignatius Loyola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Overcategorization by shared name; the institutions in the first two categories have little to do with each other except that they are named after someone; in the third, the shared educational philosophy is captured by the parent Category:Jesuit education more informatively than the implied relationship of the shared name.-choster (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is all too true. Occuli (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify Malcolm X in his article. Listify Saint Ignatius Loyola as a separate disambiguation page (since they are numerous). Then delete all. We do disambiguation in articles, not as categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Oklahoma City[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Culture of Oklahoma City to Category:Culture of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Propose renaming Category:History of Oklahoma City to Category:History of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Oklahoma City to Category:Transportation in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods in Oklahoma City to Category:Neighborhoods in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Propose renaming Category:Districts of Downtown Oklahoma City to Category:Districts of Downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Nominator's rationale: To match all the other Oklahoma City, Oklahoma categories. On the last one I'm ambivalent; I could also see it just merging into the neighborhoods category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom For clarity. Do not merge Neighborhoods and Districts. The district category shows these are officially designated as 'districts' by name; names of neighborhoods can be informal. Hmains (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Buildings and structures[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename, but no consensus on changing "centers" to "malls". Rename the chicago malls cat to Category:Shopping centers in Chicago, Illinois Kbdank71 17:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Chicago to Category:Bridges in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Louisville to Category:Bridges in Louisville, Kentucky
Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Minneapolis to Category:Bridges in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Omaha to Category:Bridges in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Pittsburgh to Category:Bridges in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Former buildings and structures of Chicago to Category:Former buildings and structures of Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Former buildings and structures of Omaha to Category:Former buildings and structures of Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Defunct buildings and structures of Louisville to Category:Former buildings and structures of Louisville, Kentucky
Propose renaming Category:Public housing in Baltimore to Category:Public housing in Baltimore, Maryland
Propose renaming Category:Chicago housing projects to Category:Public housing in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles housing projects to Category:Public housing in Los Angeles, California
Propose renaming Category:Miami-Dade County public housing projects to Category:Public housing in Miami-Dade County, Florida
Propose renaming Category:Public housing in Philadelphia to Category:Public housing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Public housing projects in Puerto Rico to Category:Public housing in Puerto Rico
Propose renaming Category:Railway stations in Chicago to Category:Railway stations in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Railway stations in Omaha to Category:Railway stations in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Defunct railway stations in Omaha to Category:Defunct railway stations in Omaha, Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Shopping centers in Chicago to Category:Shopping malls in Chicago, Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Shopping centers in Portland, Oregon to Category:Shopping malls in Portland, Oregon
Propose renaming Category:Shopping centers in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Shopping malls in the San Francisco Bay Area
Nominators' rationale: Adding states to a variety of building categories. A few of these may contain metro area structures.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom This provides information for the reader that they should not have to guess at--namely, the U.S. state in which the city is located Hmains (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I changed "shopping centers" to "shopping malls" for that nomination, and added two more to reflect that. This will make all the categories being the "Shopping malls" tree rather than outliers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all but do not change centers to malls because shopping malls are more narrowly defined than shopping centers. A shopping mall is centered on a sheltered pedestrian area; a shopping center need not be. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. When shopping center gets an article we can revisit the decision. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all but do not change centers to malls.-choster (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anglican schools in the British Isles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Anglican schools. Kbdank71 14:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anglican schools in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Category:British Isles contains only geographic and historical topics, and as the schools are already categorized by country this category seems unnecessary and likely to remain small.-choster (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge – unnecessary and unusual. Occuli (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many British categories are broken donw inot the four home countries, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I suspect that "British Isles" is used here because the Anglican Church of Ireland covers both Northern Ireland and Eire. The usual structure would be to have a separate category for the Republic of Ireland, but this will not work here where there is a cross-border organisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment upmerge to what? It looks like the nominator wants a deletion, which is not a bad idea Hmains (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Americans of mixed Black African-European ethnicity[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Americans of mixed Black African-European ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This seems to be an issue of over-categorization, and will effectively just lump more cross-categories onto the pages, which already contain categories that cover this. For example, Carly Simon already has Americans of Jewish descent, Black Jews (with one grandparent who was black), African American singers, etc. Surely there has to be a point at which redundancy takes over. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Read the articles, read their categories. There is little duplication, though people against this category will always find some and some reason to argue for deletion. The purpose of categories is to aid the WP reader to find articles they seek or may find interesting for whatever reason. This category severs this purpose. Hmains (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per several recent precedents on mixed-race categories. Occuli (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a triple intersection -- DNA studies have shown that almost all Black Americans are of partly European descent. Outside USA, the practice is not to have "mixed" ethnicity categories, but to categorise people with multiple ethnicities with all of them separately. The problem is not with any of the categories cited by Wildhartlivie, but with its "mixed" element. If the world has 300 single ethnicities, we would potentially have 9000 dual ethnicity categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is the 'one drop' racist theory. One drop of African 'blood' means the person is solely categorized as 'African American' for example--read the articles and their categories. The person is not also categorized as 'European American' or 'British American' or 'White American'. This nominated-for-deletion category is an exception to this racist rule. If you want to change this, then you need to create and use such a 'white' category on each person. Hmains (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hmains. And as a subcat of Category:People of mixed Black African-European ethnicity Mayumashu (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we even have Category:British people of European descent. What next, Category:Nigerian people of African descent? Occuli (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inappropriate intersection of ethnicities. I agree that the application of the "one-drop" theory of race presents problems in WP categorization, but this is not a good way to deal with that problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OCAT by a few ethnicities/races and nationality. Useless and redundant, since the race categorizers at WP consider one drop of African blood gets you into Category:African Americans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Titans (comics)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: procedural close, category has already been deleted. Kbdank71 17:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Titans (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty duplicate category of Category:Teen Titans — TAnthonyTalk 03:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Signatories of the Israeli declaration of independence[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to fix capitalization. Kbdank71 14:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Signatories of the Israeli declaration of independence to Category:to be determined
Nominator's rationale: Rename - the capitalization needs to be fixed but I'm not sure if "Israeli Declaration of Independence" is the proper phrase. The article uses it but is itself called Declaration of Independence (Israel). Clearly we don't want that parenthetical in the category name, but should the category maybe use "Declaration of Independence of Israel"? Otto4711 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence to Category:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence
Nominator's rationale: Rename -expand the abbreviation. Otto4711 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom for the excellent and succinct reason stated. Hmains (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Southern Manifesto[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Southern Manifesto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - The Southern Manifesto is hardly the Declaration of Independence and establishing a category for the signatories of every congressional manifesto down the pike would lead to a tremendous number of categories on Congresspeople's articles. The category scheme for signatories is not wide-spread, nor IMHO should it be. A list exists within the article. If retained it should be renamed to indicate that it is for signers of the document and not the document itself. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or rename to Signers of the Southern Manifesto This aids in WP navigation to the articles on these racists and political opportunists. The purpose of categories is navigation for the reader to articles with a common thread and this category serves its purpose.
  • It sounds like you're in favor of keeping this category as a de facto Category:Racists, not a basis on which we categorize. Otto4711 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, as exemplars of racism and political opportunism. Hmains (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exemplars of racism and political opportunism" is POV. One person's "exemplar of racism and political opportunism" is another's "defender of the Constitution". Otto4711 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Essentially it's another "people by opinion" or "people by isolated event" category and does not rise to the level of the other signatory categories that could otherwise be justified as defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_6&oldid=1074802902"