Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 4 January 6 >

January 5[edit]

Kipling categories[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 first three, rename others. A note to the category creator: Categories don't contain knowledge, they merely exist to organize articles. Because some of these are too specific is not a declaration that you can't put more content into the articles themselves. In fact, it's encouraged.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kipling stories about India with Indian characters to Category:Rudyard Kipling stories about India with Indian characters
Propose renaming Category:Kipling stories about India with British characters to Category:Rudyard Kipling stories about India with British characters
Propose renaming Category:Kipling stories with Learoyd, Mulvaney and Ortheris to Category:Rudyard Kipling stories with Learoyd, Mulvaney and Ortheris
Propose renaming Category:Kipling stories about India to Category:Rudyard Kipling stories about India
Propose renaming Category:Kipling writings about India to Category:Rudyard Kipling writings about India
Propose renaming Category:Kipling poems about India to Category:Rudyard Kipling poems about India
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category. Alternately, delete as overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first three as overcategorised. Rename the last three as nom. Possibly even just keep "writings" (renamed) and delete the rest. It is worth keeping his Indian material separate from his British. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My purpose in creating these categories was important to me. I think I have given up any attempt to have wikipedia acknowledge that one of the usual ways of writing workds of reference in 'arts' subjects (in this case literature) is to supply links and cases from which the reader(/learner) can construct her own understanding of the art in question. There is no easy way - there is no way at a\ll - of finding a final, authoritative and 'correct' judgement of the value of a work of art. When we come to themes and so on, it is just as hard to decide whether Kipling was a racist or not. Discussi0on of this will continue as long as people bother to read the works. y ca\tegories were designed to help wikipedian seekers after truth to make up their own minds.
I think this clashes with the current thinking of the wikipedia community. This saddens me, as I think it is cutting off large swathes of human experience from the on-line encyclopaedia. If you look at such printed sources as The Oxford Companion to English Literature, you will find that there is at least some truth in my assertions. MacAuslan (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2011 (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:Railroad articles with incorrect reporting marks[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 .--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Railroad articles with incorrect reporting marks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't make much sense. It's members are added by {{reporting mark}} - if there's no article for the reporting mark (for example, there's no article at ASRY, the reporting mark of Ashland Railway), then the transcluding article is added to this category. Problem is, reporting marks don't get articles as far as I can see, and the vast majority are false positives - for example, the ACRC disambig page keeps Andalusia and Conecuh Railroad out of this category, but that doesn't mean the article has a "correct reporting mark". JaGatalk 21:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as creator. I personally don't care whether this category lives or dies. It was created to replace a category literally called "Temporary category", but whether it still serves a purpose today is up to the community. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- As an Englishman, I find this category obscure. It appears to be a maintenance category, which should appear on the talk page; not sure if it does. I gather that the reporting mark is to indicate which railroad owns rolling stock that passes over other railroads. This is essentially a maintenance category. If the reporting mark has no article, the simple answer is to create a redirect. The present scope appears to Category:Railroad reporting marks lacking an article or perhaps Category:Railroad articles lacking a reporting mark article, to which it should perhaps be renamed. However, since it is populated by a temaplate, that template would need to be amended. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - one other thing; the use of #ifexists in the {{reporting mark}} causes a railroad article to "ghost link" to the reporting mark it's checking; so for example Andalusia and Conecuh Railroad has a link to ACRC (see what links here for ACRC). These false positives cause confusion at the WP:DPL project as people try to fix disambiguation links. As the category doesn't really seem necessary anyways, I was hoping to take it out to help the DPL project. --JaGatalk 19:37, 7 January 2011 (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:The KLF articles by importance[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: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The KLF articles by importance to Category:KLF articles by importance
Nominator's rationale: To go along with the current category naming scheme for importance categories. Logan Talk Contributions 21:17, 5 January 2011 (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:Villages in Mull[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:Villages on the Isle of Mull.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Villages in Mull to Category:Villages in the Isle of Mull
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed nomination from the speedy section. My rationale was C2B, which is "A rename enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices", since the parent category is Category:Isle of Mull and the article is Isle of Mull and the other subcategories of the main category use "Isle of Mull". This is the odd one out in that regard. The speedy discussion with the opposing comment is in the drop-down box. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename comments
  • Support. Reading through the category, and off-site, such as http://www.tobermory.co.uk/, I get the impression that "Mull" is an informal shortening of "Isle of Mull". The encyclopedia should tend to the formal, at least in the titles and ledes, and I would think that all of "Foo, Mull" should be moved to "Foo, Isle of Mull". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First of all, if you can find a credible geographical text book that calls Mull, "Isle of Mull" please let me know. "Isle of Mull" is generally used by tourist sites for commercial reasons. The article is only "Isle of Mull" as second best because "Mull" is ambiguous. If you observe, for example Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides you will see that "Isle of" is very much the exception with only Mull and the amusing "Isle of Ewe" in this bracket. There are over 200 Scottish islands of substance and only 5 that I can think of that are titled in this way (including Arran). As for consistency, there are two ways to look at that. We have "Villages in Skye", "Villages in Orkney" etc. etc. Why is it then "consistent" to have "Villages in the Isle of Mull". There is nothing ambiguous about this at all as nothing listed at Mull (disambiguation) is either likely to have one or more villages associated with it, or if it might, to have such a title for a category. Whichever way you look it there is bound to be inconsistency but in my view adding "Isle of" to categories such as this achieves nothing except inconsistency and the joy of having to type a few extra letters. Don't mind me however - I just write the articles. Ben MacDui 11:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that you created this category a few days ago, and at Talk:Isle of Mull that you are on one side of divided opinion on the name of the island. I don't have a decent geographical reference book handy, but the oed contains many entries for mull (eg. #2 "In Scotland: a promontory, a headland"). Is the isle of Mull an island of promontories? The oxford reference dictionary points me to "Isle of Mull". A google maps search for "mull" returns eight locations around the world, none being the island. A google maps search for "isle of mull" returns the island, labelled "Isle of Mull", with an option to look at "Mull, East Kilbride, Glasgow G74, United Kingdom". At Isle of Mull, the first labelled map, File:Ordnance Survey 1-250000 - NM.jpg, labels the place "Isle of Mull. So, your position seems not well grounded. Ths project is not aimed at tourists, but is a reference work that should tend to the formal, and certainly so in titles. In any case, categories exist to serve articles, and category titles should reflect article titles. If you want to change the title style, you need to do it first at Isle of Mull. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware of the other meanings of Mull, which was referred to by the Norse as Mýl. The relationship with the Gaelic mull is not certain - although in common with any number of other Scottish islands it does have various headlands. Mull, East Kilbride is a street. Google searches are all very well, but I prefer the texts listed here which provide a nod to "the formal". I am all in favour of consistency, and I suppose you could argue that it is better for categories to be consistent than nothing at all, and that the inconsistency of article titles is not our concern here. It is still an absurdly inconsistent outcome nonetheless. A further point. "Villages in Mull" I think you can just about get away with, but "Villages in the Isle of Mull" sounds wrong to me. Surely "Villages on the Isle of Mull". Ben MacDui 09:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it did occur to me, but given that I'd never heard of Mull before the 29th, I let it go. Villages in an isle definitely sounds wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In view of the discussion above, I suggest Category:Villages on the Isle of Mull as an alternative, to address the concerns of those who find "in the Isle of Mull" discordant. However, since the head article is at "Isle of Mull" and an unqualified "Mull" is ambiguous, we do need to switch from "Mull" to "Isle of Mull", as has already been done for the parent Category:Isle of Mull and its other sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename per BHG. It is more gramatically correct. Simply south (talk) and their tree 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Simply south (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2011 (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:Preserved aircraft[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. We don't have living/dead categories for vehicles as a general rule. For example, Category:Preserved automobiles has been deleted here. Category:Museum ships seems the way to go; find a reason for the vehicles to still be around, and categorize by that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Preserved aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This basically overlaps with Category:Individual aircraft which is a long standing category. I think tradition there is to not breakout if the aircraft is in flyable condition. Part of the issue with that breakout, is the only way to really determine this would be to fly a specific aircraft. Many of these are too valuable to risk flying. Importance here is that these individual aircraft have been, and are being preserved. No need for two categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not mean merge with Category:Individual aircraft? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No since I think everything is already in the IA tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Preserved flyable aircraft and populate -- The headnote says that the aircraft must be "preserved" and "flyable". "Preserved" presumably implies that it is an obsolete model. "Flyable" excludes aircraft that are preserved in museums but not kept in an airworthy condition. Most countries (I think) have a requirement for an airworthiness certificate, which can be taken as defining flyable. There is a distinction between museum specimens that are kept in an archive condition from when they were currently in use and preserved specimens, for which replacement parts will have been manufactured to keep them going. My one qualm is where one draws the line at what is "preserved". The equivalent is perhaps as to when a car becomes a classic car. However, it ought to be possible to find a robust definition for "preserved". The target "Individual aircraft" will include crashed, current commercially used ones, presidential planes, etc, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see this as adding much beyond Category:Individual aircraft. But, if it is populated, I'll take another look. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2011 (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:Wikipedia autoreview feature[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia autoreview feature to Category:Wikipedia autopatrolled feature
Nominator's rationale: The name of the user right is autopatrolled. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:30, 5 January 2011 (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:Eden[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: Speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Cat only contains 2 articles - rest are redirects. Contents of cat. also appear to by identical to Category:Cliburn Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I've been stupid here. This is an ambiguous cat being deliberately left empty. I'll just remove this cat from the articles in question. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -- This is an appropriate disambiguation category. I suspect that the nom found articles that should have eben in Category:Eden, Cumbria. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2011 (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:Cliburn[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cliburn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Cat only contains two articles - rest are redirects Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2011 (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:Personal genome sequenced[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: no consensus. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Personal genome sequenced (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am not convinced that this category is a good idea. Although true, it doesn't seem to be defining feature of the individuals. For instance, Tutu's genome is being sequenced not because he is Desmond Tutu, but to serve as a genomic example "for a Bantu individual representing Sotho-Tswana and Nguni speakers". Surely a list is more preferred for information like this, since a list could be used to indicate when and why the person's genome was sequenced. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : More and more people will be sequenced in very next years because advances in the DNA sequencing techniques have made it possible to sequence people'sgenome at a reasonable cost. Using this category allow to track those individuals using the Wediawiki API.--Plindenbaum (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would lean towards creating a list for this (person plus ethnic group), as there will soon be many personal genomes for people that are not notable for WP. Still, I don't see how a hidden category hurts anyone, and it will be a good place to put the information once there are too many personal genomes to have on a single list. MichaK (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- This is hardly a notable characteristic. As nom says, the people concerend are no doubt selected as a representative specimen of their ethnic group. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - which will allow the addition of much more useful information to be held together than is possible in a category. When it comes to the point that there are too many people, then it won't be a generally notable characteristic of people and the list would morph into one of people who are notable for being sequenced. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2011 (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:South American Footballer of the Year[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 in accordance with the rename of Category:European Footballers of the Year to Category:European Footballer of the Year winners. This does not prejudge against recreation if there is more than just the head article and the winners category added.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:South American Footballer of the Year to Category:South American Footballer of the Year winners
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moved from speedy rename section. Rename was opposed by category creator on the grounds that the category "contains more than just winners". Well, it contains South American Footballer of the Year (the lead article) and 2010 South American Footballer of the Year and 30 articles for winners. It is a category intended for winners, so it should be named that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created as a place to fit 2010 South American Footballer of the Year and any article that lists the results of the South American Footballer of the Year voting. The winners were later added following the lead of Category:European Footballers of the Year. If you want a category for the winners, may I suggest a new category instead of renaming the existing. Digirami (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean similar to Category:Brownlow Medal contains Category:Brownlow Medal winners? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Digirami (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how a non-winners category would only have the lead article and the 2010 article, it makes sense to bunch them together and to rename it a "winners" category since that is the dominant purpose of the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The non-winners category is bound to be expanded as articles are created; the I created 2010 article two days ago, and the category, too. If you want a category for the winners, that's fine. But a winners category should have just the winners for it to be labelled/named accurately. Digirami (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it can be re-created in the future if needed, though I personally don't think a separate eponymous category is needed even if more articles of that type are created. It certainly is not needed currently and anyway, naming it as nominated will be consistent with most other categories for awards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2011 (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:Books set in the 2010s[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Books set in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Arbitrary category, not part of a pattern of categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find nothing useful here. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless, basically unpopulated and I don't want to see categories for "Books set in 900s" through "Books set in the 3000s".--Hazel77 talk 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This appears to be copying the well-established film subject tree, for insance Category:Films set in the 2010s. No opinion about porting over these category to books. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more books than films.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2011 (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.

First families of Virginia[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bland family to Category:Bland family of Virginia
Propose renaming Category:Cary family to Category:Cary family of Virginia
Propose renaming Category:Rolfe family to Category:Rolfe family of Virginia
Propose renaming Category:Taliaferro family to Category:Taliaferro family of Virginia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform with other categories covering various First Families of Virginia (i.e. Category:Bolling family of Virginia, Category:Byrd family of Virginia, Category:Custis family of Virginia, Category:Fitzhugh family of Virginia, Category:Harrison family of Virginia, Category:Lee family of Virginia, Category:Page family of Virginia, and Category:Randolph family of Virginia). Although there are individuals all over Wikipedia with these surnames, these categories have been used to to label members of, or descendants of, particular prominent "first families". -Location (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2011 (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:Bishops of Ballarat[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Ballarat to Category:Anglican Bishops of Ballarat
Nominator's rationale: There is both a Anglican and a Roman Catholic Diocese of Ballarat. While arguably this category could contain both, it would make it difficult to fit in the respective category trees. Mattinbgn (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Not sure why 'Anglican' is not added as a matter of routine. Occuli (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We probably need a separate nom for Mebourne. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per common sense, dab is needed then dab with no primary topic Gnangarra 12:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to remove ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a comment. It seems pretty obvious to me that we should be differentiating between the Anglican and Catholic bishops, but for the Archdioceses, further clarification may be needed. The Catholic archdioceses in Australia all started as normal dioceses, meaning their first bishops weren't archbishops. In both Sydney and Melbourne, the first bishop was made an archbishop within their term, so the categories Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Melbourne and Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Sydney are appropriately named. However, all the other Australian Catholic archdioceses were elevated from diocese to archdiocese after the term of their first bishop. This means (for example) that a category of Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Adelaide would mislable the first three bishops of Adelaide, who were never archbishops (see here). There may be similar issues for the Anglican bishops as well. This obviously doesn't affect the category at hand, but if this discussion precipitates a broader re-naming of such categories, I would suggest the use of the word "Ordinaries" rather than "Bishops" or "Archbishops".  -- Lear's Fool 01:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point about the change in status, but however that is reflected in categorisation, I sincerely hope that it is not accommodated by the use of the term "ordinaries". That word may indeed be one used within that particular church, but to the ordinary reader for whom we build wikipedia it conveys nothing about what the category actually contains. There is a simple plain English alternative: "bishops and archbishops", but whatever phrasing is used, please avoid obscure jargon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, "Archbishops and Bishops" is better. I'll probably sit down and try to sort out all the categories after the weekend.  -- Lear's Fool sock 07:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that should be lower case. Sloppy drafting of the request on my behalf. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Catholicism, at least, a bishop is a bishop. That is, regardless of ecclesiastical rank— archbishop, metropolitan, primate, patriarch, etc.— those admitted to the episcopate are basically all bishops. The Papacy itself is but the office of the Bishop of Rome. So, since Australia is far from the only country which has seen dioceses later elevated to archdioceses, and to avoid further complications once we throw coadjutors and titular sees into the mix, I would see "bishops" used for all cases. If we want to capture apostolic prefects and vicars, well, "ordinaries" is really the most proper term to use, but since that is ecclesiastic jargon and the number of prefectures which became dioceses is relatively limited compared to dioceses elevated to archdioceses, I think simply "bishops" would be a reasonable compromise.- choster (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2011 (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:Current Alabama Crimson Tide football players[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: speedy merge to Category:Alabama Crimson Tide football players. There's no way this category will be maintained.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Current Alabama Crimson Tide football players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Separating "current" from "former" players is not useful. Who's going to maintain all of this, year in and year out? And what's next? A category for the current starters, that has to be maintained on a weekly basis? bender235 (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Hey readers, want to know the current players? Go to that team's main article. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no point, pretty useless.--Yankees10 02:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1) maintenance nightmare. 2) If we don't have analogous categories for pro players, who are all automatically notable, then why for college sports, where notably is more limited and populations should be smaller? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't think it's needed apart from Category:Alabama Crimson Tide football players. – Latics (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is overcategorisation based on a temporary criterion. cmadler (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all of the comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Alabama Crimson Tide football players. This is a large category, but it is contrary to WP practice to split categoories between "current" and "former". Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (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:Guardians of the Cedars politicians[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: keep.

Category:Guardians of the Cedars politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Guardians of the Cedars" is a prohibited organization in Lebanon and its leader has fled to Israel. The entire category consists of this "politician" Etienne Sakr and a poet called Said Akl who briefly supported him while the party was one of the small military factions fighting. His support ceased as the party became illegal. It serves no particular purpose except to list Mr. Sakr himself. I propose deleting the category. The articles on the Guardians of the Cedars and Mr. Sakr are good enough coverage. It seems to me to have a category for "politicians" of this party be an unnecessary overcategorization. werldwayd (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I add that Said Akl now populating the category is not a politician anyway and is just an intellectual figure (thinker, philosopher, poet, writer) and never a politician. That leaves only Mr. Etienne Sakr as a proper politician of the party for the category's sake. This will effectively render the category a one man category werldwayd (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the current cat is one valid article and unlikely to ever be populated. "Rename or Delete" may have been a better way of describing my vote. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though small, it seems to me that this falls within the "part of an overall scheme" exception to the deletion of small categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2011 (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/2011_January_5&oldid=1141928088"