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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename for the same reason as the Texas Tech golfers nomination below. In this case, the only individual in this category is a woman. Dale Arnett (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2012 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename for consistency with other categories within the structure of Category:College golfers in the United States, which distinguish by sex. All of the individuals in this category are men. Note also that the only Texas Tech women's team that uses "Lady Raiders" is the women's basketball team; all other women's teams use the men's nickname of Red Raiders. Dale Arnett (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2012 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Membership of the RNA Tie Club appears not to have been a defining characteristic of most of its members, and there is already a list in the head article. The club is mentioned in only 4 of the 17 blue-linked biographical articles in the list: Gamow, Ledley, Dounce, Crick. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. This is not sufficiently defining to be the basis for a category. Pichpich (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2012 (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.
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. No precedent against a broader category if different media are included.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just because there aren't any as of now, doesn't mean we should need to create a separate heirarchy for them, should someone post a sound sample, or sample play video. -- 70.24.245.122 (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then rename without prejudice to re-creating "media" categories if they become necessary in future. The present arrangement is not right, having a "media" category as a sub-category of "images" categories. – FayenaticLondon 12:17, 1 October 2012 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to fit in with ongoing standardisation of categories for works based on works. I volunteer to tidy up afterwards, setting up sub-cats for TV & moving head categories (e.g. films based on video games) from the categories to individual pages where appropriate. – FayenaticLondon 17:02, 28 September 2012 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per deleted PROD by User:Takayama812: A category which will only contain one person, ever, and a person who only *might* be a billionaire, when he *lived*, should not exist Illia Connell (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a remark: Who can tell whether or not this category can be filled with more entries in the future?--Bli (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If and when that happens, it can be re-created. – FayenaticLondon
Delete I would love to have this category populated with all the members possible but there is not currently a way to verify the data contained therein. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of the funniest categories I've seen, but there's really no point to having it when the contents will only ever be the current leader. Specs112tc 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if justified in future. The present member of the category was listed by Forbes magazine as powerful, rather than rich. – FayenaticLondon 12:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small category not verifiable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2012 (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:Terrorist incidents by responsible party[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. The container category cannot possibly label a group here. The subcategories will have to be considered individually, though. If none of them survive, this may be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But there is a substantial hierarchy of Category:Terrorist incidents including by date, by location, by target, by type, and "survivors of". The above rationale would mean that it all has to be deleted. That doesn't make sense to me. – FayenaticLondon 17:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just rename the offending sub-categories as "Foo Bar actions" like the others which have not been criticised. Whether those sub-categories remain within this one will each be a separate matter. Is anybody opposing the continued categorisation of Category:ETA actions, Provisional IRA, Real IRA, UDA and UVF actions within this nominated category? – FayenaticLondon 18:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All the terrorism should be in the category including Islamic terrorism. We shouldn't treat some perpetrators differently from the rest. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LABEL, "terrorist" is a POV term. If we want to group this sort of article, we should do so without using a POV term. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP has a fully developed category tree under Terrorism and does not shy away from the use of the term and the creation and maintenance of categories with the term 'terror' in their name. This is regardless of the opinion of an editor that 'terrorism' is a POV term; others have concluded it is a fact and WP is about facts. Hmains (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely false to say this about the opinion of one editor. WP:TERRORIST is a long-standing consensus guideline. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TERRORIST is about labelling an individual as a "terrorist" (noun) rather than incidents as terrorist (adjective). Wikipedia is able to cope with recognition of terrorism and terrorist incidents. – FayenaticLondon 13:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is what the guideline says. It notes that these "terrorist" is one of a set of value-laden words, and should be used only when attributed in text. "X described the bombing as a 'terrorist attack', Y described it as 'deplorable return to violence', while Z described it as 'a devastating victory over the occupying forces' continues'." Take your pick of which of those POVs you prefer, but they are all POV, and those views should not be conveyed by Wikipedia without attribution. The word "terrorist" is almost-never used by an group or organisation to describe its own actions or methods; instead is a pejorative term applied to opponents. It is particularly likely to be applied by states to non-state combatants, and it used to deligitimise opponents of a state. Wikipedia should not be taking sides in conflicts, and the word "terrorist" is just as POV as other political value adjectives such as "extremist", "repressive", "authoritarian". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it would make Wikipedia better to take out just one part of the hierarchy Category:Terrorist incidents. I accept that each article needs citations for such categorisation. However, as the majority of pages for actions within each sub-cat, say Category:ETA actions and Category:Real Irish Republican Army actions, are also justifiably categorised within Category:Terrorist incidents by location, date, target and type, then it does nothing to improve the encyclopedia to remove the option to navigate that tree by responsible party. – FayenaticLondon 13:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we have a category tree called "terrorist incidents". If it cannot be renamed to a more neutral term which avoids the value judgements inherent in that word, then it too should be deleted. However, per our discussions elsewhere on this page, it should not be impossible to choose neutral terminology for politically-motivated violent actions by non-state parties. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV cannot be set aside for convenience sake. If we don't have neutral terminology, then the commonsense KISS solution is to delete the relevant category. We have other navigational mechanisms. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the term responsible partyimplies that a particular organization is solely responsible for a terrorist incident' when the responsibility for most these incidents have not been legally established and there is a dispute over who is responsible.There is major difference between Terrorist incident and responsible for terrorist incidents as it blames some organization or intelligence agency of a country . Per WP:LABEL and even WP:Redflag is a POV term as it is very serious accusation on any organization.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes "terrorist" is a label, but so is "atheist", "criminal", "Nazi", "communist" and we have slews of categories on those. (see Category:Atheists, Category:Criminals, Category:Nazis, and Category:Communists). To deny that there is terrorism because we don't like the label is the height of self-censorship and dumbing-down the wiki to satisfy some (non-)sense of political correctness. Terrorist acts are notable, they will be categorized somehow and the wording "Terrorist" or "Terrorism" seems appropriately part of that categorization scheme. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Words such as "atheist", "Nazi", "communist" are used as self-identifiers, and also used by those opposed to such people. They are therefore neutral: whether you like Stalin or dislike him, there is no argument that he was a communist. (Some communists will argue whether Stalin was a good communist, but that's a separate topic). However, terrorist is a word applied to opponents: look for example at how the Nicargauan Contras were described in the United States as "freedom fighters", while other groups using similar methods were described as "terrorist".
"Criminal" is a different issue, because it relates to the objective test of breaking a law, and we don't categorise living people as criminals unless they have been convicted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains and Benkenobi18.Cossde (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in too many cases the responsible party is unknown or disputed to make this a worthwhile categorization scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2012 (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:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam[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. This already has a List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, so this is a matter of checking to see all are included on that list and then deleting.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category violates WP:NPOV the term terrorist is clearly POV.We can have List of attacks attributed to LTTEPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. There are two problems here. The first is the use of the POV term "terrorist", and the nominator is right that it should not be used in category names. The second problems is that "Attributed to" is a WP:WEASEL phrase, which begs the question of who does the attribution. Is it the opponents of the Tamil Tigers, a neutral third party or a lone individual? The source(s) and details of an attribution are crucial, and that cannot be accommodated in a category. In a list, these crucial points can be be explained, as required by WP:WEIGHT. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Delete and listify: As per BrownHairedGirl we should delete and listify as per what the user has said about the second problem.Further there is already a list as per above and we can make it more inclusive. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Category:People assassinated" covers the main political targets, but should not be used for sportsmen & other notable victims who died in the explosions, etc, such as Lakshman de Alwis and Kuruppu Karunaratne who are currently only in the nominated category. A new category would be required for such victims. – FayenaticLondon 12:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LTTE has been listed as a terrorist organization, and the articles in this cat are attacks aimed at civilian targets not military ones. Therefore it is correct to retain this cat as these are attacks aimed clearly at killing civilians to create terror. The assassination cat list individuals civilian or otherwise who have been targeted while the other includes attacks on military targets. There is a clear distinction in the three types of attacks. Cossde (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Listed" by who? Per WP:LABEL, "terrorist" is a POV term. If we want to group this sort of article, we shoukd do so without using a POV term. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP has a fully developed category tree under Terrorism and does not shy away from the use of the term and the creation and maintenance of categories with the term 'terror' in their name. This is regardless of the opinion of an editor that 'terrorism' is a POV term; others have concluded it is a fact and WP is about facts. 1) these were attributed to the Tigers; 2) these are terrorist attacks. Read the articles Hmains (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely false to say this about the opinion of one editor. Please read WP:TERRORIST; it is a long-standing consensus guideline. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TERRORIST is about labelling an individual as a "terrorist" (noun) rather than incidents as terrorist (adjective). Wikipedia is able to cope with recognition of terrorism and terrorist incidents. – FayenaticLondon 13:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is what the guideline says. It notes that these "terrorist" is one of a set of value-laden words, and should be used only when attributed in text. "X described the bombing as a 'terrorist attack', Y described it as 'deplorable return to violence', while Z described it as 'a devastating victory over the occupying forces'." Take your pick of which of those POVs you prefer, but they are all POV, and those views should not be conveyed by Wikipedia without attribution. The word "terrorist" is almost-never used by an group or organisation to describe its own actions or methods; instead is a pejorative term applied to opponents. It is particularly likely to be applied by states to non-state combatants, and it used to deligitimise opponents of a state. Wikipedia should not be taking sides in conflicts, and the word "terorist" is just as POV as other political value adjectives such as "extremist", "repressive", "authoritarian". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like that may be possible. Dropping the word "terrorist" removes my major concern, but there is a further question of attribution. That was rarely a problem with the IRA, who used to claim responsibility using the P. O'Neill codephrase. Did the LTTE have some mechanism for claiming responsibility? Or would a list have to rely on attributions by others? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The LTTE rarely claimed responsibility and the Sri Lankan government had the habit of blaming the LTTE for everything. The Sri Lankan media is also biased. You will have to rely on neutral RS such as international media or human rights organisations to attribute the attacks.--obi2canibetalkcontr 15:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per BrownHairedGirl Kanatonian (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest -- During the Sri Lankan civil war, LTTE were a power in control of a territory, and engaged in conventional warfare with Sri Lanka (from which they sought to secede. They also engaged in non-convention attacks of a kind that others would label terrorist. Conventional battles were also attacks (by one side or the other. I would therefore suggest Category:Non-conventional attacks of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as being a NPOV term. I assume there is in practice little difficulty in attribution. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are military attacks and terrorist attacks; they are markedly different in both intent and result. They are also handled differently under the laws of war. Keeping them separate for categorization purposes is appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to separate them, we are required by WP:NPOV to do so without using a loaded partisan term. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks on civilian targets/general public are clearly terrorist attacks. See Definitions of terrorism for more information.Cossde (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then should we categorise attacks on civilians by the Sri Lankan government or the American government or any other government as "terrorist"?--obi2canibetalkcontr 15:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per BrownHairedGirl.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by BHG and others. There is no need to listify since there already is a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the list only contains the actions, not all the victims. A new category/list would be needed for them. – FayenaticLondon 21:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per the name of the category, it should not include articles on victims, only articles on actions. If you want to edit the list you are free to do so, but since there is a list we should just delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2012 (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:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Central Intelligence Agency[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. This does not meet the standard of proof. The CIA is not commonly referred to as a terrorist group.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category violates WP:NPOV it can be said attributed to CIA but to say to add the word terrorist is clearly POV. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. There are two problems here. The first is the use of the POV term "terrorist", and the nominator is right that it should not be used in category names. The second problems is that "Attributed to" is a WP:WEASEL phrase, which begs the question of who does the attribution. Is it the opponents of the CIA, a neutral third party or a lone individual? The source(s) and details of an attribution are crucial, and that cannot be accommodated in a category. In a list, these crucial points can be be explained, as required by WP:WEIGHT. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per BHG. After reading the current contents of the category, I fully support her reasoning and conclusion. – FayenaticLondon 19:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...except that I don't object to the use of the word "terrorist" for these incidents. – FayenaticLondon 12:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP has a fully developed category tree under Terrorism and does not shy away from the use of the term and the creation and maintenance of categories with the term 'terror' in their name. This is regardless of the opinion of an editor that 'terrorism' is a POV term; others have concluded it is a fact and WP is about facts. 1) these were attributed to the CIA; 2) these are terrorist attacks on their face. Read the articles Hmains (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmains, please read WP:TERRORIST. Describing these events as bombing, shootings of whatever is a statement of fact. Describing them as "terror" is a value judgement about motive, and that is not neutral.
That is rather different, as it was a matter of labelling people as "terrorist" (noun) rather than incidents as terrorist (adjective). The description "terrorist incident" is about the method, not the motive. What POV would not count a car bombing and an aircraft bombing as "terrorist incidents"? Nevertheless I'm still supporting BHG's suggested action on this CfD, not because of the description as terrorism, but because of the difficulty over attribution to the CIA as alleged perpetrator/backer when it was not officially claimed/confirmed. – FayenaticLondon 12:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the (alleged) perpetrator, I object to the description of any actions as "terrorist", because it is a highly-contested POV term. It is exceptionally rare for any organisation to refer to its own actions as "terrorist"; instead it is a pejorative term applied to the actions of opponents. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per BrownHairedGirl. Kanatonian (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plain delete -- The category has two members. Kashmir Princess says that the incident was instigated by KMT intelligence in Taiwan. The other was specifically deniued by CIA, which said that ther operatives might have had American training, but were not operating under its orders. In the context of Beruit, it is far more likely that the incident was caused by political opponents, perhaps Christian militia. Accordingly, the category should be empty. It is a frequent cry that things have been caused by CIA or by the British Secret Intelligence Service, but such matters are well-nigh on impossible to prove. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my above comment on the LTTE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per BrownHairedGirl.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this clearly violates NPOV rules. There is no need for a list at this time since the category is so small.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2012 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. While the current name matches the current name of the article, it sounds wrong for a category name. In this case, using the more formal name reads better and is not incorrect. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that. But I'm unsure how this will be received. If this passes, then that one can be a speedy rename. So not listing it here is not a big problem. If you like, you can add that to this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator to reflect the name of the company, and to clarify that this relates to a company of that name rather than to the many entertainment topics related to the legendary wizard Merlin. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 5 October 2012 (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.
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, noncontroversial merge to the current name for a team which had no other changes than the team name. Also, C2D. The BushrangerOne ping only 23:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Name change following the 2011 season. – Michael (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2012 (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:University and college academic buildings in the United States[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.
I realize the Kansas State one could be speedied as an x-of-y thing, but I thought it best to keep these together as a single nom? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the main one and rename Kansas as nominated. (The sub-cats were not tagged, but are now.) However, I suggest a weak keep for the Pittsburgh one as it separates 34 academic buildings from 17 cultural/support premises. – FayenaticLondon 18:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "Academic buildings" provides a meaningful distinction within this category, then the top-level category probably shouldn't have been deleted, since all of the other building types do have their own trees. Hmains, I think I understand things reasonably well, save for why my every interaction with you seems to be so distinctly unpleasant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The notional top-level category here might be Category:University and college academic buildings, not Category:Academic buildings. I can't come up with a scenario where we would want to categorize academic buildings outside of a higher education setting. I suppose it's possible that a high school with a campus could have individual buildings that require categorization, but I suspect that would occur infrequently.
If there's an issue with the naming, is there another word that we could use in place of "academic" that would be less ambiguous? - Eureka Lott 07:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially for the Pittsburgh category. It is useful to distinguish buildings used for teaching from other college and university buildings, such as residence halls, fraternities/sororities, the student union. ʈucoxn\talk 01:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "academic" buildings are often indistinguishable from "administrative" and other buildings (even the stadiums are often used for physical education classes at many universities and colleges, so they are now "academic"???) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. This sort of overly-fine distinction is a recipe for madness, because many buildings in universities have more than one use. At the university I attended I can think of several buildings which have each served as teaching locations, then administrative offices, and then student accommodation. Trying to create separate categories for all these attributes just leads to category clutter, and it is entirely un-needed. Every building within a university exists for the purpose of supporting the work of the university, which is an academic venture; so I have no problem with a university sports hall or cafeteria bloc ending up somewhere in the hierarchy tree below academic buildings. Per WP:CAT#Overview, categories exist for facilitate rapid navigation, and attempts to make overly-fine distinctions impede that purpose. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge basically per BHG. At the last university I was at, Eastern Michigan University, there were several buildings that had once been dorms. I know the University of Michigan has buildings it uses for academic and housing purposes, and at Brigham Young University I had multiple classes in the Ernest L. Wilkinson Student Center, which in theory is a student services building. Another building I had classes in had once been the administration building, before the current one was built. This is creating far to fine a differentiation between buildings, especially since what is an "academic building" will varry from institution to institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are only considering this specific case at present. However, I would definantly urge an upmerging of the administrative buildings cat. Other possible cats I would reserve a statement on until an actual consideration of their merits can be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2012 (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.
