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. Significantly, the nomination basis is largely voided by the use of the term in legislation, although I do note the minimal use of the term in related articles. I would say this no consensus is without prejudice to a later re-nomination given the change of circumstances. -Splash - tk 22:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has a preamble which explains the term "Billing authority", but there is no article on the topic, and thus nowhere for there to be a source to verify it. It's not an immediately familiar term. It looks as if all unitary authority councils are Billing authorities, ditto all London Borough Councils, all metropolitan boroughs, all two-tier non-metropolitan districts, so the category need not be assigned to members of those categories. Generally needs some attention. PamD 23:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to suggest that it appears that almost all the members of this category could be categorised by putting their category (eg Metropolitan Boroughs) as a subcategory of "Billing Authorities in England", rather than labelling each individual authority. PamD 23:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. We should not categorize councils by which particular responsibilities they have - otherwise we could end up with an article about a council being in dozens of categories based on (currently/ever?) having responsibilities in planning/education/housing/garbage.... DexDor (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)added listify DexDor (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essential category as the way local government is structured is complex and not clear, as you have demonstrated. The functions are scattered to multiple levels of government: county council; district council; unitary and other. And key to this discussion, not in a uniform way. In Wales or Scotland it is completely predictable and the categories need not exists. England, not so. Billing authority is important as a category because it collectively defines the 'lower tier authority' in *every* area of England. 'Billing authority' is a term used in legislation and has a [1] clearly defined meaning. [2]
In the case of local education authorities, this is the way all upper tier authorities are grouped together. An article already exists on that, and the category is a grouping the membership.
So in summary, KEEP, with action taken on creating an article/redirect. MRSC (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an "essential category"; IMO the only way a category would be essential is if deleting it would mean that there is an article for which there are no valid categories. Whether or not a council is a billing authority may be important to the council, but my sampling shows that few (if any) of the articles in this category refer to this characteristic in the lead and few (if any) use the word "billing" in the article so, in terms of Wikipedia:categorization, this does not appear to be an important characteristic to categorize by. DexDor (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is a good point and the articles in question should refer to that function. I've updated Torbay Council to reflect that and will update the others. MRSC (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more useful to have:
an article on the lines of Local education authority, explaining what a Billing authority is, with a list of all Billing authorities (which could possibly be shortened by including things like "All London Boroughs" with link to a list of them). Similarly for Levying and Precepting authorities and any other functions which might appear as subcategories within Category:Local authorities of England by function.
a short section on "roles" or "functions" or some such title, in each Local Authority's article, which states whether it is a Billing Authority, Education Authority, Precepting Authority etc or not, and gives information as to which authority/ies up or down the scale have that role if this one does not. Much more informative than just adding a category. (Looking at Torbay Council: yes, that sort of thing. I wonder if it could even be done by a template, perhaps, if there's a templates geek happy to get involved?) PamD 17:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point (1) more realistically would all form part of a Local government finance in England article that doesn't yet exist. The precepting authorities have a relationship to billing authorities that would be better explained together in one place.
Point (2) should definitely happen for each local authority article along the lines of Torbay Council.
Neither are reasons to not have the categories. MRSC (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do have a main article, but it is actually a section of another. They are all Local Authorities - district council (including borough and Lonmdon borough) where there are two tiers and unitaries elsewhere. The converse of precepting authority would be even less satisfactory, becasue it covers the top tier where there is one; police authroities; fire authorities; and some 10,000 parish councils. If we were to keep this, it should be as a container-only category, as a parent for each of the classes of billing authority - Districts (and Boroughs); London Boroughs; unitaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 119 articles in this category! I don't think you can combine them all into one article. I don't think the elimination of this category is a good option. It serves a purpose. Plus, I think that anyone who proposes turning a category into an article or list should volunteer and do the writing first. There are categories lingering in the listify pile, still waiting for someone to take on the task. LizRead!Talk! 12:19, 16 December 2013 (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:AfC pending submissions by age/28 days ago[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 all, without prejudice to re-creation if and when the relevant template(s) are changed to bring them into use. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Days 21 through 28 on the AfC pending submissions by age are not being populated into Template:AFC submission/pending (which in turn get's it's logic from Template:AfC age category). Therefore I propose that this category (along with more that I will enumarete) be deleted as not in use. Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
for the exact same rationalle. Hasteur (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I take it that the categories up to day 20 are being populated. What is happening now to the ones over 20 days? Are they just being left in the category for day 20? Or are they uncategorized? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as long as the submissions over 20 days appear properly in order after the others, the categories listed above appear to be redundant. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Davidwr Any thoughts as several of these were your creations (in addition to the age category template). Hasteur (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are occasional moves to change the way the dating categories work for AFC-pending-submissions. With the backlog as long as it is now, I'd like to see the templates changed so Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 weeks ago becomes unused and 21-27 become used again and any time there are more than a few dozen items over 4 weeks old, and that categories for 28-34 days old be created and Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago become unused any time there are more than a few dozen items over 5 weeks old. When the backlog falls, then make the 28-34 and 21-27-day-old categories become unused and use the 3- and 4- week old categories instead. Since this "dynamic switching around" is not likely to happen unless someone wants to write a bot to rewrite the scripts, and since we chronically have large numbers of items over 28 days old, I am strongly in favor of changing the template to re-enable the 21-27 day categories and disable 3-week categories, and mildly in favor of creating 29-34 day categories and changing the template to use it instead of the 4-week category. However, I agree that if no changes are made to the scripts, then having these extra "day" categories lying around is pretty pointless. They can always be re-created if needed later. If the categories are deleted they should be deleted "without prejudice for re-creation if and when they will actually be used." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that if the underlying by age template gets adjusted so that the categories are being populated there is no prejudice in having them appropriately be re-created. I don't think that expanding the categorization from 4 weeks to 29/30/31 days is appropriate, because at that point, they're just old and need to all be dealt with. Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2013 (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:Kerrville New Folk Competition finalists[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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OC#AWARD. These people's articles should be (and those I've checked are) in a category such as Category:American folk musicians. Many of the articles in the category don't mention the competition (someexamples) (so it can't be a WP:DEFINING characteristic) and those that do it's often in a list of awards. For info: There are lists at Kerrville Folk Festival. DexDor (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm hard pressed to think of a non-winning finalist that would be defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the category years ago, because I do believe it to be defining for most of these artists. (1) Although it has never been terribly well documented, there is some evidence that winning this competition has been a catalyst for many artists early in their careers, to a lesser degree, even appearing in the competition without winning may have been significant. Consider some of the more notable artist to appear over many decades:
(2) Many of the better written articles in the category in fact DO mention the award as part of the artist's early career. (3) Although many similar competitions exist at other festivals today, none have the long history and unique cultural niche that this one does. Many of the most notable winners have returned in later years to serve as judges of the event. Finally, if you do delete this, I hope an effort is made to keep the data. A list would be fine, but currently I don't know of a thorough list that is easily accessible on the internet. There is, however, this source: -MrFizyx (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worse than an Award cat; here it's the also-rans too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2013 (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 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 all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is misleading to suggest, as these titles do, that any country experiences a single, cohesive movement toward democracy, or to think of democracy as a clearly defined "final level". Nearly all countries have seen multiple democracy movements, sometimes separated by years or decades (e.g., South Korea's April Revolution of 1960 and June Democracy Movement of 1987) and usually involving multiple parties with varying methods and goals. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete them all because they are misused. Not all the participants in say the 2011 Egyptian revolution had anything approaching democracy on their minds, but alas they are all in the Category:Egyptian democracy movement. Ditto others of these. What is "democracy" to some folks is "oppression by the majority" to others. To say what is democratic is largely POV; the US claims it's democratic but alas only 538 people are permitted to vote for the president, those living in the District of Columbia have no senators or congressional representatives, and people under 18 cannot vote. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization by ideology, or by values and principles, is almost always problematic, and perhaps especially so in the case of democracy. Not only can individuals and organizations misrepresent their actual intentions, but the perceived goal of a movement will often be disputed. What one person deems to be a democracy movement, another may consider to be foreign subversion, anarchist terrorism, or one of a thousand other actions. In such situations, we should only follow the labels applied by unbiased, reliable sources, but of course it can be difficult to discern which sources (if any) are unbiased and reliable. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle -- The US Presidential election is certainly democratic; but it is an indirect election. In Egypt (and 1970s Iran), a pro-democratic revolution was followed by the election of reactionary forces that wanted to turn the clock back and suppress dissent. Democracy is certainly not a perfect system, but it is better than almost anything else. Sometimes it is necessary to temper it with constitutional protections for minorities. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This seems like a reasonable rationale and it would allow more flexibility in assigning the category to different political movements so they could be grouped by nation without a consideration of whether they are a continuation of another democracy movement. It also avoids the dilemma of having editors decide which is the democracy movement by allowing for multiple movements. LizRead!Talk! 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, or Delete all. If they are kept, then the plural form is clearly an improvement, but I share th concerns of Carlossuarez46 and Black Falcon that categorization by ideology, or by values and principles, is almost always problematic. These matters are much more nuanced that the binary include-or-exclude choice offered by categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 18 December 2013 (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: Current name is too lengthy. UBS 01:46, 9 December 2013 (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.
Done: Billing authorities in England now redirects to the relevant section of Local government in England.