Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 14 March 16 >

March 15[edit]

Category:1899 rugby union tournaments for national teams[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 to delete. This is part of a categorization scheme by year, although strangely there's no collector Category:Rugby union tournaments for national teams.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. There's no need to split the relatively small Category:International rugby union competitions by year and especially not in the 19th century when international sports events in general and international rugby events in particular were quite rare. There's no need to upmerge since 1899 Home Nations Championship, for instance, is already categorized in Category:Six Nations Championship and in Category:1898–99 in Irish rugby union and the equivalents for Wales, England and Scotland. Pichpich (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No other tournament is ever likely to be added to this category or any other similar 19th century category for rugby union competitions, and the nominator's rationale looks absolutely correct. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain. In general way all the pages about rugby union competition pages are categorized for year and Before the creation of this categories the categories "xxxx in rugby union" were very confused, with tournamenti, tours, squads list, national championship. etc. Maybe could be nos so important for the XIX century years, but hte categories were created in simialr way as, i.e. Category:1998 rugby union tournaments for national teams. In any case if you delete the category, is important to categorized the pages like [[1899 Home Nations Championship] to Category:1899 in rugby union. --Carcamagnu (talk) 06:52, 18 March 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:Christian Bible College alumni[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 is sure a lot of debate over a category with one article in it. There's no guideline about whether diploma mills get alumni categories, but it's clear that many commenters believe they don't pass the smell test. I don't think we want a lot of categories about rubber-stamp degrees, so let's stop it here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no Christian Bible College article. That name redirects to an accreditation mill. This is an unnotable diploma mill and has only one known "graduate." This category has no purpose. You too can get a doctorate by mailing a lump sum payment to a PO Box: http://www.christianbiblecollege.org/costs.htm.SalHamton (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of a main article is irrelevant, and this category is part of an established category tree. It is not Wikipedia's place to value-judge how someone gained their degree, only to report that they did. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide a WP:RS that mentions Christian Bible College? Seems like a category for a non-existent article that lacks a single RS isn't too helpful. SalHamton (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply @Bushranger. "Gaining a degree" is not the same thing as purchasing a piece of paper from a website. I'm sure taht somebody somewhere would sell me a piece of paper saying that I am the Empress of China, but that's not a reliable source for saying that I am the Empress. Categorising people by their purchase of a piece of paper from a website is a breach of WP:NOTADVERTISING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep -- We presumably need an article on Christian Bible College, Rocky Mount, North Carolina. I have altered the heading to that, since the institution was previously an inappropriate redirect. On first reading the nom, I took this to be a legitimate college. However, Christian Bible College redirects to an article about an accrediting organisation, which is apparently seeking to legitimise degree mills, where all affiliates are red linked. Being an alumni of a degree mill is not a notable characteristic; if anything the reverse. We should not give credence to degree mills, any more than to the UK "colleges" that were set up as a mechanism for immigration fraud. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to that article, the institution was described as a degree mill by this, which is a self-published work and is, therefore, not necessarily a reliable source. Are there other, reliable sources that describe this as an accreditation mill/degree mill? If there aren't, then we should refrain from making a value judgement - that is not what Wikipedia is for. If there are, then that's another matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there any WP:RS about Christian Bible College? I can't find any. SalHamton (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no reason why we should bow to the interpretation of one self-published work in delegitimatizing possible sources of education. There is no precedent for excluding any possible alumni categories, and no reason to start now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Can you name ONE WP:RS that mentions Christian Bible College. Aside from the self-published book that calls it a diploma mill and Christian Bible College's website that lists its address as a PO Box, there is no mention of this place. Why have a category if there isn't an article or a WP:RS? SalHamton (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are sources that state Baldwin received a degree from them: [1]. That is sufficient. A category does not need a 'main article' to be a valid category, and this would fit the exemption to WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established category tree. As to whether or not the degree is legit or from a degree mill, I cannot find a RS to state that it is, only the SPS, and therefore it is not Wikipedia's place to make that judgement. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your link has six mentions, including non-English websites. Those English language sources are: magic-city-news.com (a "collective of independent volunteers"), newsbyus.com, New American (magazine of the John Birch Society) and one minor mention in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, a local newspaper. That makes one WP:RS. In sum, the ONLY person in this category is Chuck Baldwin, a fringe presidential candidate from 2008, whose "degree" is mentioned by ONE local newspaper from a "college" that not only lacks a wikipedia page, but doesn't even have a physical address.
        • Since Christian Bible College redirects to American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, if the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions article gets deleted because there are no secondary sources, this category will be deleted anyway? SalHamton (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some of them are indeed non-English sources, but the fact that they are not in English is irrelevant. The fact that there is only one person in the category is also irrelevant, as it is Part of an established category tree. The fact that he belongs in the category passes WP:V through a WP:RS. And no, if the AAATI article gets deleted, this category would not be deleted, because, as has been explained several times, the presence or absence of a head article for the category is irrelevant. The existence of a CBC article or redirect, and/or the existiance of a AAATI article or redirect, has no bearing on whether or not this category would be kept, as it is part of the category trees at Category:Alumni by theological school in the United States and Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States; the size of the category and the presence or absence of a main/lead article are wholly irelevant in such a case. That leaves the "is it a legitimate degree?" issue, and as we cannot find any reliable sources that say it is not, only that one self-published work claims so, means that to remove the categorisation from Baldwin's article would be imposing a WP:POV. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look, you cited WP:SMALLCAT as a reason to keep this above when discussing the main category. That says: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." It is not a WP:IDHT, when you compared a "college" that has one "graduate" and no physical address to Category:Flags by country. A major difference. Don't give me an attitude when you failed and still fail to connect your claims with the policy you cited.
            • There is only person in the category based on only one WP:RS- a minor mention in a local newspaper from five years ago. I found that article here, which says in full: "Education: Thomas Road Bible Institute; bachelor's and master's degrees from Christian Bible College." That's it. The other mentions you found are from a "volunteer" news website and the John Birch Society, which aren't WP:RS. If you depend on the Arabic mention (assuming it is a RS), using google translate the website says "got a BA and MA in the study of theology Theology School of Christian writers Holy Christian Bible College in California." That is a different name and a different state, raising more questions. Please look at your sources. The "college" lacks sources raising serious questions that, as per the policy you mentioned, "will never have more than a few members."
            • You are claiming that "this category would be kept, as it is part of the category trees at Category:Alumni by theological school in the United States and Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States." As you noted, it would be POV to assume this "college" is a diploma mill. But it is also POV to assume it is theological or a college. If you are basing an affirmative belief on your single source that merely says Baldwin's education is a "bachelor's and master's degrees from Christian Bible College" then please change your vote to delete. I've removed those categories pending sources. SalHamton (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not "giving you an atttude", I'm stating a fact. The songs and flags examples are just that - examples. Category:Aircraft by manufacturer is another example of a tree that fits the SMALLCAT example, another is Category:Ships by navy. In the college tree, Category:Midwest University alumni is a single-article cat, so is Category:Prescott College alumni, and there are many more. It should be noted, also, that Baldwin's own personal website lists the CBC degree; a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE is usually considered reliable when it comes to what schools someone graduated from. And, I repeat: the fact that the category "will never have more than a few members" is absolutely irrelevant, as the category tree - all of it - falls under the exemption to WP:SMALLCAT. And it is not POV to assume it is theological and a college, as it, itself, states it is; to remove the categories on the assumption that it is not is WP:OR and imposing a non-neutral POV; the NPOV is to assume good faith on the claim unless there is a reliable source that explicitly states otherwise. Accordingly, I have reverted your removal of those categories from this category under discussion, as the removal gives a strong impression of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and is also disruptive as it could easily be seen as attempting to influence the direction of a CfD through editing the category itself, the same as if the category had been emptied out of process. It's clear we won't convince each other here, so what happens next should be that we agree to disagree and allow the CfD to run to its conclusion. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • What does Category:Ships by navy have to do with an alleged diploma mill that has no sources? What does Category:Prescott College alumni and Category:Midwest University alumni, both accredited schools with many secondary sources written about them, have to do with a school with no physical address or accreditation and is ran by a guy who runs an accreditation mill?
                • Wikipedia does not rely on the claims of an alleged diploma mill and diploma mill graduate. If you can't come up with secondary sources this needs deleted. SalHamton (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • They are examples of WP:SMALLCAT's exemption. Which applies here. A secondary source is above from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Your comment above also violates WP:BLP as it states that a person runs an accreditation mill without that being verifiable though reliable sources; I notice you have also repeated your WP:POINT violation by removing the parent categories from the category; this is considered disruptive editing. Sourcing and NPOV do not work that way, but as it is clear from your statements and actions that you don't like the category and are acting accordingly, I am no longer going to participate in this discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As I said above WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply for several reasons. That you compared this unaccredited "college"/PO Box to regionally accredited universities that have thousands of students and hundreds of secondary sources is completely erroneous and pathetic. The Worcester Telegram & Gazette, a local newspaper, in full says about Christian Bible College: "Education: Thomas Road Bible Institute; bachelor's and master's degrees from Christian Bible College." That's the ENTIRE MENTION. It is not even used in a complete sentence. Nowhere does that source say Baldwin graduated from a college in the US and/or a theological school. Do you have secondary sources that demonstrate otherwise? Do you have any sources that Christian Bible College exists outside of a PO Box where you send checks? It appears that the author of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette article simply uncritically reprinted information from third party candidates' websites because it also uncritically repeats platforms without using quotes like: "eliminate the Food and Drug Administration as unconstitutional."
                    • According to Steve Levicoff in Name It and Frame It? (which unlike Christian Bible College has secondary sources about it and a wiki page) on pages 34-35 says Christian Bible College is a degree mill ran by Cecil Johnson, who also operates American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which gives accreditation for "$100 fee with no educational requirements"- an accreditation mill. Steve Levicoff is an expert of Christian distance education, who operated the Institute on Religion and Law, which published that book. Now, if you have secondary sources that demonstrate otherwise, please provide them. SalHamton (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Name it and Frame It? is self-published and is not a reliable source. It was discussed at RS/N here and was determined not be a valid source for Wikipedia use. Claims of degree-milling and accrediation-milling based on Levicoff are, therefore, something that should not be done on Wikipedia (and naming names as you have above based on his work could easily be seen as a WP:BLP violation). If there are reliable, third-party sources that are not based on Levicoff that establish that we are dealing with a degree mill here, please provide them. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Your claim violates WP:BLP. Do you actually read anything you cite? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 31#School accreditor sources is from four years ago talking about Accrediting Commission International, it is people discussing sources from not only Steve Levicoff's book, but Oregon Office of Degree Authorization and John Bear. Steve Levicoff's book is widely cited on wikipedia, not to mention its own article Name It and Frame It?. Throwing out links and making false claims about those links is not getting you anywhere. A user claims its self-published, but has no source.
                        • How do you know is it self-published? It is published by the institute he directed. Is someone at the UN's work published by UN self-published? Secondly, the book is widely cited. Thirdly, Steve Levicoff is a recognized expert and author on several books. Fourthly, do you have any new sources about Christian Bible College or just the one local source that doesn't mention the state? SalHamton (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Yes, I read it very carefully, and the consensus is that WP:SELFPUB applies to Levicoff. The fact that something is "widely cited" doesn't make it reliable, nor does it having its own article. No false claims have been made. And as you have chosen to esclate to personal attacks, this discussion is over. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • You claimed it is self-published. I asked for a source. You don't have any. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 31#School accreditor sources has a discussion from four years ago. Here are the mentions about Levicoff (control F): one person (user JJB), without any source claimed, three times Levicoff is self-published and another says "Steve Levicoff seems to be an acknowledged expert on the topic." That is not "the consensus is that WP:SELFPUB," unless you consider one person's uncited claim consensus. By the way, you attacked me rather rudely above. You keep throwing links and a bunch of wiki policies that you don't read fully and you go on to misrepresent. (Like your non-English sources above. You assumed they supported you when you defended them, but they refer to a "Holy Christian Bible College in California," not a Christian Bible College in North Carolina.)
                            • I'll ask again: do you have any third party source that claims Steve Levicoff is self-published or that Christian Bible College is a legitimate school and not a website selling degrees? Your current claim to keep the category rests that this category is part of other category, but there is no source that establishes this is an actual college. See: Category talk:Christian Bible College alumni. SalHamton (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • If you are not going to provide a source that it is self-published, you need to remove your withdrawal your claim. It violates WP:BLP regarding Steve Levicoff as it is disparaging and untrue. Thanks. SalHamton (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category doesn't seem real useful, given the status of the school, but it does appear to be a valid category. The only listed alum, Chuck Baldwin, clearly claims this school as his alma mater. --Orlady (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime after I made the above comment, I edited the article (the one about the accreditation agency and the college) to identify Mr. Baldwin as an alumnus. That pretty well eliminates any purpose for the category. --Orlady (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The balance of evidence so far is that the joint in Rocky Mount, Colorado is a degree mill. The sources describing it as such are weak, but the more telling feature is the absence of any of the sources which would normally be available for a real college. Some of those advocating the retention of this category should read WP:BURDEN; it's up to them to provide the sources that this place actually exists as a college. The lack of a physical address for this "college" should be a clue.
    Categories are for WP:OC#DEFINING characteristics, and nobody is defined by having bought a piece of paper from a website.
    If this category is kept, it should be renamed to Category:Christian Bible College (Rocky Mount) alumni to remove ambiguity, because there are lots places which call themselves "Christian Bible College" (CBC in Missouri, CBC in Baton Rouge, CBC in Florida, CBC in Nigeria, CBC and Seminary Jostens College, Nigerian CBC, Bethany CBC, CBC in Maryland, CBC in India and Baptist Bible College which uses the CBC name or Vision CBC, United CBC, Redeemed CBC and Bethany CBC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that the person categorised here claims that the university is where they were educated, and there is a third-party source that states that, not just his own website (although it does as well). I'm concerned that in the absence of reliable sources that this is a diploma mill, deciding that it is based on a lack of reliable sources that it isn't, and removing it on that basis when there are reliable sources stating this person has a degree from the place, could set a very bad precedent. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: The article about the school (and the accreditation organization with which it is associated) now names him as an alumnus. That makes the one-item category supplementary to a one-item "list" in the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the risk of repeating part of the discussion above, I'd like to also point out that Bushranger falsely wrote there "reliable sources." That's not true the one article with a trivial mention (available here) that merely reprinted the biographical claims and positions of the people. Whereas, Name It and Frame It? refers to this place as a "degree mill."
        • Given the level of sources and the unlikelihood of this category growing, it should be deleted. A category for one person who has an unaccredited "degree" from a degree mill that isn't even notable for its own Wikipedia article serves no purpose. SalHamton (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closer User:The Bushranger cites the category tree as a reason to keep the category. However there aren't any WP:RS that have established that it is "a university or college in North Carolina" and a "theological school in the United States". The evidence is that it is a degree mill, which explains why it redirects to an accreditation mill. The category tree is merely being kept due to this on-going CFD. See: Category talk:Christian Bible College alumni for the repeated requests for RS and further discussion. SalHamton (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Instutite of Religion and Law that published Name it and Frame it, was controlled by Levicoff, who wrote the book. Thus is is clearly a self-published work. I also think we should avoid taking wikipedia into limiting alumni categories to institutions it deems "worthy". I think the deletion of an alumni category based on how the institution is presented by a self-published book sets a very bad precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep it the onus is on you: Do you have RS that demonstrate this is an institution of higher learning? Because it would be very bad precedent to keep a category with one item because a website that sells degrees claims to be a "university." SalHamton (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on why it's a bad precedent to keep a category for a diploma mill. We have categories for alumni of all types of institutions, including unaccredited universities and colleges and schools, so I'm not clear on how this is so grossly different. It's clear that it exists, and it's clear that it gives out diplomas—how they are awarded is a separate issue that should be addressed in a relevant article. However, I can understand the argument that the "school" itself is non-notable and not discussed in reliable sources. This, however, seems to me to be a separate issue. If the argument is being made that a non-notable institution should not have a corresponding category, I wish that argument would just be made in that manner. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm convinced that this college is real and that it's in North Carolina. As with many religious schools in the U.S., the school's lack of accreditation probably doesn't much matter to the "customers" of ministers who claim degrees from the school. I am, however, troubled by the idea of a single-member category that has little prospect for growth. I have not been aware of categories for alumni of other never-accredited-or-authorized institutions, including some much more solid and much better documented schools, such as Elim Bible Institute. However, when I investigated to see what I was missing, I did find Category:Pensacola Christian College alumni for Pensacola Christian College. Regardless of the existence of that one category, because it isn't typical to create this kind of category, it seems unsettlingly POV-ish (an effort to discredit Baldwin?) about having a single-member category for alumni of an unaccredited school about which we have too little information to create a stand-alone article. --Orlady (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern is that there is only one article in the category, it probably can be populated with other articles. I haven't done a thorough search, but apparently Jack Van Impe has "earned" a diploma from the same place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I've seen for the Van Impe affiliation is an online forum called Baptistboard.com. That's clearly not a basis for including him in a category. Did you find something else? The Wikipedia article about Van Impe lists education at two other Christian schools, neither of which was accredited when he attended. --Orlady (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it mentioned in a book, but as I said, I didn't do a very thorough search on the issue. The fact could well have just been copied off the Van Impe endorsement found on the official website of Christian Bible College. Judging by what users have suggested in this thread, I have no idea if the endorsement is legitimate or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search for Van Impe and Christian Bible College. Is the book you are referring to Teens and devil-worship: what everyone should know by Charles G. B. Evans (Huntington House Publishers, 1991)? The complete mention is "Dr. Cecil John/Christian Bible College" and the next line is "Dr Jack Van Impe/Jack Van Ministries" on page x of list of people thanked. I don't see any link between Impe and the school in that trivial acknowledgement (also is that book self-published?). This again means there ARE NOT multiple non-trivial sources about this alleged degree mill and yet people want to keep its category despite not even having an wiki article. SalHamton (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I was looking at a book about teens and devil worship. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement that a college have a wikipedia article to have an alumni category. This really seems to be a POV-driven nomination with the goal of deneying any mention anywhere to this school. Wikipedia is not meant to right wrongs, and if notable people calim connection with this school, I see no reason we should not have the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Bible College fails WP:GNG, which is why there is no article about it. That hasn't been presented as a reason to delete, but as a relevant point regarding the likelihood of the category having any value and growing, which are grounds for deletion. Despite there not being an article for it, a now banned user created the category (he was criticized for in his RFC for "creat[ing] a new article for every single obituary or newspaper story he reads" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn.) This CFD isn't about "righting wrongs" and I have no idea what you mean POV "denying any mention..." Aside from this as a category, there are no other "mentions" of it that I've attempted to remove!
My nomination is because this category has ONE item in it, it is unlikely to grow and has been labeled a "university" and/or theological school despite there not being multiple non-trivial sources to demonstrate that this "university" is anything but a degree mill that sells "degrees" from a website. SalHamton (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Because there does not seem to be enough well-resourced information to write about the College itself, it's not going to easy pass WP:ORG or notability for itself. So I don't think, therefore, that we can really support a category for it. It's actually a WP:BLP issue. If we can't reliably support an article about the organization, then how can we support categorizing people with information about the organization? People might want to be affiliated with it, or they might want to not be affiliated with it; either way, we couldn't reasonably justify including information just because they put it in or don't put it in their own bios, if we can't actually verify the basic facts that their resumes are referring to. ... If the college & the claims that it is a diploma mill are noteworthy enough for an article, then we could begin to consider whether a category of claimed alumni might be appropriate. But I think we would need to be very, very careful, because the allegations of graduation could be shameful or fraudulent or both. .... And because of all this, when we don't even have an article on the (allegedly fraudulent) organization itself, we definitely shouldn't have a category for it. Definitely DELETE. --Lquilter (talk) 11:30, 4 May 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:No Wave[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:No wave. I can't see any likelihood of confusion here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The head article has just been renamed to no wave per Talk:No wave/Archives/2015#Requested_move (my nomination, prompted by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February_28#Category:No_Wave_musical_groups. Another editor made a speedy nomination to rename the category in the same way, but that was opposed on the grounds that the uncapitalised title is ambiguous.
I'm inclined to think that both views are correct: "no wave" should be uncapitalised, but it is ambiguous. So I reckon the best option is to rename to the lower case format, but with a disambiguator.
I'm not sure what would be the best disambiguator. In the nomination, I suggest "art genre", but I can also see a case for "art movement". Maybe others will have better ideas :) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Comment. I'm the proposer of the speedy rename, didn't see it had been objected to, sorry. Personally I don't think disambiguation is necessary – what is it going to be confused with? But I'm not going to oppose because CfD often tends to add 'disambiguation' even when I think it's unnecessary. Jenks24 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I too am interested to hear why users think "No wave" is ambiguous. Until then I would be inclined to be in favour of simply renaming the category to Category:No wave to match the article No wave, as was originally nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me to be the sort of thing that people will miscategorise things into it due to misunderstanding ("'No wave'? Do they mean calm seas?"). If others don't think there's ambiguity I won't press the issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having a difficult time coming up with an imaginary scenario in which something would be miscategorized in this way. Actual mistakes I find with categorization often surprise me, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 18 March 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:People from the Inland Empire (California)[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: diffuse to appropriate county categories, then delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize people by region[2], but city or county. Any persons in this article should be categorized in either 'People from San Bernardino County, California(or one of its 14 towns that have its own category) or 'People from Riverside County California,(or one of its towns etc). Many of the people already in this category are in one of the target categories already. If deleted, I'll make sure everyone is moved like before when the above linked category was eliminated. ...William 18:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Category:People by metropolitan area in the United States has many region people categories (directly or indirectly), including this one and others in California Hmains (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think people by county is a better way to handle this. I really think they will be adequately covered in either San Bernardino or Riverside County. There is no gain from a category name for the two-county region. I would in general support going to a from county system everywhere. Metro area definitions have shifted too much over time to adequately describe where people are from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid subcat of Category:Inland Empire (California), but depopulate/diffuse and change to a holding category for the by-county categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If this has adequate boundaries, it might be kept as a container only category, but are there enough counties in California for us to need that kind of split? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with some of the concerns that JPL has over the shifting definitions. But if we followed that logic we would abolish all city categories since they too change over time. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Inland Empire (California)#Boundaries_and_definitions, "There is no universally accepted definition for the boundaries of the Inland Empire region". That make it unstable for use a category, which leads to articles being added and removed from the category, and good faith editors ending up in arguments over something which is ultimately unresolveable.
    Vegaswikian rightly notes that city boundaries shift over time, but the difference is that at any given time they are clearly defined ... and that's not the case with this informal area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Inland Empire is just lazy. One's formative years are not spend ranging over such a huge area unless one is a California Condor. Find out where they are from. Abductive (reasoning) 04:16, 26 March 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:Black television drama series[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:African-American television drama series and purge if needed. It's unclear to me that this is a "genre," but people seem to want to keep this under a different name. Note that Category:Black sitcoms has a head article, Black sitcom, meaning a rename there is less clear.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I find this category very troubling. The definition provided is far too vague for this category to be maintainable. What percentage of the cast should be black before it is considered a "black television series"? I am not being flippant, I really want to know. With some of these shows, the majority of the cast is white, and one or two cast members are black. The larger question is, since this is Wikipedia, is this an encyclopedic way of organising and categorising this information? I encountered this category at the article for The Wire, a critically acclaimed tv series that looks hard at the drug war, crime, poverty, political corruption, the economy, etc., in Baltimore. A large percentage of the cast --- both cops and criminals --- are black. But, that categorization does not add to an understanding of the show, and does not say anything about the complexities of race relations as the show discusses them. Simply put, this is bad categorization that obscures more than it reveals when it comes to these television programs. I believe we can do better. The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, it should be renamed to Category:African-American television drama series, at least, per the standard for this sort of thing and parent Category:African-American television. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: African-American television? But the definition given for "Black television drama series" includes series featuring "non-American blacks" (sic). And I see among the articles Shaka Zulu (TV series). a South African production. The lead Henry Cele was certainly not African-American. Isn't the parent category too narrow in scope? Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We categorise by ethnicity, but we don't categorise by race; that specification ("non-American blacks") seems to fail that rather spectacularly. (As an aside, I don't have a source for it, but awhile back I heard of an English fellow who was "of color" who commented that he was perturbed at being made to select "African-American" as his race, as he was neither African or American...but such are the ways of PC.) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merging together people from different ethnic groups (Brazilians, Jamaiancas, African-Americans, Black British, Black Canadians, Nigerials, Igbos, Akans, and who knows wht else) as this category seems to be trying to do is not how we categorize. We categorize by ethnicity. Igbo people in Nigeria and African-Americans are not the same ethnic gorup, and we should not pretend they are and act like their appearing in a television show represnts apparances by people from the same ethnic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1) Although things have definitely changed over the years, the fact remains that even in 2013 the number of television series featuring Blacks in the lead role or as a majority of the cast is still far outnumbered by those featuring no Blacks or almost no Blacks. For many viewers and many individuals who use Wikipedia as a reference, a category allowing one to identify those programs in which Blacks play a prominent role is an invaluable tool. (2) The nominator's questions about "The Wire" call for an analysis or critical review of the series, which is not the function of a Wikipedia category. (3) The debate over whether Blacks can or should be categorized by race or ethnicity is a very tortured one. It is made much more difficult by the fact that most African-Americans cannot trace their ancestry to a specific country (like Nigeria or Cameroon, for example), because the men who enslaved their ancestors did not preserve such records. Limitation to ethnicity alone would exclude almost any category of African-Americans (since "African" is not an ethnicity). (4) One of the commenters clearly misinterprets the term "non-American blacks". It was created specifically to include programs featuring actors like Henry Cele, Douglas Silva and Idris Elba who are not from the United States. It is not a function of political correctness. ABCxyz (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter whether blacks are featured in the lead role or not; Wikipedia does not categorise by race. Q.E.D.. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you're missing is that the category isn't US-exclusive at all; it includes series originating from anywhere on Earth, including the US and Nigeria and Japan and Canada and Jamaica and Brazil and Rwanda and the United Kingdom, that have major black characters, and is inappropriate in this form. A category for "African-American drama series" might very well be valid — I support renaming and rescoping it to exactly that below — but this category, in its current form, is directly inclusive of series from all over the world and not just "African-American" ones. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe keep or rename, but the problem is that the category currently contains shows and specials which had conspicuous black characters. A small minority had predominately black casts. Therefore most of these I would not consider "black" shows; I Spy may have had Bill Cosby, but I don't see that making it "black". Conversely, the notability of simply having black characters tends to decline, so that Nichelle Nichols is a stronger argument for a category than Avery Brooks, and leVar Burton was considered more notable for his visor than for his race at the time. The definition of the category needs to be firmed up. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrow to American series (and other countries), where this is possibly the exception. May be discard in favor of Category:American television drama series related to to race or something. Less calculable but more to the point. Anyway, something of the sort should be under Category:African American culture. trespassers william (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This will not work as a trans-national category at all. It might work if we limited it to shows from the United States, and we might be able to create similar categories for other countries, but we cannot pretend that Zulu are ehtnically the same as African-Americans. We classify be ethicity, and there is not a trans-national ethnicity here to classify. However I do not see any clear definition, so do not think this works as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was my point. Am I missing something? trespassers william (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the points raised by trespassers william are well taken. However, a name like "American television drama series related to race" doesn't exactly do it; just because the characters are Black doesn't mean it automatically relates to race. Additionally, I would reiterate that the "we only classify by ethnicity" argument really doesn't fit the unique history of African-Americans (as I noted in detail above), but that's another discussion. ABCxyz (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
African-Americans are a clearly defined ethnic group. However to try to pretend they are the same ethnic group as Igbos in Nigeria and Zulus in South Africa is to create a false impression and put things together that do not belong. Further, to try to classify every show here with even clearly African-American actors who exceed some arbitrary and unclear definition of "main character" will lead to a total mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, I think you may have misinterpreted what Trespassers meant — I can quite easily see where you got the idea that he was implying that "African Americans and Igbos in Nigeria and Zulus in South Africa" were a common ethnic grouping and should be put together, but I can also quite clearly see that what he meant was "a category exclusively for African-American series only, with maybe one or two separate parallel categories for specific countries if and where numbers warrant" (which wouldn't actually contradict your point at all.) That's where the confusion seems to be emerging — you're actually both making the same point, Trespassers just phrased it a bit ambiguously in one spot. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't classify films, tv shows, and the like by the race, ethnicity, nationality, religion of the actors/actresses or the characters. To do so would be a very bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As currently constructed, this category — an overly broad sweep that's including any television series from anywhere in the entire world whose lead characters happen to have brown skin, regardless of their cultural context — is indeed an invalid classification by race; however, it would be entirely valid to have a category specifically for Category:African-American television drama series, as that's a country-specific and validly encyclopedic cultural context. Accordingly, rename this to Category:African-American television drama series and narrow its scope so that only US series are included (also allowing similar categories, such as Category:Black British television drama series, for other countries if the number of relevant entries warrant). Categorization of that type is acceptable; categorization of the type represented by the current format is not. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your solution still involves categorizing these shows by race --- African-American is not an ethnic group --- and still fails to address what I regard as the core issue I brought up in my nomination: what is the common factor that makes these tv shows "African-American"? The categorization is too broad and vague to be encyclopedic, as it will lead to arbitrary judgements on the part of editors. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we limited this to shows where a majority of the leads were African-American, with possible exceptions for things like "Guess Who's Coming to Diner", where ethnicity clearly plays a key role even if most of the main characters are white, than it might work. However, just including any show with a "leading charcter" who is African-American is characterizing by something other than a major detail. What next Category:Asian-American television series, which will include Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman because the #1 billed character was of Japanese descent? I am not sure Dean Cain appears more in the series than Terri Hatcher, but he was listed first in the credits, and their chactacters are the focus of every single episode. Actually, Cain probably does appear more often, but not by much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:African-American television drama series, and while we're at it, rename Category:Black_sitcoms to Category:African-American sitcoms, and purge of all non-US content. If there is sufficient for different cats for the UK or other countries, those could be categorized accordingly - but should not be grouped together under shows with people with brown skin. And whoever said "african-American is not an ethnic group" needs to look up the definition of Ethnicity. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:African-American television drama series (and the other to Category:African-American sitcoms), and sort appropriately. We may need to create additional categories as needed to capture appropriate categorizations for non-African American works. ...... On the broader question: While there's an argument to be made in favor of "Black" as the conventional term or as an overlay, I think that argument should not be made on one particular subset of categories. Currently, the standard is to go by nationality and ethnic/nationality intersection, so that's the clear solution here, for now. For those who are unhappy with the Black/African American/African other nationality guidelines, it's probably a better idea to take it up globally on the categorization talk pages. Or even the major Wikipedia forums, because this would be a big deal. --Lquilter (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Consider Rename to Category:African-American television drama series format It turns out that we do categorize by race, when it's a defining characteristic, as it is here. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines explicitly state we categorize by ethnicity, not by race. To categorize by race goes explicitly against our guidelines. Race is not a defining characteristic here because we lack any clear definition of what makes a show "Black".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 23 April 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:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions[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) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WolterBot (talk · contribs) hasn't edited over three years, thus this empty category is not needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:17, 15 March 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:Military patrol[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 per nominator, for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Military patrol" is a highly ambiguous name; it impiles a patrol of soldiers through the forest/jungle/desert seeking the enemy, not a winter sport. The article may or may not need to be renamed, but the category certainly should be disambiguated. Subcats as neeed to be speedied if this passes. The Bushranger One ping only 10:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly this is not the normal meaning of "military patrol". -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bushranger, the article that you have in mind is patrolling. Which currently has no category of its own and does not seem to be attracting much attention. (58 edits in 9 years). Why would it be the main topic? Dimadick (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the real world. [3] And I don't see why "Patrolling" is a military article, since police and security services do patrolling as well. Though Bushranger may feel different about the patrolling article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I see "military patrol", the last thing I think of is a winter sport. I'm not wedded to there being a change, but I believe there is a reasonable chance of confusion here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the current name would most logically have as its primary meaning things relating to actual patrolling done by people actually in the military. This is not what the subject is here, so the category should be renamed to avoid confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity. I have just re-written the article in the past tense anyway. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 20 March 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:Donghak Peasant Revolution[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: withdraw nomination. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:03, 15 March 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:State cabinet secretaries of 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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The new officers category tree may make this a moot point, or require another nomination as desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are two problems with the name of this category. First of all, Governors and Lieutenant Governors are not "secretaries," but there is no reason to organize them in a separate category tree than the other cabinet officers. Secondly, there are numerous "secretaries" that are not cabinet level offices (for instance secretaries of environmental protection agencies, or secretaries of transportation, and others, but, to be fair, some obscure ones like that may very well be constitutionally designated in some states). Insofar as the essential qualities we are looking for in organizing these offices, what matters is whether or not the state constitution provides for their designation. This rename should be implemented down the whole category tree. I discovered the issue while working under the Connecticut and California categories. Greg Bard (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Although I have created and expanded the majority of the subcategories for this category since March, 2008, I have come to realize that this category has several flaws including the fact that some states use other terms including "Commissioner" or "Director" to describe their Cabinet officers, the fact that some states do not have a Cabinet system modeled after the United States Cabinet, and the the inability to establish a uniform criteria for inclusion of articles in the subcategories. Having said that, I would not recommend undoing the state subcategory structure even if this category is renamed because it would result in a large category consisting of several dozen articles which have a minimal relationship to each other. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose But the United States cabinet is not at all constitutionally designated, and we include the President and VP in US cabinet cats, so I think this is a logical category at the state level and logically named. Considering that in many states the attorney general, secretary of state, and other state wide officers are elected and thus not really cabinet at all, maybe we need to create a seperate Category:State wide elected executive office positions in the United States, although that title does seem needlessly long. My point is that there are the elected state executive positions, which often include things that feel like "cabinet" officers, and then there are the cabinet members who are appointed by the governor, with various levels of imput from the state legilature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This whole topic is problematic. Each state has a unique governmental structure. Some have cabinet secretaries, others don't. To accommodate states that don't have a "cabinet" or don't have "cabinet secretaries" (this likely includes the six states that don't currently have categories within Category:State cabinet secretaries of the United States), this category needs a more inclusive name, such as Category:State cabinet secretaries and executive department heads of the United States. Then each state can have a state category that is appropriately titled for terminology used in that state.
The "constitutional officers" idea doesn't work for me, as "constitutional officers" vary from state to state, and generally don't include all of the positions considered to be cabinet secretaries. In some states, most or all of these officials are elected, but the length of the list of electeds varies from state to state; in some states, some or all of these officials are appointed by the governor or by the state legislature. Some or all of the individual types of state constitutional officers are currently covered in specific categories such as Category:State treasurers of the United States, Category:State secretaries of state of the United States, and Category:State Attorneys General in the United States; I don't see any benefit to creating a new umbrella category for "state constitutional officers". --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Folks, I don't know how much experience and education people have in state and local political science here, but those in the know use the way I propose to organize these things. The issue has nothing to do with the fact that the United States Cabinet is not Constitutionally designated. This proposal doesn't apply to those officers. On the state level, however there is a variance, and the best way to organize these things is to identify Constitutionally designated officers as opposed to secretaries. There is a MUCH wider variance among state level "secretaries" than there is among Constitutional officers. Plus it makes it possible to include Governors, Lieutenant governors and Attorneys General in the same categories where they belong, rather than excluding them for no good reason. It is just a better way to organize things. Think about it! Does it make any sense to include a "secretary of rural and urban planning" along with a "secretary of state" AND exclude the governor and lieutenant governor from that category? It make much more sense to include major secretaries together, exclude minor ones and keep the top level state officers together. Please reconsider your opinion. Greg Bard (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As currently used for most states, the "cabinet secretaries" category consists almost entirely of offices that aren't constitutionally designated. For example, the topical articles in many states categories include one for a commissioner of agriculture, which is not a constitutionally designated state office. A few of the state "cabinet secretaries" categories (namely California, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, and Texas) do include one or more constitutional officers that do not appear to be gubernatorial appointees or cabinet members, but those exceptions don't justify repurposing an entire category hierarchy to become something different than it is now. If you want to create categories for the constitutionally designated officers in each of the 50 states, that should be done separately from the cabinet category system -- and note that you will need to research each of the 50 state constitutions rather carefully to determine which offices are constitutional offices in each state. --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to embark on such a project, I would be disingenuous if I didn't first propose this rename. It would be a colossal overlap, and most likely cause for this "cabinet secretaries" category tree to have a "mission creep" or purpose shift to cover all the lower appointees not constitutionally designated. If there is no strong objection, I may very well do some state constitutional research. It would be a more convenient way to organize it for the readers. Greg Bard (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "colossal overlap". As noted in my comments, there are 44 state-specific categories for state cabinet officers. I looked at all of those categories. Only five of the 44 appear to include constitutional officers who probably aren't cabinet officers. Many of them do include constitutional officers that are also cabinet members (for example, in a number of states the attorney general is a constitutional officer who is appointed by the governor). Most of the people and offices included in these categories are agriculture commissioners, corrections commissioners, secretaries of environment, and other similar positions not designated in the state constitution. Furthermore, reasonably well-developed categories exist for the principal constitutional officers of the various states, including Category:State treasurers of the United States, Category:State secretaries of state of the United States, and Category:State Attorneys General in the United States. --Orlady (talk) 19:08, 28 March 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:Jurassic Coast[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. Most arguments for deletion have been successfully addressed. Sub-cats do not necessarily have the same characteristics as their parents, e.g. "people from Foo City" should be categorised under Foo City even though it contains people rather than cities. Nevertheless, Carlossuarez46's proposal for a centralised discussion on non-hierarchical geographical categories could prove useful. – Fayenatic London 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a mess of a category - e.g. it puts the Weymouth Beach article under Category:Cliffs, it puts the Highcliffe article under Category:Devon, it puts the Wytch Farm article under Category:Visitor attractions, it puts the Lockyer Observatory and Planetarium article under Category:Jurassic geologic formations, it puts the Corfe Castle article under Category:English coast ...). It also creates a lot of redundancy - e.g. most/all of the articles in Category:Beaches of Dorset are now also in a parent of that category. The two articles with "Jurassic Coast" in their title are in plenty of other categories.
An alternative to deletion might be removing all the parent categories except Category:English coast and removing all the sub-categories.
P.S. I'm aware that there are other categories with similar problems (e.g. the Windermere Steamboat Museum article really shouldn't be under Category:Subduction volcanoes), but that's no reason for keeping this category. DexDor (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It's a simple mistake in understanding MediaWiki to think that parent categories strongly imply is-a relationships on their children. MediaWiki categorization is a simple mechanism, it isn't ontologically strong enough to be used in such a definitive manner. It just isn't a problem if Windermere steamboat museum is "under" subduction volcanoes, because it isn't. The mistake is to assume that this sort of transitive implication can be relied on. Yet another reason why suppressing transitive categories per WP:OVERCAT is often such a mistake.
There is some argument to splitting this cat in two, into geology and tourism. That might well become clearer, as the reader groups are probably fairly separate. We care about reader clarity. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nothing to do (directly) with MediaWiki - it's about whether this category follows the guidelines laid down in WP:SUBCAT etc that most of the rest of WP categorization follows. E.g. Category:French cheeses is the intersection of a category for articles about France and a category for articles about cheese. If you've radical ideas for a different way of doing categorization then take those ideas to a RfC. In the meantime, please follow the existing guidance to avoid WP categorization becoming (more) inconsistent. DexDor (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think that MediaWiki is unimportant because you can re-define its behaviour however you want, then I wish you luck with it. Who's going to tell MediaWiki? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, many of the articles in the category don't mention the Jurassic Coast at all. The guidance on the proper use of the categorization function in Wikipedia includes WP:SUBCAT which says "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second, then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second." and "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also.". How does Category:Beaches of Dorset belong under Category:Geology of Devon and Category:Cliffs of England ? DexDor (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second,
If. In this case it doesn't. That's the point.
Besides which, what are beaches if they're not geology, or eroded cliffs. Are you familiar with this coast? The cliffs and beach are indistinguishable in the winter, owing to their frequent landslips. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is creating non-working hierarchies of articles. This may be a justified place designation, but it is not universal enough to work as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we ought to have a centralized discussion on non-hierarchical geographical categories - whether they be container cats or otherwise; my opinion is that they add little to no value and numerous geographical locations would be placed in many (apparently notable because we have articles about them) categories that do little to advance the ball. A template would really be a better way to go rather than proliferate overlapping and not always well-defined areas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Informal geographic areas make for unstable categories with disputed contents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a World Heritage Site that encompasses a clearly-defined (and significant) number of existing articles, it's an obvious contender to have its own category. Maybe there are problems with how the categorisation is currently implemented, but that can be fixed: it's not a good reason for deletion.  —SMALLJIM  17:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To go some way towards tidying up this category, I've removed most of the sub-cats, and (as User:Smallerjim) added the missing articles in those sub-cats that intersect with this one. I've also removed Category:Cliffs of England, which I think was unhelpful since only a few of the articles are about cliffs.  —SMALLJIM  15:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I submit that all the reasons put forward for deletion have been resolved by (i) clarification of the Jurassic Coast's status and (ii) tidying up of the category. (Disclosure: I've just edited a relevant section of WP:CAT, but only to clarify its meaning.)  —SMALLJIM  11:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category still contains many articles for which Jurassic Coast is not a defining characteristic including articles that don't mention the JC at all (e.g. Arne, a church, Bowers basebed) and articles that mention it only in passing (e.g. Studland). It still puts articles about places in Dorset under a Devon category and vice-versa, it puts articles about types of stone (example) under Category:Visitor attractions ... Note: There's already a list article. DexDor (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may well be right that there are still improvements that can be made to the categorisation, including the possible removal of subcats Category:Isle of Portland‎ and Category:Isle of Purbeck‎. I suggest that WP:BB describes the appropriate action for you to take.  —SMALLJIM  15:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that the subcats should be removed from the category (e.g. articles like Herston Halt railway station shouldn't be under Category:Jurassic Coast). But, all but 2 of the other articles should also be removed and the category is then unnecessary. As nominator, I'm reluctant to remove lots of articles from the category as that gets people shouting "out of process". Category:Jurassic Coast (which is under Category:UNESCO etc) is different from a (hierarchical, non-overlapping) geography category (e.g. Category:Dorset) which should include articles about anything within its geographical area. DexDor (talk) 06:04, 20 April 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:Iron Maiden (heavy metal band)[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:Iron Maiden (band). We don't have consensus to completely remove the disambiguator, but with the deletion of the other Iron Maiden article, shortening is possible.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. (See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_21#Category:Iron_Maiden.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the previous discussion in 2009. The main article is indeed Iron Maiden, and it's pity that as usual the nominator did not help out other editors by linking to it.
    Iron maiden (disambiguation) lists many other uses of the term, many of them capitalised. The band is currently treated as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but as the dab page shows, the term is highly ambiguous. Ambiguity in category titles has much more damaging consequences that in article titles, because when categories are ambiguously named it leads to articles being miscategorised and the software makes it very hard to monitor such miscategorisations. That's why we often disambiguate category names even in cases where the head article is not disambiguated (e.g. the Birmingham is the head article for Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We disambiguate if and when we need to. There is no need to do this beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understand your comment, as the proposal is to un-disambiguate it. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I'd misread the direction of the intended change! In that case, oppose as a still-pointless change that adds nothing and there's certainly no disambig virtue to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While there are many other 'Iron Maidens' as BHG mentions, they are all obscure fictional charaters or even more obscure fictional ships. The band is far and away the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; I had no idea, until just now, that there were other uses at all of capitalised 'Iron Maiden'. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose ambiguous, so should not be used. Category names should not be overly ambiguous. PT-ness is only concerned with article names, not category names. And I'm not sure it is far-and-away the PT either, since the medieval torture device is fairly common, and I know people who don't know the band but do know the torture implement. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The fact that iron maiden is a term with a totally different meaning is relevant. Capitalization is easy to ignore, and Category:Iron Maiden will likely get things related to the torture device and other things that appear at the disambiguation page. The page on the band should also be renamed, but a category page with such an ambighous name wou,ld be worse. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renaming the article, at least, would violate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only based on your unfounded assumption that capitalization is actually a meaningful way to disambiguate. Such minor stylistic things should not be assumed to be universally recognized forms of disambiguation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's unfounded, the foundation is undermined for a lot of people, as I would have wholly agreed with you had I not over the years seen capitalisaton-as-diambiguation actually used a fair bit. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as categories need to be more unambiguous than articles; that's why it was moved here, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 21#Category:Iron Maiden. Renaming to the shorter Category:Iron Maiden (band) would be fine now, following deletion of the other band's page as non-notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Maiden (blues rock band). – Fayenatic London 17:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Iron Maiden (band), which is shorter than the present version. The article is at Iron Maiden, but we also have Iron maiden as a dabpage. With this capitalisation, it is the primary topic, but withour a disambiguator, ther is a risk of the category picking up articles reating to other uses of the term. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 21 March 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:Danville, Virginia metropolitan area[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. There's no consensus to delete, and so if it stays, it should match the article name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Demoted to a Micropolitan Statistical Area as per the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's 2013 delineations. ANDROS1337TALK 02:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What is a metropolitan area v a micropolotian area, are they really different for anyone other then the government? Which is actually in common use? Do these need to always match the government definition? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metropolitan and Micropolitan areas are defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and are used by the Census Bureau. The reason why the Danville Metropolitan Statistical Area was demoted to a Micropolitan Statistical Area is because the core city's population has fallen below the minimum requirement (50,000) to be considered a Metropolitan Statistical Area. Yes, this seems totally arbitrary similar to Pluto being demoted to a dwarf planet, however, the area is now legally and economically considered a micropolitan area instead of a metropolitan area. ANDROS1337TALK 03:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was my point. It is a definition change. Now what is this area really called? Do people actually use micropolitan area or just metro area or metropolitan area> I suspect one of the latter. Also this needs to be considered in light of the larger discussion on census area category naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really don't think either is very common, since the common definition of a metropolitan area is a large city and its suburbs, which Danville doesn't really fit. In fact, many cities/counties that the OMB considers to be metropolitan areas would not be considered true metropolitan areas by the general public (examples: Santa Fe, NM or Flagstaff, AZ). I don't think anyone really calls the City of Danville or Pittsylvania County the "Danville metropolitan area". For this reason, I see no harm in moving the category to its legal classification as a micropolitan area. ANDROS1337TALK 22:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to match the facts of the US census and the current WP category structure in use. Hmains (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These categories are not meant to slavishly follow the census, and I see no reason to do so in their names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose We need to stop using the US Census as a gazetteer, and this is as good a place to start as any. Danville might not strike anyone as a metropolis, but really the solution is not to make two parallel systems of "city area" categories based on an arbitrary population cutoff that only applies in one country. Either we should just use "metropolitan area" as the omnibus term, or we should rename everything to just "Category:CITY area" and be done with it. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On consideration of further comments below I would agree that deletion is the better outcome, though my reasoning per using the census's categorizations remains unchanged. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom As these categories are based on the area defined by the census, they do, indeed, follow the census' definitions. To do otherwise would be arbitrary and likely violating WP:OR. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom any "metropolitan area" different than the micropolitan census area is WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Do we really need to match categories to a US Census Bureau definition? I'd also argue that micropolitan area is not in common usage anywhere in the US other then in the government. If used by real people, then it is a metropolitan area, if anything is actually used. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The need for this category isn't obvious. The micropolitan area is Danville plus Pittsylvania County. The only contents in the category are articles for the city and places in the county. In any state but Virginia (where cities are independent from counties), Danville would be in the county, so the micropolitan area would be the same as the county, so there would be no thought of making a separate category for the micropolitan area. Does this category serve any useful purpose that I have overlooked? --Orlady (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not need this category at all. We gain nothing from linking the articles on the places in Pittsylvania County with our article on Danville in this way. This is an uneeded category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with John Pack Lambert. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 28 March 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:Structures, Historic Districts and Museums of Yellowstone[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 the buildings and structures to Category:Buildings and structures in Yellowstone National Park and upmerge the non-structures in the category to Category:Yellowstone National Park. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is clearly non-standard. The proposed name seems to be what this category might be for, and the article is named National Register of Historic Places listings in Yellowstone National Park. Another alternative would be to simply upmerge the buildings and structures to Category:Buildings and structures in Yellowstone National Park and upmerge the non-structures in the category to Category:Yellowstone National Park. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 15 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_15&oldid=1090391186"