Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 11

< February 10	February 12 >

February 11[edit]

Category:FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 18:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, due to upkeep issues. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both per nom. --Xdamr^talk 01:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom. Doczilla 05:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The reason for speration is based on the template. There hasn't been a lot of activity. I can suggest that both types of pages be added to the parent directory... Current and Former. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually categories are not supposed to distinguish between "current" and "former" status, in part for maintainence reasons. However, I can also see that in this particular case there is a fairly important distinction between someone "currently" being a wanted fugitive and "formerly" being a fugitive. So I could possibly be convinced that it's worth having seperate categories for the two in this particular case, maybe. I'm as yet undecided. Dugwiki 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge Bluap 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. AshbyJnr 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge--Grace E. Dougle 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with congenital or endocrine physical appearances[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename. This category's name makes no sense. We all have congenital physical appearances. We all have endocrinologically influenced physical appearances (if that's what that part of the title even means). If no clear alternate name emerges, then simply delete. Doczilla 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify or delete Looking at the subcategories, it appears the category is intended to try and cover articles about people with patently obvious, uncommon physical traits or deformities. I suppose I could be convinced that organize such articles might be useful, but the problem would be that it's not clear what the criteria for inclusion is. Where do you draw the line for which types of oddities are categorized here and which aren't? I'd have to vote for deletion of the category unless a reasonable, objective standard of some sort can be formed to clarify what belongs here. Dugwiki 21:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obfuscatory. >Radiant< 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 13:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense name per nom; oppose renaming because we shouldn't be categorising people in this way. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unecessary and merge into parent category category:People by medical or psychological condition--Grace E. Dougle 11:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User:R9tgokunks[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal user category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. - Darwinek 14:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

People with categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was withdrawn. Relisted individually, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 14, etc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:George Carlin - 7 pages, 1 subcategory

Category:Cesar Chavez - 4 pages, 3 media files

Category:Stephen Chow - 4 pages

Category:Glenn Curtiss - 19 pages

Category:Douglas Engelbart - 8 pages

Category:Brian Epstein - 16 pages

Category:Eric Idle - 2 pages, 1 subcategory

Category:Penn Jillette - 5 pages

Category:Alex Jones - 1 page

Category:Todd McFarlane - 3 pages, 1 subcategory

Category:Luis E. Miramontes - 12 images

Category:Michael Moore - 11 pages, 2 subcategories

Category:Ted Nelson - 8 pages

Category:Trey Parker and Matt Stone - 13 pages, 1 subcategory

Category:Penn & Teller - 14 pages, 1 subcategory

Category:RuPaul - 9 pages

Category:Martha Stewart - 6 pages

Category:Adam Smith - 11 pages

Category:Claude Shannon - 11 pages

Category:J. D. Salinger - 6 pages, 1 subcategory

Category:Hakim Said - 3 pages

Category:Norbert Wiener - 14 pages

Category:Steve Wozniak - 9 pages

Category:Jhonen Vasquez - 8 pages, 1 subcategory

This is an umbrella nomination because of all of these articles have very little content and don't seem to be very useful. We already have what links here, see also, and internal links, these just seem to be redundant categories. Iosef ^{U T C} 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I went to a couple and noticed media files in, for instance, Category:Cesar Chavez. Are the eponymous categories useful for organizing images that would not otherwise be easily accessible? --lquilter 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have always thought that galleries should be avoided on Wikipedia. I thought that was why we had Commons. But none the less some people like them in articles so you should probably use Wikipedia:Gallery tag instead, especially in cases like Category:Cesar Chavez where there are not many pictures.Iosef ^{U T C} 23:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was looking at some of our eponymous categories earlier today (and nominated a couple for rename or deletion), mostly in the Category:Categories named after writers parent cat. In some cases (for example Category:Celine Dion who admittedly is not a writer) the eponymous cat only holds subcats for albums and tours and such, so I'm good with deleting them and I'm strongly in favor of disbursing articles in the name cat to the works sub-cats and getting rid of the name cat. But in other cases (e.g. Category:Samuel Beckett and to choose one from this list Category:RuPaul the captured articles are such that to disburse and delete would require creating sub-cats which will (in Beckett's case) or will likely (in RuPaul's case) contain a single article and have no place to expand (Beckett wrote one screen play; RuPaul starred in one film that can reasonably be categorized as a "RuPaul film"). I don't like the notion of single-article categories so I wanted to perhaps get some discussion on the notion of keeping eponymous categories when the captured articles can't be sensibly disbursed without creating an unreasonable number of sub-cats but deleting them when everything can be more readily disbursed. Otto4711 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting the existence of Category:Categories named after people which has a vast network of subcats so a higher level discussion may be in order there as well. Otto4711 00:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of those I know well, I think the category is useful and should be kept - Martha Stewart, Todd MacFarlane, JD Salinger, Matt Parker and Trey Stone - I think these categories are incredibly useful, in the same way as Category:Sacha Baron Cohen. It is my opinion that any person who is related to a wide range of topics is deserving of a category. Begs the question - why is there not a Category:Joss Whedon yet?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realize that this may be the tip of an iceberg of renaming many categories or recategorizing many articles and/or categories (I think that makes sense) but at least it's a start. To respond to the rest of your comment, I think it is good to avoid categories with just one (or some other low number) article in it. That is why I nominated these categories. For example, RuPaul only starred in one film. That film should be in her article with an internal link or the movie in the see also section. It would normally be in the what links here feature (from the movie page) as well. We don't need a category for everything. Categories are suppose to help organize large groups of information. If I can get all that information easily without going to a category then the category is useless. As for eponymous categories in general, I think they can be useful in some situations. For example,you could have an eponymous category for Da Vinci that has subcategories for his inventions, paintings, etc. I do think that many of the eponymous categories could and maybe should be renamed but that could be a one by one basis. By the way I have a feeling that most eponymous categories are not in Category:Categories named after people unfortunately. Iosef ^{U T C} 00:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just recently created the category for RuPaul. I do so in order to capture all of her albums she recorded under a single category much like the musicians have. I was going to place the category under musicians, but when I thought about it she is actually a model first and formost. I know that Madonna has her own category placed under musicians although she has also appeared in film. I thought that it was done so because she started her carrer as a musician. I then reasoned that RuPaul wouldn't be placed as a musician or an actor, so placed her in the catch all category. I'm not one to create a category that has one or two articles, but I thought the amount she has and the potential to have more warrented it. --Pinkkeith 15:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There are too many of these for people who weren't really so hugely important so I'm not going to fuss over your precise list unless you add someone like Shakespeare or Napoleon. Craig.Scott 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am unhappy about discussing all these together. It is not correct that some of these have liitle content. Category:J. D. Salinger has a sub-category of his books and several articles in the category itself. This is quite common for writers. It allows their books and other articles about them or about films of their book and so on to be brought together. For those categories I have a Strong Keep view but maybe some of them should be deleted. Please withdraw and nominate them separately. --Bduke 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think it is correct to say the most of these have little content, none of them link to 20 pages themselves. The largest is Category:Glenn Curtiss at 19, most of which actually deal with Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company. The subcategory might have many links but those are not up for deletion. To use your example, Category:Books by J. D. Salinger is a useful category because it's subcategories rationally divide it into short stories and novels, of which there are 30 total. The category Category:J. D. Salinger only has six pages that should be in one of the subcategories anyway and the subcategory. If there seems to strong opposition to one in particular I would be willing to withdraw that one nominate it separately. I'll add the number of pages the categories link to so it is easier to see.--Iosef ^{U T C} 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By adding the number of articles in each category are you suggesting some standard as to how many pages need to exist before a category is justified? Otto4711 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Some of these categories do not look particularly useful (such as Category:Todd McFarlane, which contain very few articles), while others do gather together related articles rather well (such as Category:Penn & Teller, which includes multiple articles on their performances). We should debate them one-by-one. The mass nomination does not allow for the flexibility needed in assessing each category in this situation. Dr. Submillimeter 09:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no minimum category size, but categories for individuals are marginal at best and these are not among the more necessary ones. Osomec 14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. Submillimeter, some of those categories can go, but not all of them. Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in principle with deletion, but... I agree in principle with the spirit of the nomination. Generally speaking, most people should not have their own eponymous category, since all the links associated with that person are normally easily found in their main article. However, that being said, some of these categories may or may not have reasons to be exceptions to that rule. So my recommendation is to delete these categories, especially ones that noone has an argument to keep, but I would defer deleting any specific categories that someone has a reasonable argument to keep. (Basically, treat this like a "prod" - keep the categories that someone comments they want to keep or discuss in specific detail, and delete the ones that noone objects to deleting.) Dugwiki 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except those questioned per Dugwiki's suggestion Eponymous categories are very much overused. They should only exist when the eponymous article and "What links here" do not do an adequate job of directing readers to useful links. Missing links can be added to a "See also" section at the bottom of an article. If the "See also" section is getting too long, it might be useful to create a category. I'd suggest that any category be removed it it will not result in making the "See also" section longer than 15 links. We should codify this in some guideline. -- Samuel Wantman 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss each on their own merits (ie Procedural Keep)Bluap 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except those questioned per Dugwiki's suggestion per Samuel Wantman. I almost think this type of logic should be used in the future to allow these discussions to reach consensus. If you want something specific kept, then strike through the nominate and create a separate discussion including the original nomination and your reason for keeping and updating the category nomination to point to the new discussion. If no follow on discussion is created, then any admin can unstrike that item. Vegaswikian 05:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That procedure is confusing. You are effectively saying that a category should be nominated at WP:CFD for being kept, which makes no sense. Also, making up rules on the fly with a nomination like this is going to create confusion. Dr. Submillimeter 10:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dugwiki has the best idea here, no need to get overly procedural. >Radiant< 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dugwiki's suggestion is pretty much what I was eluding to earlier. and I think that is the best idea. The number's I added were not added to suggest that there is a minimum number of pages necessary to justify the category. I added them for easier viewing. Furthermore, it helps to illustrate the point that according to Wikipedia guidelines (I know guidelines are not policy) In certain very notable cases, people are being categorized by the name of the person itself, for example Category:Abraham Lincoln. I don't think any of these are very notable cases. --Iosef ^{U T C} 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Renominate those you feel most strongly about individually. I don't think we'll come to a consensus here on which to keep or delete. I'm worried about a broad delete setting precedent to delete any eponymous category. --Vossanova ^o< 18:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I am going to withdraw this nomination because it is going to close at no consensus and I have come to the conclusion that the guidelines set up for eponymous categories needs to be more specific before a broad sword can be taken through this type of category. I will nominate each of these individually to gain some sort of consensus as to how to define acceptable eponymous categories. Discussion will also be at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. Thanks--Iosef ^{U T C} 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:US Department of Commcerce as Main Source[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US Department of Commcerce as Main Source is misspelled, does not have a parent category, and I'm unsure whether or not it really needs to exist in the first place. It only has 4 articles in it. -- Beland 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can (only just) vaguely understand the proposed ambit of the category from the note within it—the name itself is wretchedly poor and undescriptive. Taking the naming, lack of parent categoriation, content, and rationale into account, I fail to see the practical use of this category at all. Xdamr^talk 01:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the type of category that does not relate to the subject matter of the article, and categories like that just get in the way. Craig.Scott 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this category could be useful. --Grace E. Dougle 11:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless category that also happens to be misspelled and inappropriately capitalized. Doczilla 08:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fibers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete (Category:Fibers was not nominated). --RobertG ♬ talk 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as marketing for the The Golden Fibre Trade Centre Limited (GFTCL). -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. --Xdamr^talk 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Craig.Scott 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are you proposing deleting Category:Fibers? That has a lot of content and is quite different from the other three. It clearly has many articles that are nothing to do with The Golden Fibre Trade Centre Limited (GFTCL). Category:Fibers should clearly be not deleted. --Bduke 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Fibers is not part of my nomination, and I did not tag it. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this, my view is strictly confined to the Natural/Vegetable/Bast categories. Having said that I don't think that Category:Fibers was intended as part of the nomination.

Xdamr^talk 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cinemas and theatres in Hong Kong[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Categories for cinemas and theatres are not normally combined. All the articles are now in the separate subcategories for cinemas and theatres, which in turn are in all the appropriate parent categories, so this category can simply be deleted. Pinoakcourt 18:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 02:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-standard and unnecessary. Olborne 14:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional toy inventors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Fictional toymakers and toy inventors. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Propose renaming Category:Fictional toy inventors to Category:Fictional toymakers and inventors[reply]
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Just to make it somewhat more inclusive. :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the proposal is that it does not make clear that the only inventors in the category should be inventors of toys. Not sure that the category name is so off-base as is that a rename is required. Otto4711 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern was that Peter Griffin, included, was not a toy inventor, but I could see him quickly being added to the category once more even if he was removed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Otto4711 about possible concern. Possibly: Fictional inventors of toys? or, to include the toymakers, "Fictional toymakers and toy inventors"? --lquilter 23:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional toy inventors to Category:Fictional toymakers and toy inventors

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, the two go hand in hand and the category would serve better with a slight increase in scope :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UTC-Please add timezone[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please don't add timezone, get a map instead. Pinoakcourt 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 01:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 02:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television channels and stations established in 2004[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contains one page, and created by an editor of that page; no similar categories exist for other years. Feeeshboy 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent Category:2004 establishments. Otto4711 16:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of Category:Television channels and stations by year of establishment -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ProveIt. Otto4711 00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A natural part of the larger category scheme mentioned by ProveIt above. Dugwiki 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Thier are indeed categories like this for other years. Also it's a pretty new category so it will take time to fill. Deathawk 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Atheist fundamentalism[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, non-neutral POV neologism seemingly used mainly as an attack on atheism. —M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 16:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)}}}[reply]

Delete both, per nom, as neologisms. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per nom. Subjective, and created as attack categories. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, attack, POV categories Hut 8.5 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NEO and WP:RS. These appear to be neologisms primarily used in blogs.--Kubigula (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per nom. Subjective neologisms for sure. Antonio Carlos Porto 01:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. If it even makes sense, it's hopelessly POV. Coemgenus 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Looks like this was set up for POV reasons. Note that the word Fundamentalism specifically refers to stressing "strict and literal adherence to a set of basic ideas or principles", which doesn't seem to apply to atheism (which has no specific tenets or rituals to adhere to). So while it makes sense to refer to a strict, dogmatic approach to following the traditions of a specific religion as "fundamentalism", it seem to make sense to talk about "atheist fundamentalism". Dugwiki 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply see vote below, but in response to your specific point, some atheists rigidly adhere to the axiomatic belief that only a rationalist analysis has any validity. Just as the religious fundamentalist excludes any analysis without a scriptural basis, the atheist fundamentalist excludes any anlysis which includes the possibility of a spiritual dimension. Both forms of fundamentalism share a refusal to consider any validity in a philopsophical approach other than their own. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a neologistic attempt to redefine a term with a specific and concrete historical meaning, and apply it elsewhere. We can talk about "fundamentalist Democrats" and "fundamentalist Communists" and "fundamentalist vegetarians" all day, but it's just using "fundamentalism" as an intensifier, and unmooring it from its historic roots. If we want to go that route and apply that meaning, then we should delete "Fundamentalist religion" categories rather than apply it more broadly; in this formulation it's as meaningful as "very religious" or "hyper vegetarian" or "super-liberal". I'd think that was a loss, because "fundamentalism in religion" is a real trend within religious groups, but it's a real trend that is specific to textual etc. approaches in religion. And fundamentalism need not be narrow-minded and exclusive, although it often is; it has simply come to have that (secondary) meaning. ... At any rate, while some critics of atheism have taken to using this term, it has not gained wide currency in being applied outside of religion, and so Wikipedia:Neologisms is relevant, I think. --lquilter 17:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply to lquilter: The term is not used by "critics of atheism"; it is used by critics of a particular type of atheism. See The Dawkins Delusion?#Comments_by_notable_commentators for some notable examples of how it used by other atheists and scientists. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both It has been repeatedly and thoroughly demonstrated that atheist fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms and therefore impossible [1] Heihachi 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both At least one notable commentator, Austin Cline of atheism.about.com argues very well that "Atheist fundamentalism" does not exist, and that the term was fabricated by apologetics in order to distract attention from the main arguments in theology:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/Fundamentalist.htm

Wikipedia covers topics that are fictional, such as creationism, and flat-Earth. Given that Wikipedia covers a wide aspect of discredited and non-mainstream ideas, the aim of Wikipedia is to provide verifiability, and not truth. So, it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to include topics that themselves hold claim to false ideas, and are accompanied with links/references to verifiable sources, however, there is no evidence that "atheist fundamentalism" exists, and certainly no atheists call themselves "fundamentalists". I would therefore argue, that to have such a category constitutes "original research", given that the term is a neologism, and takes the word "fundamentalism" out of the context to which it has any meaning. If I were to rude about it, I would describe this new category as nothing but pure bunk. Blind designer 01:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep both. I don't think that "fundamentalist" is a perfect term here, and I have doubts about its usefulness for religions ... but it's a widely undertsood term, and its imperfections are not enough to make the category useless. The article Fundamentalism defines it as a "movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles", and that attribute can be applied to both religious and secular beliefs. There is a class of aetheist (e.g. Richard Dawkins) whose atheism seems to be as dogmatic, intolerant and all-encompassing a characteristic as the religious faith of the christians who he likes to goad (just as the religious fundamentalist will only accept their own view of their own faith as the basis of any thought, the athiest fundamentalist axiomatically rejects any possibility of a spiritual dimension.
I would like to see the category renmaed, but I can't think of a better name: "zealot" strkes me as being a tempting term, but it isn't widely understood and may be too closely associated with its orginal use in the politics of the 1st century AD Iudaea Province.
However, I think that it would be horribly imbalanced to categorise religious fundamentalists, but not atheist fundamentalists.

BrownHairedGirl's description of Dawkins & why she would include him in this category suggests the way this category is being used or would be used -- as a clearly POV category. --lquilter 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to BrownHairedGirl. You said: "Its imperfections are not enough to make the category useless". As far as I am aware, there is no definition of "atheist fundamentalism" on Wikipedia, so without this, the category is useless. You said: "The athiest fundamentalist axiomatically rejects any possibility of a spiritual dimension". What do you mean by "spiritual dimension"? Human emotion, feelings, awe...atheists possess these characteristics, but to redefine "spirituality" linguistically does not constitute "fundamentalism". If you mean supernatural spirituality, there are many atheists who would gladly change their minds, if presented with evidence. Dawkins stated this on an interview with David Quinn. You said: "There is a class of aetheist (e.g. Richard Dawkins) whose atheism seems to be as dogmatic, intolerant and all-encompassing a characteristic as the religious faith of the christians who he likes to goad (just as the religious fundamentalist will only accept their own view of their own faith as the basis of any thought". Define "intolerant" and "dogmatic". Like many other critiques of Dawkins, yours are vague. Atheists can be intolerant of bad arguments, and bigotry, but that does not put them on the same plane as those who are intolerant of homosexuals, and Infidels. There is also a huge difference between "faith", that is belief in the existence of something without evidence, and a "justified belief" that is based on everyday experience. I am not sure what you mean by "strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" since the above sentence about the difference between "faith" and a "justified belief" covers that. Perhaps you mean the scientific method; however, I am afraid that there is no single scientific method; scientists just sit down, and work out the best way to evaluate the evidence. I am not satisfied with this category, and I feel that it provides a platform for ill-defined propaganda directed at atheists, and represents another attempt to assert that one cannot escape from religion simply by becoming an atheist. Blind designer 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Blind designer. I'll leave it to you to consult a dictionary on the definitions of "intolerant" and "dogmatic", and see if, for example, Dawkins dismissal of creationism as a "[[Richard_Dawkins#_note-24|preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood]" fits the bill.
The fundamentalism of Dawkins and other atheist fundamentalists is simple: their definitions of "good argument" and "bad argument, and their notion of "evidence" exclude the forms of reasoning used within the religious traditions, such as scripture. This a precise mirror of (for example) the scriptural fundamentalist, who insists that since scripture is the word of god, no other evidence or argument can overide scripture.
I find both forms of fundamentalism equalling chilling and repulsive: they both rely on the deligitimisation of other forms of knowledge. And I regret your suggestion that this term is somehow "ill-defined propaganda directed at atheists"; apart from WP:NPA issues, it is mistaken (I am not in any way a religious believer, just someone who despairs at the aggrssive certainties of some empiricists and has too much historical awareness of how it has led us down some paths as nasty and risky paths as some of the horros of religious fundamentalists).
Note that I do not advocate that the tag "fundamentalist" be applied to all atheists, just as it should not be applied to all religious people. Your concern that term is "attempt to assert that one cannot escape from religion simply by becoming an atheist" precisely inverts the purpose of this term: most atheists are not fundamentalist, and can accept the that there may be degrees of merit in other belief knowledge structures. However, some atheists follow such a dogmatic path that their thought-systems start to resemble a mirror-image of the religious fundies. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BrownHairedGirl, your comments have just about nothing to do with what atheists are saying about the comparative merits of scientific evidence and theories versus scriptural authority. Unfortunately, some people have faith in the myth of moral symmetry, that is, if two sides do something roughly analogous, then of course, there is no difference: in reality, there is rather a large discrepancy between scriptural authority, which is often the result of multiple translations, and the reliability of scientific experiments, the results of which, are the same every time.

You associated "atheist fundamentalism" with eugenics, a well-known misuse of a scientific theory, and driven by political and social ideologies. For example, the deep ties between the German Nazi party and the Catholic Church were a primary factor in legitimising the Holocaust [note that atheism is not an ideology or belief system], and often misused to attack atheists; your allegation of a personal attack is a non-sequitur: I was attacking the category, not you. You mentioned Dawkins' view on creationism... well, I think that in the context of a 4.56 billion year old Earth, and mountains of evidence in favour of evolution, there is no symmetry between belief in evolution and belief in creationism: the two are not even remotely comparable.

You said: "I am not in any way a religious believer, just someone who despairs at the aggrssive certainties of some empiricists and has too much historical awareness of how it has led us down some paths as nasty and risky paths as some of the horros of religious fundamentalists)."

--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: I am not in any way a religious believer, just someone who despairs at the use of Wikipedia as a platform for the propagation of poorly-informed nonsense about irreligious atheists, whether they be of a "particular type", and have the temerity to subject religion to intelligent critique, which, in the case of Dawkins, a mild-manner Oxford professor, represents a "chilling" and "repulsive" moral symmetry to those who believe that upon nuclear war, or a natural disaster, Jesus will return to toss Infidels into the pit, or fly planes into buildings in the name of their particular religion.

Overall, I think that your contributions to this discussion have demonstrated that the category is POV, and therefore a candidate for deletion. I trust that I am not being "intolerant" or "repulsive" by arguing that you are simply wrong on this matter Blind designer 02:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blind designer, you are brilliant! You tell us that when an empiricist claims that people who don't adhere to an empiricist thought-system are "preposterous, mind-shrinking", that's mild-mannered; but when dissenters express concern their voices are labelled "poorly-informed nonsense". It doesn't seem that these categories will survive this CFD, but the fundamentalism is alive and well. Torquemada's successors won't necessaruly be those wearing dog-collars :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not paying attention to any more of your trifles. Blind designer 13:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. "Fundamentalists" and "fundamentalism" are being used here as intensifiers, rather than by reference to any coherent and discrete meaning. "Fundamentalism" in religion refers to specific tendencies and doctrinal approaches, and while people may throw it around loosely, as they do the term "fascist", there's still a background meaning to the term that lends significance to the phrase "Christian fundamentalist" or "religious fundamentalist". There's a huge literature on religious fundamentalism as an anti-modernist movement, the specific textual approaches, and so on. Atheism has no comparable "back to the fundamentals" movement, and can scarcely be classed as a movement of any sort anyway. The two are not parallel. ... To the extent that someone wants to create Category:Atheist advocates or Category:Atheist evangelists or Category:Atheist proselytizers, that is more likely to capture the sense of what is currently contained in Category:Atheist fundamentalists. (Although I think that I would really have to think for a while to see if that terminology is really accurate. I think Dawkins & Sam Harris & Peter Atkins would be better described as "critics of religion" or "anti-religion" than "atheist proselytizers/evangelists/fundamentalists/advocates". I withhold on MMO.) --lquilter 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, Kubigula, Dugwiki's comments, and Blind designer's comments. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a platform for spreading propaganda. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom. Dubious categorisations at best. --Plumbago 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Useless and reflecting a specific POV. --Tex 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, 'fundamentalism' refers to a relationship to textual authority which is inapplicable to atheism. These cats seem to exist only to push POV. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - these are point of view categories - the relevant terms have no non-pejorative usage. They are also essentially wrongheaded. A "fundamentalist" Christian, as a opposed to a "modernist" Christian is someone who has returned to the supposed fundamentals of Christianity, especially a literal interpretation of the Bible - with a theological and moral system which flows from this. There is no atheist equivalent of this. Metamagician3000 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metamagician, while one might be able to argue that there exist individuals who are functionally speaking fundamentalist atheists in some sense, it is hardly an NPOV term and is never used as anythign other than a perjorative and is nto discussed in almost any reliable sources. JoshuaZ 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.Baka man 04:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename. There is certainly something here: the distinction between the militant, closed-minded atheism of Dawkins and the reasonable open-minded atheism of say Martin Rees or Michael Ruse is worth capturing. But perhaps we should refer to Militant Atheism rather than "fundamentalism" NBeale 06:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to NBeale. I think that what you mean by the "reasonable" atheism of Michael Ruse is that "open-minded" atheists accord an undeserving degree of "respect" to faith-based knowledge, and give support to the idea that unweaving the rainbow takes the mystery out of unknown unknowns [something which worries religious believers because science undermines their claims], and "unfairly" undermines superstitious beliefs. In response, moderate believers attempt to put the justified beliefs acquired by scientific knowledge on par with faith-based beliefs, without making the distinction between the merits of science, for example, progress in medicine, technology, and higher standards of living, and the fact that religions have made no such contributions to human progress in these areas. The term, "atheist fundamentalism", and the oxymoronic variant, "secular fundamentalism" represent a smear tactic, and genetic fallacy, without addressing the arguments of the so-called "fundamentalists" that moderates and apologists wish to undermine. I noticed that BrownHairedGirl set up a series of traps: for example, when I addressed the shortcomings of her arguments, my points were incorporated into the "atheist fundamentalist" narrative, for instance, when I called such an agenda "nonsense", BrownHairedGirl took this as further "proof" that my arguments were "extreme" and "intolerant" of religion, thus making the objection to outspoken views on religion impossible to falsify. This view is fatally flawed and a Tu quoque: what some religious believers and some irreligious persons want out of the word "respect" is unearned respect and deference to religious beliefs. However, simply because an atheist might criticise religion, it does not mean that they should wish to undermine the rights of others to hold such beliefs. One does not accord automatic respect to conservatives, liberals, and socialists, so why should religious beliefs remain exempt from critique? Any religion which survives critique, of course, deserves to flourish, and benefit society, just as any product, organisation, or political party which manages to sell itself well-enough deserves to stay in business. In any case, Dawkins and I would agree that if the claims of religion and theism were proved beyond reasonable doubt, then we would embrace the evidence for those positions. I doubt that many religious people would change their minds in response to evidence that contradicted their beliefs, if such evidence were found; in fact, the evidence shows that creationists represent a group of people who consistently ignore empirical data, and persist in their view that living structures were "created" by God. In the light of this, and also the fact that "believe (not X)" and "not (believe X)" are entirely different operations, the whole argument for atheism being "close-minded" falls apart. Having read extensively on Dawkins, it is understood that he does not claim to know everything, and that only a limited number of scientific theories are certain beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. evolution, quantum mechanics, and heliocentric astronomy. Blind designer 22:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both How can you be a fundamentalist about this? There are no rules and beliefs to be fundamentalist about - atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural. 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roads in Canada[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename (someone's already done Alberta). --RobertG ♬ talk 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to match format of Category:Roads in Manitoba and Category:Roads in British Columbia. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Pinoakcourt 18:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Darwinek 00:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all just for consistency. Antonio Carlos Porto 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Coemgenus 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Smcafirst | Chit-Chat posted at 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Simpsons Movie (The soundtrack)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and salt (by Tregoweth) ×Meegs 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we usually have categories on soundtracks? Additionally, it (as is the article that is the sole occupant of the category, which will probably end up deleted) was created by a user, Liljsakira34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that is likely a sockpuppet of an overall user that makes mainly dubious edits, primarily this soundtrack and claiming UPN will return this fall. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for such a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary trivia. Doczilla 23:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. Coemgenus 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Placeholder variables[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Placeholder names. the wub "?!" 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Metasyntactic variables, or Merge into Category:Placeholder names. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the merge. "Metasyntactic" is technically correct but also rather technical. >Radiant< 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Celine Dion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the articles are for songs, albums, DVDs or tours, for which categories already exist. Otto4711 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worth keeping as a parent category for songs/albums etc categories. Where there is a clear justification for an eponymous category, such as a number of directly connected articles/categories then it should be kept. Having said that, I agree that it ought to be cleaned up.

Xdamr^talk 01:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at this category, with a view to cleaning it up. I found that none of these articles seemed to be directly categorised under Category:Celine Dion. Rather it looks like it may be down to sloppy use of categories within article templates.

Xdamr^talk 03:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the cleaned-up version I still think that as long as the remaining five articles are linked through the main article then the category is unnecessary. Otto4711 06:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 08:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rule states that if an eponymous category exists then the article is to be placed in it. The rule does not mandate the existence of eponymous categories. Otto4711 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hans Christian Andersen[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hans Christian Andersen to Category:Works of Hans Christian Andersen

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - With the exception of the lead article, all articles are about works by Andersen rather than about Andersen himself. This should be a "works of" category. Otto4711 14:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Tim! 08:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Draft picks by league[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, since the category is empty now anyway.--Wizardman 19:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the up category for NHL draft picks, which is it's only sub-category. Neonblak 14:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Who a player is drafted by is a very defining characteristic. --Djsasso 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if the NHL draft picks category is kept, connect it to Category:National Hockey League Entry Draft, where it is a better fit. Draft picks by league is useless if what is being said below is true. No other sport has that close relationship between draft pick and team association. Neonblak 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can agree with that. --Djsasso 21:24, 16 February 2007 (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:NHL draft picks[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. It's really just being used as a parent category, which is fine.--Wizardman 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-defining characteristics, same category for MLB was proposed and deleted for same reason. Neonblak 14:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Who you are drafted by is definately a defining characteristic. Your rights are retained by that team unless they trade you from the age of 18 to the age of 27. That goes a long way to defining who you are. --Djsasso 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These categories represent definite defining characteristics of professional hockey players. Skudrafan1 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Resolute 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List already exists (or it should) and there NHL-related cats need to be reduced Mayumashu 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hockey players are in too many categories. Hanbrook 02:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Hockey players are in too many categories" is not a valid reason to delete an important set of categories such as this. Perhaps we can weed out the less-important categories, but not major ones such as these. Skudrafan1 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Categorisation by team is quite sufficient, without dividing team members up by contract status. Wimstead 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But this isn't contract status. This is who brought them into the league which is a highly relevant fact when speaking about hockey players. --Djsasso 17:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Djsasso's comment above. Pparazorback 17:38, 23 February 2007 (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:Kansas City Unions players[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete (it has already been merged). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category is not needed anymore, names moved to correct category. Neonblak 14:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's empty and merged into Category:Kansas City Cowboys (UA) players -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Britney Spears[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--Wizardman 19:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as the recent cfds for Category:Anna Nicole Smith and Category:Paris Hilton. People should not have categories as a substitute for a well linked/what links here page. KelleyCook 12:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otto4711 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 23:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eponymous categories are merited where there are a substantial number of directly connected articles/categories. In this case Category:Britney Spears acts as a parent category for a substantial number of categories and articles—categories and articles with a direct bearing on, and link to, Spears.

Xdamr^talk 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This category is a useful umbrella category for subcategories related to Britney Spears. Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful given the number of sub-categories and articles that are directly relevant (7 subcategories, 10 articles). Some of the articles might be more borderline, but it's atleast useful as a umbrella category. Mairi 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above two comments. --Djsasso 04:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mairi's comment about being a useful umbrella cat. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per topic article rule. Tim! 08:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Xdama and Dr. Submillimeter said it was useful for navigation because it gathered together those various "albums by X", etc. subcategories. I'm not sure how I feel about that as a justification for an eponymous category. For me, I look at things about X to see if the category is really useful, because things about X will not necessarily be well linked-to from the article. For instance, in George W. Bush there are books about, movement to impeach, songs critizing, GWB in fiction, articles about aspects of his life, campaigns, and administration, and articles about his malapropisms, and so on. If I really look thru the Britney Spears article, there's not that much about her. The products category, for instance -- the articles on Britney Spears perfumes from Elizabeth Arden are not, I feel certain, notable in the Category:Fragrances category, so probably should be deleted. I'm also not sure why an article about BS products needs to exist. Also in the cat are several articles about people, and categorizing people by people is not a workable scheme. ... I could go on but it's painful, actually, to look at these articles. I guess I think that if this category were properly weeded through it would shrivel down to little, not enough to maintain an eponymous category. --lquilter 14:23, 19 February 2007 (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:Russian Empire films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Russian films. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian Empire films to Category:Russian films

Merge, Completely redundant category. Darwinek 12:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Postlebury 15:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Coemgenus 15:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Not redundant at all. "Russian films" is a category for all films which were made in Russia, regardless of which political form it took. This is a subcategory. There's also a subcategory called "Russian Federation films". How is "Russian Empire films" any more redundant than Films of Weimar Germany or Films of the Third Reich? Nobody's suggesting deleting those. I propose instead creating a category called "Russian SSR films", which will be a subcategory to both "Russian films" and "Soviet films". Esn 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two period-specific German categories should be deleted too, so nominate them if you wish Esn. Olborne 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone at least explain why it is a bad idea? You're all saying "Merge" but I haven't seen one person yet actually put forth a decent argument (or really, any argument at all). How is this any different from time-specific periods in other areas of the arts such as Venetian school composers, Classical music era, Ancient Roman music or Elizabethan architecture, Anime of the 1980s, to give some examples? Why should there not be categories for films from distinctly different periods in Russian film history? Esn 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment. Should I also nominate Category:Imperial Russia for deletion? I won't of course, and neither will I nominate either of the two German categories (or, indeed Category:Weimar Culture), because that would be known as a bad-faith nomination. Esn 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Ant Bully[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A category with two articles, each already linked to the other. No likelihood of expansion. Overcategorization. Otto4711 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Prolog 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 23:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary category. All the links already appear in the appropriate main articles. Dugwiki 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Monopoly (economics)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 19:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Monopoly (economics) to Category:Monopoly

Nominator's Rationale: Rename because monopoly is an important concept in economics. The current name was chosen on the basis that equal weight should be given to the board game with the (derivative) name Monopoly. At the time of previous discussion, Category:Monopoly (economics) was relatively unpopulated, which supported the view that the board game was of equal importance. However, Category:Monopoly (economics) now has more than twice as many articles (including those in subcategories) and the potential for many more. It should also be noted that the category nomenclature is inconsistent with that of the lead articles themselves - the article Monopoly is about monopoly, with a link to Monopoly (game). JQ 11:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The average person will think of the board game first. Postlebury 15:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment The relevant entry is already and correctly Monopoly with a disambiguation for Monopoly (game). Does the average person really care about a category consisting of variants of Monopoly, streets used in Monopoly and so on, as opposed to the actual public and private monopolies they deal with in day-to-day life?JQ 23:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename - The average person will type in a "search" and get sent to the economics article anyway, with a link to the game. The category is not going to be that important for the average person, and the Category:Monopoly (game) is already disambiguated. If Category:Monopoly means economics it, too, can have a for the game see Category:Monopoly (game) link which will be a lot more helpful than the current nothing which exists for Category:Monpoly. --lquilter 23:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as-is We can second-guess the 'average person' all day, giving greater weight to the board game or the economic concept as we see fit. However I think that we might all agree that, at the very least, the potential for confusion continues to exist. That being the case I see no compelling reason to change. As an adjunct to this, I would favour disambiguating the relevant article to Monopoly (economics).

Xdamr^talk 01:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is an general encyclopedia, not an economics handbook. Move Monopoly to Monopoly (economics) Craig.Scott 02:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category to match its main article A category name should almost always match the name of its associated main article. In this case, the name of the associated main article is Monopoly, so the category should match that spelling. Alternatively, I'd also support renaming the main article to Monopoly (economics) to match the category's spelling. Dugwiki 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've left a note on the Monopoly talk page, taking soundings on the potential for renaming that page Monopoly (economics). We'll see if we get any views.

Xdamr^talk 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(I'm reposting my response from the talk page). :There are a number of similar cases, such as Risk, Life,Career and so on. In all these cases, the original real-world concept is the main article, and the derivative game is disambiguated. Monopoly as represented by the Post Office, Microsoft and so on is an important feature of the real world. The board game is of interest as a minor feature of popular culture.JQ 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match article naming Bluap 05:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, instead rename the article to match the category. 70.51.8.159 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, rename article to match category. --Djsasso 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only reason to support this is to make a point about what one thinks an encyclopedia should focus on. If one is simply thinking about helping readers to navigate Wikipedia (the only purpose of the category system) the desirability of disambiguation is obvious. Olborne 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't there be disambiguation links on the category page anyway? Why does the disambiguation have to be embodied in each of the category names, if there is a reasonable standard & precedent for preferring one? (In other words -- just because there are multiple meanings to a word, can't we use the simplest form of the word for the most common use of the word, with links to disambiguated forms of the word elsewhere?) --lquilter 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Based on google the most common use of the word is probably for the game. AshbyJnr 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is correctly named as a category. Vegaswikian 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom and what Lquilter says (easier to find on search).--Grace E. Dougle 12:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Autistic people[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Autistic people to Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders

Nominator's Rationale: Rename because the current name is inaccurate as applied and would be difficult to get editors to apply correctly. Some of the categorized articles are about people with conditions like Asperger's and Rett's which are not autism but are autistic spectrum disorders. Doczilla 06:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Doczilla 08:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportBiophys 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest creating subcategories for each of the various types of disorder Bluap 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The name "autistic spectrum disorder" is clearer to people who have never heard the term before than Rett's would be to people who've never heard of it before. Also, for some of those so categorized, there is some debate as to which autistic spectrum disorder applies. Doczilla 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The new suggestion is more cumbersome. In addition, it contains the word 'disorder' which has POV baggage. I would prefer Category:People on the autistic spectrum to Category:People with autistic spectrum disorders but I think the current name of the category is best. Q0 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's about accuracy. People are not on the autistic spectrum. The disorders are on the autistic spectrum, and they are official DSM-IV disorders. Doczilla 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Psychology is a disputed field so the DSM is not NPOV. Could Category:Autistic spectrum people work? Q0 14:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every field is disputed by someone. When fields like psychiatry and psychology create a concept such as autism, we inherently must use their criteria in applying the term. They made up the term. They make up the rules for using the term. A person does not get labeled autistic unless diagnosed with autistic disorder. Doczilla 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree with Doczilla -- "autistic spectrum disorder" is an internationally recognized term, whatever the rights and wrongs of that term may be. DavidB 12:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The term being internationally recognized only means that there is no geographical bias. It doesn't mean that there cannot be other forms of bias. A number of Wikipedia articles in this category are about people who don't consider autism to be a disorder. The suggested rename is POV. Q0 14:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Doczilla - we should use the official terminology. In fact, we would be taking a political stance one way or the other if we did anything else. Metamagician3000 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose I don't think people with asbergers should be in the same category, because they are at a completely different functional level. Create additional category for Aspergers and Retts.--Grace E. Dougle 12:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That doesn't change the reality of the fact that Asperger's and Rett's are classified as pervasive developmental disorders (a.k.a. autistic spectrum disorders). Your reason for opposing is actually an argument for changing the name somehow. Creating separate categories for each would leave out the many individuals for whom professionals agree that they have some autistic spectrum disorder but disagree on which autistic spectrum disorder they have. Wryspy 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Famous Maneating Animals[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Famous man-eating animals. the wub "?!" 19:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename. Is this category useful/well-defined/necessary? If not, what's the best name for it? At a minimum, Category:Famous man-eating animals would be better. Mairi 06:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename. I don't care which, but (1) name is inaccurately capitalized per nom. and (2) "famous" is a matter of opinion. Doczilla 06:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is part of the Category:Famous animals tree, where 'famous' roughly means 'individual'. Mairi 16:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and if it's kept, then rename per naming conventions). "Famous" is subjective, and if it's used to mean "individual" then it's misused and misleading. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. I really don't care what you call this category but animals that are famous for killing people are very well-defined. Alicewr 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Famous man-eating animals "Famous" is standing in for "individual" and personally I think it is clearer. "Individual" could be interpreted as a contrast to families, classes, etc of animals. AshbyJnr 13:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Upmerge. I might have gone with rename, but with only 4 entries this is likely an over categorization. If kept, rename to Category:Notable man eating animals. Vegaswikian 03:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Famous man-eating animals. The parent is category:Famous animals, so the use of famous here is consistent with that. Craig.Scott 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Metamagician3000 09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historical Subdivisions of South Africa[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical Subdivisions of South Africa to Category:Former subdivisions of South Africa

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Former" is clearer and more precise than "Historical", and correct capitalization of "Subdivisons". Mairi 06:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse rename but incline towards delete. I'm not sure that this category serves any real purpose. Other than being a logical follow-on from Category:Subdivisions of South Africa, which is in turn a sub-category of Category:Subdivisions by country, it is a usage which is unknown in South Africa.

Category:Subdivisions of South Africa already contains Category:Former provinces of South Africa, would that be best moved into Category:Historical Subdivisions of South Africa? Personally I think that would be unnecessary categorisation.

Xdamr^talk 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Area codes in Washington, D.C.[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 --Wizardman 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one area code in Washington, D.C. and according to Area code 202, there is no need for an additional one until at least the year 2020. --dm ^(talk) 02:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems way too specific to be useful. How about merging the one article in this category into Category:Area codes in the United States? delldot | talk 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is part of a categorization hierarchy in Category:Area codes in the United States by state. Because it is part of a hierarchy, it is worthwhile to keep a category with only one article. Dr. Submillimeter 10:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Along with all the other 50 states. What a useless set of category when all the area codes are already listed on the page List of North American area codes#United States. -- KelleyCook 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as part of the area code by state scheme, although I can probably be convinced that the entire structure should be dismantled. Otto4711 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the index cat Category:Area codes in the United States by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Instead of making a decision on a single category, maybe the whole Area codes structure should be discussed. If this category is deleted, there are several other US area code categories that include only one area code and logically also should be deleted: Category:Area codes in Delaware, Category:Area codes in Vermont, Category:Area codes in West Virginia, Category:Area codes in Wyoming, and undoubtedly several more. --orlady 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
keep this and all the 'Area codes by State' categories. Lists are no substitute; these categories provide information that is placed in the each US state's category, which is not otherwise available. Hmains 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify is more comprehensive for area codes - a table would be sortable by area, code, date of establishment, and population. >Radiant< 14:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of Category:Area codes in the United States by state. If someone wants to get rid of that hierarchy, then nominate Category:Area codes in the United States by state+subcats, but it makes no sense to pick out one part of the hierarchy. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:49, 15 February 2007 (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:United States Amateur Champions[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Winners of the United States Championship for amateur boxers. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Amateur Champions to Category:United States amateur boxing champions

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category is for boxers, but there are U.S. Amateur champions in many sports. Wilchett 02:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps "American …" is preferable to "United States …" − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Presumably this is intended to be for national champions, but Category:American amateur boxing champions would cover any American who has won any amateur boxing title. According to the official site the tournament is the United States Championship. Perhaps "national" should be added to the name ie Category:United States national amateur boxing champions or Category:Winners of the United States Championship for amateur boxers. Osomec 11:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment − This is not a category for winners of the U.S. title, but a category for American title winners. Some of your re-naming options would completely change the purpose of this category. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Winners of the United States Championship for amateur boxers. Only titles at national level and above merit categories. Olborne 14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Winners of the United States Championship for amateur boxers per Olborne and remove any articles which do not meet that requirement. AshbyJnr 13:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Olborne. Metamagician3000 01:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hamilton City Roads[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Roads in Hamilton, Ontario. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support nomination, as it makes more sense intuitively. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - given the size of the dab page which is Hamilton, I can't see any other logical solution. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Ontario roads (or Category:Roads in Ontario depending on which order they close in). ~ Bigr Tex 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Why would you want to put all Ontario roads into one category. It's way too large.

Support Much precise title. Smcafirst | Chit-Chat posted at 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British emigrants by constituent country[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British emigrants by constituent country to Category:British emigrants

Merge - This looks like an unnecessary layer of Category:British emigrants. Category:British emigrants by constituent country should be upmerged. If kept, then Category:British emigrants by constituent country needs a better name, as "constituent country" is not the phrase commonly used to describe Scotland or England. Dr. Submillimeter 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Note: "Anglo-Irish" is not a constituent country.) --Mais oui! 07:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as superfluous layer. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Education in the United Kingdom by city[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, because the bar for city status in the United Kingdom is set uncommonly high by international standards. This category already contains one category for a town and it is highly likely that more will be created. Postlebury 00:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I created the category at its current place only because it's in the same form as that for the other countries. In fact, a better option would be to rename all to be 'city or town', preferably across all category groups, too. Bastin 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As the creator of many of the categories I agree. I have added all the categories to this nomination. Postlebury 15:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - for maximum clarity it would be Education in Hoo by settlement, but that is so clumsy as to be unworkable. In which case, just stick with city. Otherwise I'll have to mention that legally there is no such thing as a city in France or Italy (just communes), or in Quebec (just villes, which cover all settlements from 1000 people up to Montreal). Kevlar67 00:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all There may be no legal status of "city" in France, but it is just nonsense to say that there are no cities in France; city is a general geographical term as well as a legal term. This is the English Wikipedia, and there should be no such categories for places that are not large enough to fit the general concept of town. Olborne 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per previous comments. AshbyJnr 13:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russian Federation films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Russian films. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian Federation films to Category:Russian films

Merge, Completely redundant category. Darwinek 00:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I seem to recall that someone made a big effort to create a set of separate categories for post Soviet Russia some time ago. It was deprecated. Osomec 11:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what about Russian-language Soviet and Imperial Russian films?
Oppose - Not only were Russian-language films created in other time periods in other states, but I bet we could find Ukrainian, Polish, other minority langauge films made in the Russian Empire. Kevlar67 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - are you sure you didn't mean to post this at the "Russian Empire films" category nomination a little ways above, Kevlar? Esn 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Not redundant at all. "Russian films" is a category for all films which were made in Russia, regardless of which political form it took. This is a subcategory. There's also a subcategory called "Russian Empire films". How is "Russian Federation films" any more redundant than Films of Weimar Germany or Films of the Third Reich? Nobody's suggesting deleting those. I propose instead creating a category called "Russian SSR films", which will be a subcategory to both "Russian films" and "Soviet films". Esn 01:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, I'd like some discussion on this if possible. I think it makes a lot of sense to have different categories for Russian films which were made in these very different times in Russian history. Would it be acceptable if the category "Russian films" had no actual articles in it but consisted of ~~three~~ four subcategories, "Russian Empire films", "Russian SSR films", "Russian Federation films" and "Russian-language films"? Or perhaps it would be better to take the example of the German films category and have the category "Russian films" strictly for films from the Russian Federation, with two subcategories, "Russian Empire films" and "Russian SSR films"? Esn 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I would like to see all the Russian films in one place, and subdivision will likely lead to confusing and inconsistent categorisation. Olborne 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, just like in that other nomination above, you have numbers on your side but not one of you is making the attempt to put forth a decent argument. If you want all Russian films in one place, why not try Category:Russian-language films? The subdivision that I am proposing is extremely unlikely to lead to confusing and inconsistent categorisation, because it is quite clear when the Russian Empire became the Russian SSR, and when the Russian SSR became the Russian Federation. Rather, the "confusing and inconsistent categorisation" exists now and is something that I would really like to fix. Nobody's sure right now what the category "Russian films" is for, considering that Russia has been part of so many different political entities. Is it for ethnically-Russian films? Is it for Russian-language films from the Soviet Union as a whole, in which case it would be pretty much redundant to "Category:Russian-language films"? Is it for films only from the political places that officially constituted Russia (eg. "Russian SSR")? However, this category is very clear in which films are to go in it and which aren't, so it's not confusing at all. It is far less confusing and inconsistent than "Category:Russian films" currently is. And as I mentioned in the other discussion above, it makes a lot of sense for there to be categories for distinctly different artistic periods. Esn 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom--Grace E. Dougle 12:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no point having two categories that are essentially the same. Malla nox 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.