Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 6

< February 5	February 7 >

February 6

Category:Garden writers

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the following categories are underpopulated and overly specific. They share a common "parent": Category:Garden writers (yes, I realize categories aren't hierarchal). By upmerging all 4, the parent would be large enough to justify its existence.

Category:American garden writers - 7 articles
Category:British garden writers - 11 articles
Category:Canadian garden writers - 3 articles
Category:English garden writers - 5 articles

Upmerge all. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with that. >Radiant< 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The smallest of these three categories has three times the number of categories it needs to justify its existence. Cloachland 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like thousands of other small categories these categories are essential to ensure that articles can be reached from all the appropriate parent categories without those categories being cluttered up. For example there are 16 articles here which should accessible via Category:Gardening in the United Kingdom and category:British non-fiction writers but I don't think that occurred to the nominator, and experience shows that many people wouldn't think laterally enough to add those categories when categorising a new article. If we have good subcategories it doesn't matter that most users don't seem to think laterally because once articles have filtered through to the precise subcategory from whichever general category they are placed in to start with they are automatically accessible via all the relevant higher level categories. Osomec 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each country has its own tradition of gardening. Piccadilly 15:39, 8 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:Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals stars

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 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as improper performer by performance categorization, or Merge to the parent Category:Musical theatre actors. Otto4711 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Musical theatre actors - Categorizing actors by performance is not feasible; it leads to an unreadable mass of category links on individual categories. Dr. Submillimeter 23:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need to merge as the articles are all in the appropriate national subcategory of Category:Musical theatre actors already. Cloachland 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is actor by performance of particular composers ... this is overcategorization. --lquilter 04:49, 8 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:Greater Buffalo shopping malls

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. the wub "?!" 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greater Buffalo shopping malls into Category:Shopping malls in New York

Merge, I couldn't find any other categories related to "Greater Buffalo", just Buffalo, NY - and including only the malls in Buffalo wouldn't make this category worthwhile. I suggest moving these articles up to the state category. --Vossanova ^o< 21:48, 6 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:Politicians who participated in professional sports

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 14:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category is for people who are only coincidentally connected, and it is the sort of category that leads to articles being in an excessive number of categories. Nathanian 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly speedy as recreated content. Didn't we delete "athlete-politicians" or "politician-athletes" not too long ago? Otto4711 20:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classifying people by the cross-sections of multiple careers could lead to a messy, complex category tree. Dr. Submillimeter 23:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as categorisation by coincidence. Osomec 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Dr. S. And also because this is essentially re-creation of the athlete/politician categories, as Otto4711 points out. --lquilter 04:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this category, I disagree with its deletion but I understand the points against it. I am sorry I did not realize that this category used to exist under a different name. However, if this category should be deleted, the other sub-categories in the Celebrity politicians category should be deleted, and the articles merged into that category. Academic Challenger 07:00, 9 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:Chicago actors

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 "?!" 18:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chicago actors to Category:Actors from Chicago

Rename or Merge or Delete - any of the three would be fine with me, actually. Rename to avoid ambiguity that it's for actors who have appeared in the musical or film versions of Chicago, or Merge to Category: Illinois actors or Delete as overcategorization. Otto4711 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. It might mean the musical. Doczilla 05:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illinois actors I'm not convinced that subdividing actors by city is necessary in this case. But I'd be ok with merging into Illinois actors. Dugwiki 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for clarity of meaning. Tim! 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Seems like the correct action. The intent of the category would be clear. Vegaswikian 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Abberley2 10:39, 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:Peanuts people

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 14:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ambiguously named vague category that as near as I can gather is to collect people associated in some way with the comic strip Peanuts, perhaps those who appeared in You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown? Hard to tell. Improper categorization of performer by performance, c.f. Hairspray actors (deleted). Otto4711 19:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categories that loosely associate people with something become too ad hoc to be useful for organization. If renamed to be more specific, it leads into the infeasibility of identifying people by their specific projects. Dr. Submillimeter 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. With that name, it could include everyone from Charles Schultz to Jimmy Carter. Doczilla 05:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Category:Peanuts (comic strip) people. Tim! 10:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category doesn't make sense at all, and isn't explained anywhere. Badagnani 05:14, 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:Featured sound nominations

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) 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Wikipedia featured sound candidates. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom ST47Talk 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see Noclip's explanation below (at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Featured_picture_nominations). This is a similar case. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedia featured sound nominations then. the wub "?!" 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Noclip, possible rename. Please actually look at the differences in these categories before you vote, folks.--Pharos 18:24, 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:Featured picture nominations

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) 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Wikipedia featured picture candidates. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per nom. TonyTheTiger 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom ST47Talk 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Category:Wikipedia featured picture candidates is for the images themselves while Category:Featured picture nominations is for the nomination pages. This category enables us to keep track of orphaned nominations and can facilitate running FPC via a DynamicPageList if it's ever installed, something that is impossible using Category:Wikipedia featured picture candidates. Most importantly, this category permanently archives all nominations while images are only in C:WFPC while they are in the discussion phase. Noclip 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedia featured picture nominations then. the wub "?!" 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Noclip, possible rename. Please actually look at the differences in these categories before you vote, folks.--Pharos 18:23, 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:College men's basketball

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) 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:College basketball, or Keep. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Rename as Men's College basketball or College basketball (men's) and Reverse Merge as well as create women's cat as well. TonyTheTiger 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and create separate categories for men and women. The men and the women play in two different sets of competitions. Nathanian 19:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I have created hundreds of split categories underneath this one, I've always believed that it's better for them to be unisex categories. It's the only sport where this occurs; skiers and boxers and runners all mix by gender, even though they don't compete against each other per se. But though I support the merge, it has to be agreed that we're going to do this for all the subcategories, or it's worthless.--Mike Selinker 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The problem with having separate men's and women's categories is that most team articles are about the men's and women's teams, meaning they'll just be in both categories anyway. Oren0 18:43, 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.

Category:Fraternal twins

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. the wub "?!" 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This characteristic has nothing to do with encyclopedic achievements, so the category is just clutter. In case anyone asks why I haven't nominated the other categories of twins, they all seem to relate to encyclopedic attributes in some way, even Category:Identical twins, which contains many joint articles, largely as a reflection of the fact that identical twins often work together in the entertainment industry. Honbicot 15:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A couple of the people who are listed (e.g. Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen) are twins who work jointly. However, some of the other people (notably Alanis Morissette and Kofi Annan) are people whose work has nothing to do with their twin. Could the category be purged of all articles of individual fraternal twins to leave only the pairs? Will this be a long-term solution to the application of this category? Dr. Submillimeter 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alanis Morrissette and Kofi Annan are twins? I wouldn't have picked that one! ;) Grutness...wha? 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are fraternal twins. That is why they look different from each other. Dr. Submillimeter 23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If Alanis is Kofi's sister by another mister and Kofi is Ananis' brother from another mother, then they are twins because time travel separated them at birth into different time periods? 70.51.11.102 06:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is often a very significant fact about persons in relation to their careers, involvement in activities and other issues. The category could be potentially modified to include certains paramaters (a la Category:Science fiction fans), but an outright deletion seems like an incomplete solution.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles about about individuals not sets of twins and in most cases there is no reason for anyone to care if these people have a twin, or a brother with six toes or whatever. Nathanian 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but redefine - This category serves a purpose for the four or five articles on pairs of twins who work together (e.g. Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen), but it should not include articles on single twins whose work does not involve the other twin (e.g. John Elway and Scarlett Johansson, Alanis Morissette and Kofi Annan). Severe pruning is in order, but the category should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 00:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly listify. 70.51.11.102 06:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete, a cat like this is too open to incorrect usage. >Radiant< 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pruning will only work for a short time. Cloachland 18:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete membership is purely coincidental. Abberley2 10:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per >Radiant<. Olborne 00:12, 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.

Category:Stuff accumulating cells

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:Sequestering cells as more correct than 'accumulating'. We have other similar subcategories of Category:Cells by function. the wub "?!" 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stuff accumulating cells to Category:Accumulating cells

Rename, name is unencyclopedic. Circeus 14:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unprofessional name ST47Talk 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The proposed rename doesn't fit. Doczilla 05:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Sequestration" is the term for "stuff-accumulating"... not sure if Sequestering cells is worth a separate category though. Aelffin 18:18, 7 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:Current Extreme Canadian Championship Wrestling roster

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 listify and delete. the wub "?!" 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete per how other rosters are setup. RobJ1981 07:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify All other wrestling promotions have a list for their current roster, not a category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 16:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify In addition to above comment, note that normally categories should normally not be restricted to "current status". So rather than a "current roster" category, you would have "current and former members". This eliminates the need to continually update a category as people enter and leave it. Once they're included, they're included for life. Dugwiki 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify Agreed with all said. Suriel1981 23:29, 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:Greek Revival buildings

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) 17:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Greek Revival architecture, or Keep. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, no need to have both. ST47Talk 11:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Redundant. Coemgenus 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge obvious duplicate and redundant. No need for this second category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. I could see this as being the subcat for buildings, while the cat for the architecture could also have subcats on archetects and articles on the style as a whole. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per youngamerican . Cloachland 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Category:Greek Revival buildings is a duplicate. Other categories on architectural styles do not separate buildings from other structures, so maintaining a separate category for buildings does not seem appropriate right now. Dr. Submillimeter 13:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dr. Submillimeter. Piccadilly 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Reverse Merge. Both categories only have buildings so Category:Greek Revival buildings would be the correct tile based on Category:Buildings and structures. There is nothing about architecture in either category except for the main article. Vegaswikian 06:20, 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:Full Impact Pro alumni

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. The Full Impact Pro article was deleted as an uncontested {{prod}}. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An alumni page for a small indy fed isn't that notable. Considering there isn't even a roster cat or list page, an alumni cat doesn't need toe exist either. Notable alumni can be listed on the Full Impact Pro article. RobJ1981 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to have a category for alumni that isn't even a list already. The alumni should be listed on the main article. —mikedk9109^SIGN 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should at best be on the FIP main article MPJ-DK 09:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suriel1981 23:31, 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:Arkansas Visual Artists

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. Mairi 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contains only a single vanity page. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty, or move to Category:Arkansas visual artists ST47Talk 11:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there's something to put in it. Coemgenus 14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 18:25, 6 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:VMI Cadets football coaches

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 "?!" 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:VMI Cadets football coaches to Category:VMI Keydets football coaches

Rename. This school spells its nickname "Keydets", not the normal "Cadets". See the school's official athletics site at vmikeydets.com. Dale Arnett 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To match the actual name of the school. —mikedk9109^SIGN 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC
- Comment: While there is no officially defined standard for college sports program categories, the de facto standard is to use a shortened name of the school, generally that used by US national sports media, instead of the full name. Sports media in the US universally use VMI instead of Virginia Military Institute (or even Virginia Military), Georgia Tech instead of Georgia Institute of Technology, Virginia Tech instead of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Kentucky instead of University of Kentucky, et al. — Dale Arnett 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger 18:28, 6 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:Works of Graham Greene to Category:Books by Graham Greene

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. Mairi 06:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from speedy) :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Some of these items are short stories. If agreeable, how about creating Category:Books by Graham Greene and Category:Short stories by Graham Greene to go under Category:Works of Graham Greene? Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pegship
Comment. I don't have an opinion on this one, but why is it "Works OF" and "Books BY"? Certainly "Works by (X)" would be fine, right?--Mike Selinker 01:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of those things I couldn't determine a consensus on, during my perusal of the "Books by" nominations. "Works by" would certainly be just as acceptable, I think. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. Hmmm, so why are these categories both in Category:Books by author then. I get the point about plays and short stories and maybe I will get these split out before any move of books rather than after which was my intention. Maybe I just didn't make that clear! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:10, 7 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:Works of Ray Bradbury to Category:Books by Ray Bradbury

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. Mairi 06:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from speedy) :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Better :) No problems this time. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Hah. Nearly fooled me. This is identical to the last proposal, and opposable for the same reason - short stories aren't books. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as Mr. Greene's category, and I propose the same solution. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bradbury is as well-known for short stories and plays as he is books. In fact he might be more well-known for those than for his books.--T. Anthony 06:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per T. Anthony. Coemgenus 14:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. Hmmm, so why are these categories both in Category:Books by author then. I get the point about plays and short stories and maybe I will get these split out before any move of books rather than after which was my intention. Maybe I just didn't make that clear! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. Possibly there's a systemic bias, in society in general too, toward thinking literary-works=books. The short story has been in decline the last 20 or 30 years, but that's a whole other discussion.--T. Anthony 11:40, 7 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:Ohio State University professors

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:Ohio State University faculty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Ohio State University faculty, convention of Category:Faculty by university in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per convention. Coemgenus 14:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom., per convention. TonyTheTiger 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're great! Anyway, I'm cool with the idea to merge this. Cheers, --24.154.173.243 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me as well to combine these entries with the faculty page. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:59, 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:Organizations by city

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 and redirect. the wub "?!" 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations by city into Category:Organisations by city

Merge, into the longer established and more populated category:Organisations by city and keep a redirect or the same duplication may recur. CalJW 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per nom. Cloachland 18:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - this nomination contradicts Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations#Organization not Organisation. Likewise, there are Category:Organizations by Geography, Category:Organizations by country, etc. --Vossanova ^o< 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per nom. Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations#Organization not Organisation cannot over-rule the policy on variations of English. Olborne 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what policy would that be? --Vossanova ^o< 15:22, 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.

Category:Whampoa graduates

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:Whampoa Military Academy alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Whampoa graduates to Category:Whampoa Military Academy alumni

Rename. Use full name to avoid confusion (I thought this might have something to do with Hutchinson Whampoa) and switch to "alumni" for the usual reason, ie the need to be able to categorise people who attended an institution but did not graduate. CalJW 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category names should almost always match the name of their associated main article, which in this case is Whampoa Military Academy. Dugwiki 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The new category name is much clearer and follows the established conventions. Dr. Submillimeter 19:15, 6 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:Lands with Arctic islands to Category:Countries with Arctic islands

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. the wub "?!" 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(moved from speedy) Darwinek 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am creator of this cat. I do not agree, but willing to discuss. Reason: cat was created to hold specific countries, *or more specifically, provinces* where they are known. Hence the name "Lands of", rather than "Countries of". Eg. it currently holds "Islands of Nunavut" and "Islands of the Northwest Territories". If this was changed to "Countries of", it would only hold "Islands of Canada", with no indication of which Canadian provinces have arctic islands; and the reader would have to examine all Canadian proinces to find out - rendering the cat significantly less useful. Intentions are also to add to this cat: eg. various Russian provinces, Alaska (a state). Hence the correct name is "Lands", including various countries, states, provinces, etc. (NB: I am not sure where to discuss this. If anpother place is suitable, please move this explanation there) Bards 12:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category is misconfigured as the subcategories contain many islands that are not in the Arctic. Alternatively rename to Category:Islands of the Arctic Ocean, remove the subcategories and repopulate with articles about individual islands. AshbyJnr 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arctic Islands are in the Arctic and so it is not appropriate to include islands at 50 degrees north in the associated category. Carina22 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. - Darwinek 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems like categorization based on geographic trivia. This would be inane to do elsewhere in Wikipedia. Imagine "Countries with Mediterranean Islands" or "Countries with Atlantic Ocean islands". This should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:04, 7 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:Organizations by Kind→Category:Organizations by kind

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 (they're all empty anyway, and thus qualify under CSD C1). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from speedy) correct case. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete Empty and badly named - all organisations are of one "kind" or another. AshbyJnr 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rename This is part of brand new organizations category scheme and will be populated as the project moves forward. Oldsoul Oldsoul 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is a confusing name. If there is a clear idea behind this category and equally clear name should be found. Carina22 13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organizations by Ideology→Category:Organizations by ideology; correct case. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if it remains empty. AshbyJnr 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rename This is part of brand new organizations category scheme and will be populated as the project moves forward. Oldsoul Oldsoul 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organizations by Field→Category:Organizations by field; correct case. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename This is part of brand new organizations category scheme and will be populated as the project moves forward. Oldsoul Oldsoul 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This one isn't clear either. Carina22 13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Organizations by Geography→Category:Organizations by geography; per naming convention. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename This is part of brand new organizations category scheme and will be populated as the project moves forward. Oldsoul Oldsoul 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note: My original proposal was Category:Organizations by Geography→Category:Organizations by location; if you must edit my post, please use strikeouts to avoid confusion. Thanks. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, confusing scheme. >Radiant< 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Confusing and apparently abandoned scheme. Cloachland 18:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These categories are part of an illegitimate attempt to impose "ize" in defiance of the agreed policy on variants of English. Olborne 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you're still not pointing this "policy" out. Where was it agreed that we use Commonwealth/British English for everything? --Vossanova ^o< 15:25, 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.

Category:Non-English Blackpool F.C. managers

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 (articles are already in Category:Blackpool F.C. managers). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this category really necessary? --Badmotorfinger 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, I don't think that it is. Overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why does it matter if the manager is non-english? It isnt a defining characteristic. No need to go this far in-depth to categorize. —mikedk9109^SIGN 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Blackpool F.C. managers - overcat. ~ Bigr Tex 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, over-specific non-defining categorisation. Qwghlm 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per BigrTex - fchd 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. No negative-ethnicity categories.--Mike Selinker 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. While I don't feel there's any negative connotations implied by the reference to non-Englishness, it's clearly overcategorisation for the sake of it ChrisTheDude 08:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing to merge here. Punkmorten 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is nothing to merge. All the articles are aleady in Category:Blackpool F.C. managers. - Daemonic Kangaroo 17:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as all the articles are in the Category:Blackpool F.C. managers, then there is no need for this further category. Asics talk 18:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. lol at this category, sorry. One might as well have Category:Blackpool F.C. managers from Wigan. aLii 10:55, 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.