Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 20

March 20[edit]

Category:Founders of religions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Lots of proposals, but none got enough support for action.--Mike Selinker 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible rename to Category:People whose teachings form the basis of a religion or spiritual belief system as per Lesnail and myself. --Justanother 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion seems to be leading toward using this category for the thinkers/teachers that form the basis of clearly distinct religions or belief systems and a subcategory or another category for the thinkers/teachers that form the basis of sects, schisms, etc. So I am removing "sect" from my proposed rename. There is argument both for and against a rename. I lean toward the rename it seems more sensitive to adherents but would appreciate more input please. Thank you. --Justanother 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started this category for the founder or the spiritual inspiration of major religions or spiritual belief systems; to catalog those great spiritual teachers that inspired many others to follow them and so could be considered the "Father" of a religion or spiritual practice. Please see the cat page and the talk page for further discussion of how I envisioned this cat. The issue of the name has come up as I feared it might. Some object to any person being named as "founder" of their religion as, in their eyes, their religion was founded by their God. I understand that and am sensitive to it. If I were to name it what I want it to include then it would be "Category:People whose teachings form the basis of the world's noted religions and spiritual belief systems", while it might be long, that is a decent name for the simple fact that it is precise and people will not nit-pick it. I would like comments please on an appropriate name for this category. Thanks --Justanother 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Although the proposed name is kind of long it avoids controversy and the possibility of hurting people's feelings. Steve Dufour 02:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename instead to "Category:People whose teachings form the basis of a religion or spiritual belief system". Presumably all the religions we talk about will be from this world, and deciding whether a religion is noted or not seems rather WP:POV. Lesnail 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True and true --Justanother 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestions. Steve Dufour 16:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename --Justanother 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added "sect" as I envision that being a problem too and this way it is taken care of. --Justanother 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do we need to categorize Buddha and Jesus with every sect leader around? Is categorizing people who founded major religions alongside people who founded denominations of world religions really worthwhile? Also, this category runs into historical accuracy and interpretation problems. For example, who would be classified as the founder of Judaism? Dr. Submillimeter 16:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. While I do not desire to argue anyone's opinion here, I do want to address your question. I think it is extremely valuable to the user of this encyclopedia to be able to go to one place and easily find those teachers that inspired others to live their lives according to their teachings. Is Buddha "better than" Jesus "better than" Hubbard "better than" Rael? Who cares? (Obviously their followers do.) The important thing is that they each had something to teach and found a sizable portion of humanity willing to listen and desirous of following their lead (well maybe not Rael in the sizable department but you know what I mean). The category is valuable and I was amazed to find that no-one had created it already. As to how we name it and define the parameters for entry, I am certainly hopeful of assistance there. --Justanother 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham is included. When we tried to add the category to Moses' article it was removed by his fans. I do think the category will be useful, however there will always be controversy and differences of opinion and interpretation. Steve Dufour 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the excellent points put forth by User:Dr. Submillimeter. Accurary and interpretation problems indeed. This information would be better suited for a list, not a category. Smee 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep name. I dopnt understand the delete comments as this category is not up for deletion. Please can people either vote to keep the name or to change it and if they want to delete the category it should be submitted for deletion on the correct page, SqueakBox 19:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but some renaming is in order. I went out and added about 25 more people to the category,[1] to get an idea for what the category would look like when expanded. I hear Dr. Submillimeter's disagreement and it should be taken seriously. However, I think it might amount to more of a value judgment than an argument against utility of the category or congruity of the articles. Factually, the people included here are attributed with the founding of religions. All of these religions were small sects at one time (and of course some still are). On what basis would we say that Gautama Buddha doesn't belong in a category with Mary Baker Eddy or Ha-Mim? Numbers? We normally would delete arbitrarily numbered categories like "founders of religions with one million or more adherents". It seems we are to be more concerned with what these people did rather than how well they did it. Denominations are also mentioned. Is Druze a denomination of Islam? Is Mormonism a denomination of Christianity? Depends on who you ask. They're different enough that I find it useful to trace these foundings to Hamza ibn-'Ali ibn-Ahmad and Joseph Smith, Jr. rather than Muhammad and Jesus. These questions may be contentious, but I see no reason to expect that they can't be worked out by consensus on a case-by-case basis, like all disputed categorizations are. Accuracy of "actual founding" is not important, really. What is important is attribution. So, Judaism: Abraham probably did not exist. But he is attributed to have founded this religion. No problem. Categorize him. Verifiability, not truth. As for the naming, Category:People whose teachings form the basis of a religion, sect, or spiritual belief system is okay, but to be more precise, not all of these people taught. What were Abraham's teachings? Is he even reputed to have had any? I would suggest Category:People whose beliefs form the basis of a religion, sect, or spiritual belief system instead, but this suggestion should not be construed as opposition to the "teachings" wording if the consensus develops in that direction instead. — coel acan — 19:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid category. The Proffesor 23:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion for the name, though? The category author has brought it here for input on renaming. — coel acan — 07:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and oppose rename. Per Dr S and others, it is not helpful to categorise the likes of Jesus, Abraham and Buddha with someone who founded a small sect. However, it is useful to categorise those whose teachings developed a major strand of faith, which is exactly what the category's commendably precise and clear introduction does now. There may be a good case for categories along the lines of "founders of Christain denominations" (to include the likes of Calvin, Luther, Arminus, Zwingli etc) and possibly also a separate categ for those who led subdivisions (such as the various strands of baptism or methodism) ... but those are best handled as separate issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Valid as it was. The people just added make the differences very clear. Zeno in particular would have very puzzled to find himself there. DGG 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Zeno. He was the founder of Stoicism which seems to have served the function of a religion for its followers. Of course, adding him was an inclusive choice. Steve Dufour 05:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Zeno. Serving the function of a religion is not at all the same as being a religion. For many people, secular humanism serves the function of a religion. It is definitely not a religion. Stoicism wasn't either. It was a philosophy. This and others like it would be too inclusive a choice. — coel acan — 03:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Stoicism. Reading the article on it, however, it seemed to be a set of spiritual teachings which some people used to provide guidance to their lives. I didn't think it was unfair to call it a religion. BTW both Christians and secularists seem to me to have had strong reasons to deny that it is a religion. In one case so it is not a competitor, in the other so that they have permission to read its texts and get inspiration from them without getting involved in something uncomfortably supernatural. Steve Dufour 14:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative rename -- rename to Category:People whose teachings form the basis of a religion, sect, cult, or spiritual belief system in order to make the category as inclusive as possible (this is a very unwieldy category name, though). However, the category as it currently stands seems sufficiently broad enough that it de facto includes all founders of MAJOR religions, MINOR religions, cults, sects, small branches (or offshoots) of both major and minor religions, and so forth. --WassermannNYC 12:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a category such as this may be valid if it could be populated in an NPOV fashion. Currently, it seems somewhat arbitrary who is getting categorized here: Julius Caesar and Tolstoy are in (questionable), Moses and Aaron are out (questionable), Jim Jones out (OK, we don't like him I guess), David Koresh out (don't like him too probably), Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh out (another guy we don't like so don't include), Shoko Asahara out (another cult leader so we don't like him either), Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles of Heaven's Gate fame (more cult guys: don't like, don't include), now I'm beginning to understand this category. Let's see who else might fit the title or even the proposed title. hmmm... How about Martin Luther? He's out (I guess we don't like him either; or is Lutherism too close to Catholicism in someone's opinion), Calvin (ditto the Luther comments), Wesley (ditto). But heck, we don't just like reformers, we really don't like the church fathers of the Roman Catholic tradition: St. Augustine (certainly a spiritual belief system) and St. Benedict (ditto St. Augustine) are also not included. All in all an unworkable category, because there is no objective criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Carlossuarez46 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is "out" because "we don't like them". You're reading waaay too much into this. It's a brand new category. It hasn't been filled up yet. Go ahead and add the ones who are missing. I'll add the ones you suggested. — coel acan — 03:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't bother to add these people, because it's my POV that they belong; you by not adding them apparently have a different POV. Besides, this category should just be deleted not populated. Carlossuarez46 23:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to see the category be inclusive and include questionable figures. We tried several times to include Moses but the tag was removed by, I think, narrow-minded people who want to say that Abraham alone was the founder of the Jewish faith. More "cult leaders" could be included if they seem to have really started something new, not just brought a group of people together. Rajneesh probably should be included. The Christian figures didn't really start new religions, just new branches of Christianity. Maybe the definition could be modified to include them too. Steve Dufour 15:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the obvious POV that makes this category unworkable. So, in your opinion a new branch of Christianity is not a new religion, so Methodism, Lutheranism, Calvinism are out, but with Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith in I guess someone has made the POV decision that Christian Science and Mormonism are not new branches of Christianity. And with Wallace Fard Muhammad in, I guess someone has made the decision that he started a new religion and therefore wasn't a Muslim? This is the intractable problem with this category. Carlossuarez46 23:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This category is inherently POV, because no Muslim is ever going to claim that Muhammad is a founder of a religion. Basic Islamic theology states that the first Muslim was Adam. "Muhammad didn't start a new religion, he resurfaced an old one".--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your input and I apologize for my delay in responding; I was on wikibreak. Your exact issue is why I am looking for suggestions for a rename. Is there some name for this sort of category that you would support? Thanks. --Justanother 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify. Any name appears to be problematic for the cat, so let's use a list to clarify the complications. >Radiant< 14:09, 2 April 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:Curious George[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) 12:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with so many eponymous categories, this one is not necessary. The main article serves as a navigational hub and there is also a navigational template on each article which contains links to all of the various C.G. articles. Otto4711 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This category looks like it is useful for organizing material specifically on Curious George, even if it is redundant with a navigation template. Linking the articles just seems appropriate here. Dr. Submillimeter 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noting similar deletions for Stuart Little and Charlotte's Web. Otto4711 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Those categories were smaller than this one. Dr. Submillimeter 09:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why that's relevant, but it's not like these categories are so much larger. Discounting the improperly included articles on CG's creators, there are seven items in the category. Stuart Little had five and Charlotte's Web had four. I'm unclear on why five is too few for a category but seven isn't. Otto4711 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is really not at all different from the Stuart Little/Charlotte's Web categories—the content is firstly redundant with navigation boxes, and secondly is insufficient in quantity to merit a eponymous category.

Xdamr^talk 13:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A template looks like a better option here as the links will appear on the face of the article, and the template box will not be disagreeably large. AshbyJnr 01:28, 25 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mice in literature[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: merge. Note that "Of Mice and Men" is not actually about mice. >Radiant< 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mice in literature to Category:Fictional mice and rats

Merge - I may be missing something painfully obvious, but I'm not seeing the utility in maintaining a separate and distinct "mice in literature" subcat. Otto4711 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Doczilla 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate: Mice in literature could have Of Mice and Men, which doesn't have any named mice per se.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 17:08, 25 March 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:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy to Category:Maritime Republics

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Per discussion at previous CfD, this category name is POV, and not English. The term Maritime Republics almost invariably refers to the historical Italian maritime republics, obviating the need for "of Italy" or the Italian language name. Αργυριου (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repubbliche Marinare of Italy
Maritime republics (added because Republics should be capitalized, and the two categories should be merged).

Support. By far the simplest and most accurate name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Giovanni Giove 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - certainly putting it in English. I'm not so sure about omitting "of Italy", but then it's perhaps no bad thing if the cities of the Hanseatic League and the United Provinces go in the category as well, although this will change the nature of the category. Johnbod 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Repubbliche Marinare lists the Republic of Ragusa as one, but Ragusa is not in Italy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is no in Italy, but it was an Italian state.--Giovanni Giove 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are not the only maritime republics which have ever existed. Rename to something like category:Italian maritime republics. Abberley2 01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the Italian Maritime Republics are not the only maritime republics which ever existed, they are the only ones commonly collectively referred to as "Maritime Republics". Other collections of maritime trading states generally have their own names, like the Hanseatic League, etc. Αργυριου (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
"Maritime Republics" is much better name than "Repubbliche Marinare of Italy". First, name is not in English. Second, we can't use the category "...of Italy" for the republics that weren't on Italian soil (as it happened here).
Still, the capitalized form of "r" in "republics". Is that necessary?
"It is no in Italy, but it was an Italian state". Giovanni Giove, don't spread your POV here. I'v given you a bunch of sources on the talk page of Republic of Dubrovnik, and you're still ignoring those data. What do I have to do? Scan all documents from Dubrovnikan registry offices (births, weddings, deaths) from 800-1812 to prove you something?
Argyriou, don't use phrases like "city-states were Italian in character" or "as being culturally and politically Italian " as you did in [2], neither "historical Italian maritime republics", as you did in the text above. You're POV-ing. Don't generalize. Other countries and peoples also had their small maritime republics. Kubura 12:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 'Maritime Republics' is simply too broad a term to encompass solely those which were in Italy. In common speech any nation with coast can be described as a maritime nation, therefore 'Maritime Republics' could describe a huge number of countries.

Xdamr^talk 13:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, clearer name. >Radiant< 14:08, 2 April 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:Ski resorts 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 Category:Ski resorts in Canada to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Canada. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts in Canada to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Canada

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with mos of the other by-country categories, and (hopefully) forthcoming renaming of the parent category. Wilchett 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Consistency with other categories is a good thing. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:16, 23 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ski resorts in Scotland[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 Category:Ski resorts in Scotland to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Scotland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts in Scotland to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Scotland

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match most of the other skiing by country categories. Wilchett 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Consistency with other categories is a good thing. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for the brief period while they still get any snow Johnbod 13:35, 25 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Toronto, Ontario entertainers[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) 11:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Only 1 person involved. Can be merged with another Cat. Renrenren 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zanta is already in both parent categories. This category doesn't appear to fit the structure of either of its parent categories. ~ Bigr Tex 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Zanta is already in both parent categories, I'd have no problem just removing the category from his page. This category would then be completely empty and could be quickly deleted. --Renrenren 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entertainers are scarcely confined by national boundaries, and not at all by city limits. Olborne 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think that the geographical boundary of "Toronto" has much relevant bearing on the other characteristics of the entertainer(s) listed. This cat is an example of the "Intersection by location" overcategorization guideline.--Vbd (talk) 12:17, 25 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Illuminated Bibles[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 Category:Illuminated Bibles to Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Illuminated Bibles to Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Per discussion at Talk:Illuminated manuscript and per naming scheme of Category:Biblical manuscripts. Also, much more accurate: not all of these manuscripts are complete 'bibles'. Andrew c 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, & my comments on the talk page Johnbod 16:32, 20 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Writers who also draw/paint[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. --Xdamr^talk 03:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Writers who also draw/paint to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This seems like it is not a bad idea for a category, but there is something very strange about the name. One issue with the name as stands is the present tense, which suggests that all the people in the category are still drawing/painting despite being dead. Another issue is that the category is presumably meant to be for writers who were active in any of the visual arts, and the title neglects any writers who were also sculptors, for example. Another issue with it is that it is rather awkward. There must be some other name that would avoid all these problems. Lesnail 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I now support deleting this category and creating a category solely for writers who illustrated their own work. Lesnail 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think the best way to do with this would just to have the article be in the Writers category and then another category for whatever else it is they do (Sculptors, Painter, etc.) Recury 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial intersection. If the subject is notable for drawing or painting then they can be listed in an appropriate artist category. Otto4711 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. Trivial intersection that only duplicates what is better handled by existing categories. Arkyan 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial intersection = category clutter. Wilchett 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection. Doczilla 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a cat for "Author/Illustrators"? That is the person did both the words and pictures in one book. Is that what was intended with this category? If so, then rename or merge. If not, delete. Steve Dufour 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Agree with Steve Dufour, an Author/Illustrator category might be a better choice. Otherwise per Otto4711, delete. Shouriki 07:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection. Just got added to Tolkien. He's an example of an author whose own illustrations have been used in his works. Not sure how to handle that sort of thing. Carcharoth 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who added it to JRRT's article. If there is this category he should be included. Steve Dufour 17:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial intersection. However, per Steve Dufour a category for "Author/Illustrators" would be appropriate, but that's not what this category is: this one includes people by ability, rather than the proper test of whether they did something notable with that ability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Writers who illustrated their work" - it can hardly be called a "trivial intersection" in the case of William Blake, and there are many others apart from Tolkien. Remove the others. Johnbod 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically "rename and depopulate"? It'd be easier to just delete and then make a new and different cat for that. Recury 18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 00:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to the creation of a category for authors who illustrated their own books. Choalbaton 01:22, 24 March 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:Sites in Haldimand County, Ontario[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 Category:Sites in Haldimand County, Ontario into Category:Haldimand County, Ontario. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sites in Haldimand County, Ontario to Category:Haldimand County, Ontario

Merge, incredibly vague term for this. I would be open to a rename if someone had a suggestion and could point to other categories like this, but I think it would probably just be better to merge it up to the category on the county. Recury 14:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The closest standard category type to what this is being used for would be "Buildings and structures", but at least one of the articles is not about a building and structures and there doesn't seem to be much need to have such a category for his locality. Wilchett 17:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Choalbaton 15:23, 24 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Naming rights[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) 11:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contains the article on naming rights and attempts to collect all of the events and venues that have sold their naming rights (which is damn near everything these days). Not a useful or defining characteristic for these articles. Recury 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#Unrelated subjects with shared names. ~ Bigr Tex 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both previous comments. Abberley2 01:21, 22 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Zutons[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) 11:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with any eponymous category, there needs to be a significant amount of material to justify it. All of the articles in the category are linked through the Zutons article, which serves as a navigational hub for the band members and the discography. The songs subcat is parented by the Songs by artist category. No need for this cat. See similar discussions for categories named for Alanis Morissette and ZZ Top. Otto4711 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:32, 22 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Airports in the Mojave Desert[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 to allow for a discussion of the subcats in Category:Mojave Desert as a group. Vegaswikian 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airports in the Mojave Desert to Category:Airports in California

Merge, Doesn't seem like a necessary subcategorization of Airports in California. Recury 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Merge. The entries are for multiple states. All of the subcategories in Category:Mojave Desert appear to be over categorization. I'm leaning to delete here since the airports are already in other categories. Vegaswikian 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right (don't know why I assumed they were all for California without checking). Nomination withdrawn, we should deal with all of the Mojave Desert categories at once. Recury 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may have assumed they were in California due to a misleading category that was removed. Vegaswikian 21:17, 20 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unknown-importance WikiProject England articles[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 Category:Unknown-importance WikiProject England articles into Category:Unknown-importance England-related articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Unknown-importance England-related articles, convention of Category:Unknown-importance articles. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Osomec 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Choalbaton 15:24, 24 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swahili terms[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 Category:Swahili terms to Category:Swahili words and phrases. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swahili terms to Category:Swahili words and phrases

Nominator's Rationale: Rename per all recent CFRs favoring the "words and phrases" construction. Otto4711 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per previous discussion of all such categories. Lesnail 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 15:11, 21 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Green vehicle auto shows[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) 11:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need to categorize auto shows based on one of several types of vehicles that make an appearance at them. If there were auto shows for only "green cars", maybe, but I don't see enough (if any) of those to justify a category. --Vossanova ^o< 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, terrible idea. I'm sure most auto shows nowadays have some "green cars" at them. Recury 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 01:23, 24 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Cheshire[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. --Xdamr^talk 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to match conventions of Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Hold~~ I am extremely surprised to see these categories flagged for renaming, since I am the creator of them on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire, and neither I nor the project had had any message informing us in advance that this user would be nominating them in this way. I know that it is not mandatory for us to be informed, but I consider this to be uncivil, given the amount of work I have done recently, in good faith, in setting them up and organising the documentation to assist my fellow project members in making use of them. They have already had to get used to the idea of assessing articles, and for them to be told that the category names must be changed for no apparently good reason could quite likely be a disincentive for them to engage in any assessment activities at all. It is also slightly uncivil because the nominator appears to have had no involvement at all in this project or any articles of interest to this project beyond some edits to the categories whilst I was in the process of working on them, and beyond this current nomination. Here are some points that support my "qualified rename" opinion:

When setting them up, I followed as a model, categories set up for Wikipedia:WikiProject England, who have not had such nominations for the renaming of their categories, and I note that another project that uses the same non-mandatory scheme for category naming is Wikipedia:WikiProject Tyne and Wear, and there are probably others. These have had their assessments schemes in existence for longer than the recent ones I created, and yet have not been nominated for a name-change.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for some Wikipedia-related categories (section 2.3, the second bulleted point) states "All Project categories should have "WikiProject" (or "WikiProjects") as part of the name", and the current names all do, no matter that they are assessments. It may well be that there is an inconsistency between what I now read are non-mandatory guidelines for assessment categories in Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments.
The names were readily chosen as containing "WikiProject" so as to make a more clear conceptual difference between categories that ordinary, non-editing users of wikipedia might use, as opposed to categories of more use to editors active in maintaining and contributing to Cheshire-related articles on wikipedia. This distinction is well-worth maintaining.
As I stated, neither myself (the creator) now the project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire) have had any communication from the nominator about these nominations for renaming, and it is only because I am currently working on the assessments scheme for the project that the nomination came to my attention as soon as it did. For that reason, it would be useful to be re-assured on a number of points if the proposed renaming is to be pushed through with our agreement:

- Are there good reasons (beyond just stating they conform to guidelines, which are not mandatory after all) for renaming these categories? This "sales pitch" should have been done in advance of this nomination by messages posted to the creator and/or the project talk page.
- What happens if they are renamed? Do all the instances of the old names get automatically renamed as well? The answer to this will indicate the disruption that may occur and influence whether we agree or disagree with the proposed renaming.
- If they do, over what period, and to what extent do all references get changed (for example the links given in documentation)? We need to know this to gauge the level of disruption that might occur as, again, this may well inform our agreement or disagreement to this change of name.
- If not, what process is in place to inform us as to what has happened and what we can do to minim ize the duisruption this will bring?
- If we had been informed in advance, I strongly suspect that we would have wanted some of the new names to be changed from the names that the nominator has chosen, as a bulk rename would have allowed a more radical chan ge in some of the category names that I originally set up (for example, changing all instances of "importance" in the names to "priority"). This could now only be done if the proposed renaming was put on hold until the matter has been propoerly discussed within the project concerned.

I am not, in principal, opposed to any better way of naming them, but the apparent inconsistency of action and documentation, together with the lack of communication.

It is for all these reasons, I want this proposed renaming to be put on hold until it has been properly explained to us, as would have been the civil Wikipedia way of proceding. DDStretch (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming these categories would mean updating the {{WikiProject Cheshire}} template, and waiting a few hours for propagation. I agree the assessment stuff isn't well documented. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject England has already changed its naming conventions. Assessments are different than WikiProjects, and have their own conventions. No, I didn't send you any message ... I do a lot of these and don't really have the time. There's a place to discuss category changes, this is it. There isn't any huge need to rename these, I'm just trying to tidy up a bit. Wikipedia will go on whether we do this or not. On the other hand, there is a certain value in consistency, of things being named what we would expect them to be named. As far as the logistics go, it's no big deal. Assessment cats are controlled by a template, update that and everything else just follows, although sometimes it's a few hours for propagation. Disruption? Pretty much none. Timescale? Probably sometime next week. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. All that is now needed is an explanation of why the change is deemed to be necessary which proves more compelling than the relevant reasons for keeping the names, which I supplied in my comments you just partially replied to.And, as a further comment, if the documentation is inadequate, it seems a bit harsh to expect us beginners at it to know all the guidelines, mandatory or not, which makes a nomination for renaming without any prior attempt at contacting any of us even less like civil behaviour. DDStretch (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my response was typed before I read your later message. I still consider it was uncivil to not inform us at all. The fact that you have a lot of work to do is an explanation of why you did not inform us, but it is not an excuse.

You wrote: "Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject England has already changed its naming conventions." I do not see how this is true. I just now (23:55 my time, 20th March 2007) accessed their assessment pages (Wikipedia:WikiProject England/Assessment) and noted that the names they give for their categories are all the same, and correspond exactly to what the categories are for the Cheshire project, except that "England" in their categories replaces "Cheshire" in ours. The links to the categories are not red-linked and are still operational. the same goes for the other projectI mentioned: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tyne and Wear. So I do not know what to make of this claim, as it seems to me to be untrue. I do not see any nomination (yet) for them to be renamed, either..

Perhaps some time should be spent rectifying the inconsistent (see my first message) and inadequate docuemntation which would avoid such problems somewhat in future? This is certainly required in the case of the inconsistent documentation, since when you wrote "what we expect them to be called" it can be seen that this depends on which bit of wikipedia one reads, and, if something is inconsistent, then who is to know which bit is to taken as being more authoritative when one makes judgments of consistency or plans actions intended to be consistent?

As for the actual renaming, I would want all the assessment categories that mention "importance" (the last 6 in the list given above) to be renamed using "priority" instead of "importance". I hope that is achievable here, since it would make it fit more in with my last updated documentation I produced for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire members. DDStretch (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at Category:England-related articles by quality ... I tend to find things by walking the links. It looks like England is actually somewhat confused at the moment. In regard to importance vs. priority, most of the biography cats work that way, and I'll change my nomination if you like. It doesn't quite match the conventions of Category:Articles by importance but we can live with it. See also Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects. In regard to naming conventions, yes it's true, it's not all perfectly consistent. But there's still conventions apparent when you spend some time browsing Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. It was not uncivil not to inform the project. CalJW 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I will now change my opinion from "Stromg Hold" to "rename". In fact, if they are going to be renamed, the sooner the better. However, I do think the conflicting advice needs attention, but that is not relevant for the discussion here, save that it might in future avoid more work being necessary on this page if it was given some proper attention. DDStretch (talk) 23:35, 21 March 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:Guantanamo witnesses[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. --Xdamr^talk 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least should be renamed since the place is called Guantanamo Bay. However, it contains all of two people, one of which was "not available" so this does not appear to be a useful categorization. >Radiant< 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly named and too narrow to warrant categorization. Arkyan 16:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Geo Swan 22:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I started this category.

User:Radiant! notes that some of the witnesses were "not available". Well, this is one of the factors that makes this category useful, and worthwhile.
There is a study, entitled: No-hearing hearings. One of the conclusions of the legal scholars, who methodically combed through every transcript, was that the procedure to contact, and obtain the testimony, of the "off-Island" witnesses had failed in every single instance. All the off-Island witnesses ended up being deemed "not reasonably available". This failure is important information.
The Bush Administration position is that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals provided the captives with a venue where they could fairly challenge the evidence against them. And the Bush administration spokesmen routinely noted that the captives were free to request the testimony of any witnesses they thought could provide exculpatory evidence, while glossing over the complete failure to reach any "off-Island" witnesses.
I think coverage of how successful the captives were at calling on the witnesses they wanted is necessary and important information.
Nasrat Khan and his son Hiztullah Khan Yar had called for the testimony of someone named Rahim Wardak, who the Tribunal documents described as an official with the Afghan Ministry of Defense. He is one of "off-Island" witnesses who the Tribunals claimed they could not contact. The story of Khan, and his son, was that the cache of weapons he was storing was an official Ministry of Defense armory, and that he and the men he commanded were official employees of the Ministry of Defense. Well, Rahim Wardak wasn't some rogue Ministry official. He is the Minister of Defense.
The Boston Globe, and a few other newspapers, tested the credibility of the Tribunal's claim that these witnesses could not be located: Detainees not given access to witnesses: But in one case, 3 quickly found, Factual errors cited in cases against detainees: Lawyers demand new trial system at Guantanamo
Readers look to the wikipedia as a resource to learn, for themselves, the facts behind the headlines. I expect readers will look to the wikipedia as a resource to test the claim of the Seton Hall researchers, and the Bush administration spokesmen, as to whether the captives were given the kind of access to witnesses the Bush administration claims. I think trimming the wikipedia's coverage of these issues would be a disservice to those readers.
FWIW there are numerous instances were captives requested witnesses, who were also Guantanamo captives, who ended up being deemed "not reasonably available", because the camp authorities were never able to produce a useful, reliable prison roster.
FWIW the captives were also entitled to request any documents they felt would help show they were not enemy combatants. However, when they requested documents, they were told that the documents were "not reasonably available", even when they knew, for a certain fact, that those documents, like their passports, which could have refuted the allegations against them, were in Guantanamo, because their interrogators had shown them to them during their interrogations, and asked them questions about them.

One of the reasonable tests for whether a category should exist is whether there is a reasonable main article for the category. Not a perfect test, but a reasonable question to ask. And also helps indicate the correct title. I can't see what the right main article for this would be. So I can't tell what the right title for the category would be or if there should be one. Another question is where the category fits in the category tree. As a grouping of (requested) witnesses, it doesn't fit into the policy category that it is in now. I offer no opinion on whether there should be a category for these people. But this isn't the right title or the right place in the category tree for this grouping of people. GRBerry 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I started Witnesses_requested_by_Guantanamo_detainees on July 22 2006 [3]. Does that count? -- Geo Swan 17:28, 25 March 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:Jazz musicians associated with Boston area conservatories[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) 11:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - categorizing genres of musician by whether they are in some way associated with conservatories in or around a particular city strikes me as bizarre. Categorizing individuals as faculty of the specific institution is, I believe, the standard. Otto4711 13:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wilchett 17:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 15:11, 21 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles using weasel words[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. the wub "?!" 08:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Articles with weasel words, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Shouldn't we have some way of speedying such obvious duplicates? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Speedy would be good in cases like this, but it might be difficult to define a consistent standard for "obvious duplicates". --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:53, 23 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Carpathian Mountains Peaks[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 Category:Carpathian Mountains Peaks into Category:Mountains of the Carpathians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Mountains of the Carpathians, convention of Category:Mountains of Europe. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Abberley2 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Consistency is good, and there's only one peak listed in the category right now. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:49, 23 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Museum 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 No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 13:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - "Museum people" and "People associated with..." are too vague in their inclusion criteria. A number of people so categorized have no apparent relationship with the museum they're categorized under other than the museum acquired a collection of their papers after the person's death. One could theoretically categorize any artist as being "associated with" any museum in which one of their works is or at one time was displayed, which would lead to tremendous clutter on those artists' articles. "Employees of..." categories strike me as being much the same as the various network personalities categories that we've been deleting. A person can work for many museums in the course of a career just as a broadcaster can work for many networks, so the same logic applies. Otto4711 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Employees of the British Museum, Category:Employees of the Natural History Museum; Rename Category:Museum people as Category:Employees of museums; Delete all others - Unlike TV entertainers/sportscasters/newspeople, I would guess that museum employees work for their museums for extended periods of time. I also know that some positions are the equivalent of faculty positions at universities, and since Wikipedia currently contains categories for the faculty of various universities, the employee categories should stay. Category:Museum people could be a useful parent category for employee categories for specific museums, and so it should be kept. However, I agree with Otto4711's assessment that the "people associated with" categories are rather lousy, as they may encompass a broad range of people, some of whom may have only loose connections with the museums. Therefore, the "people from" categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Otto's claim that "A number of people so categorized have no apparent relationship with the museum they're categorized under other than the museum acquired a collection of their papers after the person's death" doesn't hold true. Almost everyone who's categorised here was either an employee of the museums they are categorised under, or someone heavily involved in its foundation, or who left it a substantial bequest of objects or money. Certainly these categories do not include artists with a body of work at the museums in question, and I'm straining to find people who match the description given by Otto. I will freely admit that Myra Hess, a pianist, is an anomaly, but she is an inextricable part of the National Gallery's wartime history for reasons that are outlined in her article. [talk to the] HAM 15:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, looking at Category:People associated with the British Museum, it captures Giovanni Battista Belzoni because "he was sent...to the Ramesseum at Thebes, whence he removed with great skill the colossal bust of Ramesses II...[which is] still on prominent display at the British Museum," George Bernard Shaw who appears to be listed because he gave money to the museum, Hans Sloane because he sold the government items which eventually became a part of the collection of the Natural History Museum, Marc Aurel Stein because it houses some items that used to belong to him, Charles Towneley because the museum bought a collection from his family after he was dead and then his papers in 1992 and Alexander Walker (critic) who bequeathed his ~~papers~~ art collection to the museum upon his death. It only captures one person with an actual association with the museum during his life (John Boyd (ambassador)). Overall there does not appear to be the sort of strong association between the individuals and the museum or amongst the individuals to warrant categorizing them together. Otto4711 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all ~~employees of~~ - a number of Otto4711's examples convinced me this one should be kept, since the donors of major collections are among the most important people associated with museums - their work as collectors establishes the provenance of the Museum's works as well as the focus of their collection. I would suggest notifying those involved in Museums and Museum articles, who may be able to give suggestions for better organization or categorization related to Museums (besides which, it is civil to do so). A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm not quite seeing the sense in that line of reasoning as it pertains to these categories. At least in the one that I went through here, the majority of the people categorized are not major donors. Most of them either sold their collections to the government or the museum acquired them after their deaths. Belzoni apparently donated one piece (a big piece but still, one piece), Shaw did not donate any pieces but instead gave a small amount of money in his will to the museum to foster his ideas on alphabet reform, Walker gave 200 pieces to an institution whose collection numbers some 13 million. Otto4711 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts on this. To flesh out my thinking, focusing on the names you have raised: a quick review of the British Museum's website indicates that the Walker gift was significant enough for the Museum to have an exhibition focused just on that gift; likewise, the Belzoni piece is a signature piece; each person would thus be a major donor in my view. For a museum of this size, one hopes there would be hundreds of people for a category such as this, since there are likely a couple dozen separately curated collections, each with a dozen or more key donors. I will confess that Shaw sounds like he's being thrown in just for a bit of star-power, but the focus ought to be on the validity of this as a category rather than the inclusion or exclusion of any one person in the category. Also, in the art world, provenance is critical, and these people are important to the provenance of the Museum's collection, so a category that pulls them in can be very useful. In a discussion of the Museum's collection, understanding the credibility of those who have contributed key works or many works is important. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would still argue that tagging such people as "associated with" the museums or as "museum people" casts too wide of a net. Otto4711 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Employees of *' - though I think these could be categorised more precisely, or perhaps more usefully made into specific articles. For example, "directors of the Natural History Museum" would make a very fine category or article... However, I've been adding lots to the NHM article on its history and collections, and maybe anyone notable enough to be included in any "people associated with..." category would just be included in the text. Loxlie 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sounds good - always helpful to hear from someone involved in drafting. It sounds like you think it is manageable to include the people in the article - I hope without the article getting too "listy". Based on this assumption, I'm changing my input to second yours. A Musing (formerly Sam) 12:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify your positions, is it fair to state that you are both in favor of keeping the two "employees of" categories and deleting the "associated with" and "people" categories? Otto4711 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all Employees is not technically correct for Trustees, I think. Many donors, including I think Alexander Walker, had known for a long time they were leaving their collections to an institution, and had formed them partly with them in mind, and had discussed the matter with the museum. Would you say Andrew Mellon or Lessing Rosewald were not associated with the NGA Washington? Or Herbert Greer French with Cincinnati? The history of collecting has been a huge growth area in art history over the last thirty years, and is unusually poorly covered in WP. Now even these tiny steps in that direction attract attempts to delete them. What exactly is your your problem with these categories? They are hardly in danger of becoming un-manageable! Even when the collection was sold commercially by heirs, the connection is that the collection was formed by person A and is now in institution B - this is sufficiently notable for important colections. The British Museum Press published a large scholarly work (to accompany an exhibition that toured the US- Landmarks in Print Collecting - Connoisseurs and Donors at the British Museum since 1753, 1996) on its print collection organised entirely by the original collectors (back to Sloane), some of whom had donated, some been bought.

When it comes to actual employees, as was said above, notable curators tend to stay a long time - often a whole lifetime at the British Museum, and their published work may often consist largely of publishing the collections they curate. The link between scholar and collection is therefore unusually strong, and references to them often couple the two in a way you don't find with scholars who are say university professors in other fields.

The proposed deletions would remove valuable information and make it harder for WP to overcome its extreme weakness in this area. Johnbod 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that I explained my issues with these categories in the nomination. There is no need for you to take this nomination as personally as you're taking it. Otto4711 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation in the nomination is extremely vague. I'm not taking it personally (how would that work, when I have never touched the categories or any articles in them that I can recall) but I do think these nominations a very bad idea indeed. Johnbod 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Musing, I assume this edit was supposed to be to your own vote? My preference is still to Keep all. The field is not especially well covered on Wikipedia at the moment, so I think it desirable to have all the articles on people connected to X Museum together in one place, rather than atomising the information further by having seperate categories for Directors, Employees, Donors etc., all of them underpopulated.

Otto wrote that "overall there does not appear to be the sort of strong association between the individuals and the museum or amongst the individuals to warrant categorizing them together". We have already touched on the point that "strong association" with a museum need not be during the individual's lifetime. John Paul Getty never visited the museum in his name; John Julius Angerstein was not himself a prime mover in getting his paintings in the National Gallery after his death, but his association with the institution stands because those pictures comprised its founding collection; Townley's collection in the British Museum is analagous because those works mark the beginning of the modern character of the BM (i.e. as a museum of antiquities) despite his being (again) dead when they got there. Shaw I suppose could go; while the royalties to My Fair Lady do continue to rake in money for the British Museum, he is better known for other things than his association with that institution. But it's the case with most of the others that their significance does rest on their connection with the museums in question. Perhaps this is "lousy" reasoning; apologies if so. [talk to the] HAM 17:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, apologies, I just fixed it. I'm still listening here and reserve the right to change back; it is true that this area is woefully underpopulated on Wiki (as one of the author's of Art Gallery and a contributor to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, I can attest to shock at how poorly covered many major institutions are. A Musing (formerly Sam) 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm back to keeping all after looking at this comment and considering one museum, much smaller than the British Museum (or the Met, or many other major institutions). Wandering around the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, there is a category of collectors whose biography should give significant attention to a collection that landed in that museum, and that category, when fully built out, should land in the hundreds. Picking up a few of the books among the forty or fifty books the Museum has issued in the book store, most highlight and provide extensive discussion to a dozen or more, though there are some books focused on just one collection and there is overlap. To put all of that discussion in the Museum article would require many subarticles about each collection. Most Museums are not there yet, indeed, most Museum articles on Wikipedia are mediocre, but these categories will help in building them and provide a good place to keep these people. While my preference would be to pull in the article creators to discuss the best way to organize this category, at present I think the best course is to keep them. Also, it sounds like User:Ham can add a bit about Shaw to either his biography or the Museum: the My Fair Lady royalties sounds like the kind of story that justifies being in this category. A Musing (formerly Sam) 11:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep all. Not even able to understand why these were listed. If an individual is wrongly categorised, un- or re-categorise them Andy Mabbett 23:55, 24 March 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:Versus commentators[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) 11:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per innumerable precedents against categorizing performers by network. Otto4711 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought this category was already deleted along with other categories that sort sportscasters by network. Dr. Submillimeter 16:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:54, 23 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shameless[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) 11:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category is being used as a performer by performance category, which is improper. Subtracting the articles on cast members and bearing in mind that the subcat Category:Shameless cast is set for listification and deletion, the remaining contents of the category would be the Shameless article and one subcat for characters, which is correctly categorized elsewhere. As with other forms of eponymous categories, this category should have to have sufficient content to justify its existence and one article and one subcat, each of which is readily linked to the other, indicate that the category is unnecessary as a navigational hub. Otto4711 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:28, 21 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Black Entertainment Television personalities[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) 11:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per innumerable precedents against categorizing people by the networks on which they performed. Otto4711 12:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent, category is too broad and indiscriminate. Arkyan 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorization by network is inappropriate, since performers may work on multiple networks during their careers. Dr. Submillimeter 14:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:56, 23 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:E! television network personalities[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) 11:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per innumerable precedents against categorizing people by the networks on which they appear. Otto4711 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent, category is too broad and indiscriminate. Arkyan 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorization by network is inappropriate, since performers may work on multiple networks during their careers. Dr. Submillimeter 14:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:56, 23 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters by media[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 (already merged). --Xdamr^talk 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(and first layer of subcategories) These form a needless additional layer in the category system. None of this contains any articles, they all hold two or three categories. For instance, "fictional Australians" contains "fictional Australians by media", which in turn contains "australian video game chars" and "australian manga chars". The latter two are useful because they contain actual articles. The first one is obviously the parent cat. The middle one is pointless. >Radiant< 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The extra layer of categorization is not necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 14:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending input from creators.Merge per category creator (see below). Some effort has clearly gone into this rather complex classification scheme, and I'd suggest, besides being civil, that notifying them would likely lead to a better discussion of how to organize or reorganize the whole thing. A Musing (formerly Sam) 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weren't these created as a solution to the overpopulation problem? And on another level, it's useful in seeing how characters are portrayed by different media.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete, redundant with Category:Fictional characters by medium. -Sean Curtin 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These can grow much to large if they are used as intended.DGG 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge: As the creator of the category, I support a merge into Category:Fictional characters by medium, a category I did not know existed. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:53, 23 March 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 Americans by place[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 Category:Fictional Americans by place to Category:Fictional Americans by state. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Should be "by state". It IS by state, anyway. >Radiant< 12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lesnail 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It would make the most sense to rename this category. --WillyFourEyes 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename It probably has the current name because someone complained about Puerto Rico or Washington D.C. However, I'm fine with changing it. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (to "by U.S. state"?). Regardless, DC and Puerto Rico are always lumped into these state categories, so there's no problem there.--Mike Selinker 16:19, 24 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Puerto Ricans[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 Category:Fictional Puerto Ricans to Category:Fictional characters from Puerto Rico. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Per standard, should be "fictional characters from Puerto Rico". >Radiant< 12:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename.--Mike Selinker 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. AshbyJnr 01:30, 25 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Combat-oriented computer role-playing games[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) 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC) "The main article for this category is Action role-playing game." Well, then, the category should have the same name to reflect that. By the way I'm not sure if the distinction between this and regular RPGs. >Radiant< 12:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) - note, I would not object to deletion either, since arguably every CRPG is to some extent combat-oriented. >Radiant< 08:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Action role-playing video games. I originally make this category and I think I was too specific in its scope. (Having said that, I now have access to all my old Edge magazines and... no , never mind :> ) Marasmusine 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I feel that the action-rpg synthesis is not really well defined enough to warrant it's own category. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck, I've just looked at Action role-playing game. I'm sure I've got enough source material here to strip that down and rebuild it with references to present it as a solid genre. But I suppose until that's been done I've no issue with the category being removed. Marasmusine 18:37, 29 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:34th Annual Annie Awards[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) 12:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:34th Annual Annie Awards ~~to Category:Annie Award winners~~

Merge - either merge into the existing winners category per the standard for award winners or, if the Annie Award is not considered a major enough award to categorize, delete. Whichever result there should not be a separate category by year for capturing winners. Otto4711 12:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking more closely at the category and the article 34th Annie Awards the category is being used as a nominees category which numerous CFDs for awards including the Oscars and the Golden Globes have established is improper. Otto4711 12:05, 20 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Airlines of the People's Republic of China[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page already exists as Category: Airlines of China, as pointed out by Gittinsj when that user blanked the category page. Od Mishehu 11:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and repopulate China and the PRC are not quite the same thing. Abberley2 12:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Indeed, PRC≠China. Lesnail 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the one who proposed the deletion, I understand China encompasses both PRC and Taiwan. In this specific case, no Taiwanese airlines are listed under Category:Airlines of China (All Taiwanese airlines are listed under Category:Airlines of Taiwan. Only PRC airlines are listed under the category. Therefore, for this specific case, China=PRC. As suggested, to make this more proper, ALL airlines in the category could be moved to Category:Airlines of the People's Republic of China, as this would be more clearer. Then, if wanted, Category:Airlines of Taiwan could be linked to Category:Airlines of China, though that could create problems, as I have noticed many categories unknowingly equate PRC=China.Gittinsj 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)gittinsj[reply]

- Comment Many categories unknowingly equate China=Mainland China. This violates the NPOV guideline. - Privacy 06:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Populate and make Category: Airlines of China a parent category, which should eliminate future problems and navigational difficulties. Haddiscoe 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Keep Category:Airlines of the People's Republic of China as parent of Category:Airlines of mainland China, Category:Airlines of Hong Kong and Category:Airlines of Macau. Airlines on the Chinese mainland that were defunct before establishment of the P.R.C. in 1949 are not "Airlines of the People's Republic of China". Category:Airlines of China is kind of redundant. - Privacy 06:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree with this, as I could really care less what happens. I just don't want redundant categories. If we want to create, Category:Airlines of mainland China, I don't mind. All airlines in Category:Airlines of China would have to be moved to the new category, since those listed there are all in mainland China.Gittinsj 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)gittinsj[reply]

Oppose creating of mainland China category. SchmuckyTheCat 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - That's the only way to handle it correctly. Passer-by (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both don't care and support per Gittinsj. Using China as an umbrella term to include Taiwan invites edit wars. PRC and Taiwan are de-facto separate, so organize them that way. In the current usage, the category is for the PRC, and not about Taiwan, so I could support naming as PRC. This is consistent with other category titles. However, China is the common short name for the PRC, so I could support leaving it at China. Leaving at China is inconsistent with other category titles. SchmuckyTheCat 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reorganise as per Privacy. Airlines of mainland China flies between different airports within mainland China. Airlines of Hong Kong flies only between Hong Kong and selective destinations in mainland China. The same applies to airlines of Macau. All those in Category:Airlines of China are airlines of mainland China. Passer-by (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but oppose creation of a "Mainland China" subcategory as per Privacy. The current setup of having a PRC cat with HK and Macau as subcats is adequate, non-POV, and reflects the current political setup.--Huaiwei 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your position fails to recognise that Hong Kong airlines cannot fly domestic routes within Mainland China. They are not domestic airlines in mainland China. Saying the setup you prefer "adequate, non-POV and reflects current politics", is unrealistic and disregarding what the actuality is like. Passer-by (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If so, you will have to demonstrate in what way are these categories supposed to reflect supposed "realities". How is the inability of HK airlines to fly certain routes supposed to be a valid category criteria? Perhaps we need a category for Category:Airlines in Heathrow who can fly to the US since that route is very much regulated as well? And how does your position, in turn, acknowlege that fact that the Chinese airlines do not consider flights into HK or Macau as "international", but "regional"?--Huaiwei 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your question is getting too far. What is neccessary to know is that, Hong Kong and Macau airlines do not fly domestic routes between destinations within mainland China. They are not domestic airlines in mainland China. They are "outside the border" (jǐngwài) airline companies. This has to be reflected. Passer-by (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you are attempting to use categories to illustrate the above? Such information are much better writtern in detail within content articles, and not over the way categories are setup. So one fine day when HK airlines fly a route between Beijing and Shanghai (which is quite likely they would anyway), are we going to reconstruct the category setup again?--Huaiwei 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Still they would be jǐngwài airlines flying such routes with the Eighth or Ninth Freedom. They are not domestic airlines there. Passer-by (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reorganise per Privacy. Mainland China is a domestic air market on its own. Michael G. Davis 08:20, 2 April 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:Curtiss class seaplane tenders[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Curtiss class seaplane tenders to Category:United States Navy Seaplane tenders

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, propose changing category name to Category:United States Navy Seaplane tenders as the category has only two articles so far and excludes other seaplane tenders like USS Avocet (AVP-4) as not all were of the Curtiss class. Anynobody 11:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two ships of the Curtiss class, so the category won't expand past two entries. If the renaming goes through, a sub-category within the Category:United States Navy Seaplane tenders called Category:Curtiss class seaplane tenders. Essentially as it is the category is too specialized and excludes inclusion of any other USN seaplane tenders. Anynobody 01:30, 22 March 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:Airports in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Overcategorisation. I suspect the Cocos (Keeling) Islands has only one (major) airport and will continue to do so for some time. -- Longhair\^talk 08:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- agree with nominator - but Australian Indian Ocean territory airports wouldnt even meet a bare requirement for a category either -- Satu Suro 10:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and repopulate Part of a wider system. Abberley2 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with placing the only article within this category within Category:Airports in Australia, which is where the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are anyway? -- Longhair\^talk 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all airports are categorized by country/territory. Lesnail 15:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a country. --Peta 05:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Categories with one or two articles should be kept if part of a larger category system, as is the case here. Dr. Submillimeter 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please repopulate this standard and necessary category - it won't take long. Wilchett 17:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a series. Vegaswikian 18:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no minimum category size for reasons that have been explained umpteen times. CalJW 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only airport as far as I know on Cocos Island is already in Category:Airports in the Australian Indian Ocean Territories where it should be and this category is empty. --Bduke 04:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to Category:Airports in the Australian Indian Ocean Territories? It is now a red link. Both Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island are part of the Australian Indian Ocean Territories and that is the category that should be used, just as there are categories for airports in the other Territories and States. I propose recreation of Category:Airports in the Australian Indian Ocean Territories and deletion of this category. --Bduke 23:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bduke. --Peta 05:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Or else place the article on the airport on West Island right at Category:Airports by country. - Privacy 19:27, 31 March 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:Airports in Christmas Island[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. --Xdamr^talk 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Overcategorisation. I suspect Christmas Island has only one (major) airport and will continue to do so for some time. -- Longhair\^talk 08:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --rimshots^talk 08:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and repopulate Part of a wider system. Abberley2 12:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with placing the only article within this category within Category:Airports in Australia, which is where Christmas Island is anyway? -- Longhair\^talk 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all airports are categorized by country/territory. Lesnail 15:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Categories with one or two articles should be kept if part of a larger category system, as is the case here. Dr. Submillimeter 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please repopulate this standard and necessary category - it won't take long. Wilchett 17:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a series. Vegaswikian 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However, I suggest that a Category:Airports in Oceania be created to allow these airport articles to be categorized. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What use would that be to anyone? Would you move the articles about airports in Australia to it, and if so, why exactly would that be a better place for them than category:Airports in Australia? CalJW 03:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no minimum category size for reasons that have been explained umpteen times. CalJW 03:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all Australian territories (or states) have their own airports category. It is not part of a series.The Proffesor 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The series may not be complete, but, the category is still part of a series. Neier 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or else place Christmas Island Airport right at Category:Airports by country. - Privacy 07:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abberley2 and others. Neier 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only airport as far as I know on Christmas Island is already in Category:Airports in the Australian Indian Ocean Territories where it should be and this category is empty. --Bduke 04:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to Category:Airports in the Australian Indian Ocean Territories? It is now a red link. Both Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island are part of the Australian Indian Ocean Territories and that is the category that should be used, just as there are categories for airports in the other Territories and States. I propose recreation of Category:Airports in the Australian Indian Ocean Territories and deletion of this category. --Bduke 23:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bduke. --Peta 05:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is already in the Airports in Australia category, which is adequate and fine for the small territories that Australia has which only have one airport - and Christmas Island is too small to ever have or need more than one airport to have or need a category like this. JRG 13:37, 28 March 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:Racists[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 speedy delete per previous CFD and salt. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category qualifies for speedy deletion as "substantially identical recreations of earlier deleted content"; see[4] [5]. It should probably also be protected to prevent re-creation. This category is a POV magnet and several previous discussions have held it up as an example of the sort of category that Wikipedia should not have. Zaian 06:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete delete subjective, inflammatory category. Doczilla 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for category that is just used as a pejorative for people with highly media covered cases which may or may not make them a racist. gren グレン 07:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- subjective, and open to abuse. Longhair\^talk 08:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not any more subjective, inflammatory and/or open to abuse than it's subcats. // Liftarn
Speedy delete and protect as nom. This category has twice been deleted, and so has the identical Category:Racist people, and two of these deletions have taken place quite recently. This doesn't need to be discussed again. Zaian 10:00, 20 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harvard College alumni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: redirect. >Radiant< 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The distinction between Harvard University and its undergraduate school, Harvard College, is often blurred and/or overlooked. I have already re-categorized the five or six articles that were in this sub-cat to the parent, Category:Harvard University alumni. See decision in an analogous situation at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 24#Category:Yale College alumni (in which I made a mistake in asserting that there was not a "Harvard College alumni" category).--Vbd (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, ie keep it, but keep it empty as a present. That's the only way to avoid repeated recreation. Haddiscoe 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the distinction "is often blurred and/or overlooked" in my mind is not a reason for deleting the category for those who DO draw the distinction. There is a very large subcategory Category:Harvard Law School alumni and a smaller Category:Harvard Divinity School alumni. There could (and probably should) be distinctions for alumni of the John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Harvard Business School. As it is is, the parent category Category:Harvard University alumni is huge and would be more usable if relevant subcatogories were used appropriately. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to have missed my point. I agree that the graduate schools should maintain their own subcats of alumni. It is the undergraduate college that is in question. Most people don't make the distinction between Harvard College, the undergraduate school, and Harvard University, the overall institution. They think of them synonymously. It then becomes more obvious to list undergraduate alumni under Category:Harvard University alumni. The fact that this category is huge is not the issue. There are a lot of people who have graduated from Harvard (College). You can't sub-categorize them.--Vbd (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect per nom. Choalbaton 15:25, 24 March 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:Ski resorts[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 Category:Ski resorts to Category:Ski areas and resorts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ski resorts to Category:Ski areas and resorts

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with most of the subcategories. Some of the articles are both areas where skiing takes place, rather than specific resorts. Wilchett 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, very sensible. I was going to nominate this one myself, but nom beat me to the punch. Xtifr _tälk 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Abberley2 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, makes total sense. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, this is long overdue. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:14, 23 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:No References[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 renameCategory:No References to Category:Unreferenced Kent-related articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Unreferenced Kent-related articles, incurably vague, should at least refer to Kent. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Current title is deeply misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I created the category for the use within WikiProject Kent, renaming would be best to avoid confusion- Olive Oil -_ŢάĽɮ - 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for sure. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:02, 23 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tehran University[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 Category:Tehran University into Category:University of Tehran. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:University of Tehran, it looks like both names are used, but the website goes with University of Tehran. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Choalbaton 15:24, 24 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hardwork Medal[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) 12:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is only for people who receive User:Big Boss 0's special award. There doesn't seem to be able purpose for this and it's best kept as a list on his own user page (which already exists at User:Big_Boss_0#Big_Boss_Award) and not a category. I don't think we category any other user awards like barnstars, right? Metros232 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I will not be having the list on my userpage for too much longer. It is getting too large. The Emperor of West Wikipedia:Walter Humala spent his time of creating it and I feel that it deserves to stay. Big Boss 0 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So make it the list a subpage of your user page instead if you don't want it in your user page. The category space isn't a place for you to place this just because you're tired of it in your own. Metros232 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the only exercise you get is jumping to conclusions. I did not make the page. I vote against it as a show of respect to the Emperor of West Wikipedia. He made it and it deserves to stay. Big Boss 0 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move out of the main name space. The contents are a list of user talk pages, not an encyclopedic category. Vegaswikian 05:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename using "Wikipedians" - This category should be renamed to indicate that it is for Wikipedians, not articles. Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do this? Big Boss 0 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Through this page; hopefully the paragraphs at the beginning should explain. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless I get to give my own awards and make people keep the category on their pages. Otto4711 14:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia award, which has two awards in it. I'm not sure I like the idea of those either though. Recury 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, there are several issues here. Unless the user sets up an award subpage, these categories wind up being scattered across multiple archive pages. Probably not the best place for them. So either we put the award on the users page or force it to stay on the talk page. Not sure that either of those is going to work. Vegaswikian 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no matter the place were are we gonna put this, and according to wikipedia policies I think, cat must be deleted. Sorry Big Boss but i don't wanna get it trouble.Bests --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. If you are fine with it being deleted then I am too. Big Boss 0 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a personal user award, so, logically, the list should be kept in user space exclusively. -- The Hyb rid 22:58, 21 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British market towns[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 (British.../English.../Welsh...). Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British market towns to Category:Market towns in the United Kingdom

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention for categories of settlements. Hawkestone 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I wondered if this category was sufficiently clearly defined to be useful, but market town is commendably precise, so the category ought to stay; and the renaming fits the naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is renamed, then the subcats English market towns and Welsh market towns should be renamed Market towns in England and Market towns in Wales. Tim! 18:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Ditto subcategories. Abberley2 01:23, 22 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Public bodies in Bedfordshire[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: merge/rename. >Radiant< 14:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Public bodies in Bedfordshire to Category:Organisations based in Bedfordshire

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This is a non-standard category type (there's no Category:Public bodies or Category:Public bodies based in England). "Public bodies" is maybe a little hard to define, and I don't think it will be very familiar to users of American English. There is no danger of rescoping leading to overpopulation as my native county of Bedfordshire is not overflowing with notable HQs, and in any case if there were lots of organisations, they would be easy to group them by type. Hawkestone 01:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opppose: the concept of public body may initially appear to be slightly hazy, but is capable of precise definition; the notion of it can be usefully summarised either in the notion from European law of an "emanation of the state", or (more relevantly) through the notion of "public bodies" used in equality law in the UK. For example the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA) (as amended) offers a precise definition which includes central government and its agencies, plus local government (see RRA Schedule 1A. The same concept is used in the Equality Act 2006 for the public sector duty on gender.
The precise "public sector" category therefore has an obvious utility for anyone interested in the scope of public sector duties on equality (which now cover race, disability and gender, and are likely to be extended to other fields), and it is also a useful way of grouping this particular type of organisation for other purposes, distinguishing the "public sector" from the "private sector" and the so-called "third sector" or voluntary, charitable, and other non-profir organisations. "Organisations" is simply too broad a groping to be useful, and also too vague: is IBM an "organisation"? Is a village football team an "organisation", and can the same label be applied to a football club which may well be a PLC?
It's a pity that this sub-category does not exist for other counties, because it's a useful grouping. At the moment "public body" redirects quite inappropriately to "quango", which is a bit like redirecting "local government" to "parish council" (there are several other sorts of local government in the UK, never mind elsewhere). However, the category needs a a coherent explanation of its purpose, to emphasise that it includes local government, central government, and the agencies of both, such as the police, NHS trusts, fire service, quangos etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Regardless of whether the term can be defined, there is no precedent to suggest a need for it to be used in the category system, and I don't see a reason for it to be used. BrownHairedGirl's reason for wishing to have it seems rather POV. Wilchett 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I illustrated the usage and legal precision of this term by reference to the area of law which in know in most detail; you should not infer any particular POV on my part of the merits of that law. The significance of the concept of "public sector" in the UK could have been illustrated using many other examples. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Organisations" is not too broad to be useful, and it is used for all countries. Abberley2 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; public bodies is a perfectly understandable concept in the states as well as England, though we have a number of other terms (such as public agencies or, somewhat legalistically, subdivisions of the state) that are commonly used, while the term "organization" generally would include private, non-state bodies (and is often used as a technical term to reference only charitable organizations, which are often not in corporate form). A Musing (formerly Sam) 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose "Organisations" and "Public Bodies" are not synonymous. The proposal is actually changing the nature of the category. There is also no requirement for a category to be instantly familiar to users of American English, especially in this case, where it refers to some things found in the English (i.e. in England in the UK) county of Bedfordshire. "Public bodies" is a well-known and recognisable term in this context in UK English. DDStretch (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 'Public body' is very much intelligible to a British audience, forming a completely different subset of body than the more general 'organisations'. This category encompasses bodies under the aegis of the government as opposed to private, non-state bodies, ably summarised by BrownHairedGirl above.

Per User:ddstretch this proposal actually changes the whole basis of the category; I fail to see any valid reasons of policy or practicality suggesting why this should be done.

Xdamr^talk 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong rename If odd little categories like this are not renamed to the standard forms the category system will descend into chaos. This is not a American / British English issue, indeed the proposed name uses British spelling. CalJW 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This is not a American / British English issue, indeed the proposed name uses British spelling." This shows little understanding of the differences between American and UK English. Two words or the words making up two terms need not be spelt differently in order for their meaning to be different in the two varieties of English (see American and British English differences for examples.) There are many words and terms spelt identically in both forms of Englsh that have quite different meanings in the two.

The fact remains that "public bodies" and "organisations" are not synonymous in UK English. This is a category that deals with things in a part of England using a specific and accurate term that is perfectly clear and understood by users of UK English. The proposed change alters the sense, the meaning, and the set of articles that would fall within the remit of the category. So, the proposed renaming should not go through on the back of reasons that have been proposed. DDStretch (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Organisations based in Bedfordshire, which is needed as a holding category in any case. Too small to stand on its own. Haddiscoe 15:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am British, so I know what "public body" means. Rescoping the category is the point. This category - for a county with no especially notable public bodies - has been around since 2004, and since that time there was been no sign whatsoever of any demand for a scheme of "public bodies" categories, so I am mystified by the sudden gush of passion to keep this one. On the other hand Category:Organizations has been growing into a mighty oak tree. I view this category as simply an overlooked rogue that does not fit into the existing scheme of things. Hawkestone 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a subcategory of "Government Institutions" in that category - does this belong somewhere below that one so it will fit into that scheme? That category is exceedingly broad. A Musing (formerly Sam) 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Organisations based in Bedfordshire per Haddiscoe. Looking at Category:Government institutions it is in turn broken down into 20 categories. Which ones should Bedfordshire have? I don't know. But as there are so few articles in the first place, that is a question that does not need an answer. Olborne 21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge Local subcategories should be created as a work-down when a global/national category has become overlarge, thus demonstrating the high demand for categories in that field. Creating caetgories on a work-up basis from unusual local categories has the potential to create inconsistent hierarchies. The global category in this field is Category:Government institutions. Perhaps there is a case for renaming it, but that is a separate discussion. Cloachland 13:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This a very small category and there are very few articles that could be added. Maybe the local NHS trust, that's about all. Casperonline 21:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked up a few other examples, and became convinced that in general governmental agencies outside of the usual country/state-province/county/municipality tree are extremely poorly categorized on Wikipedia. An example of one done reasonably well is Category:Government of New York City, which is organized in a manner not unlike this "public bodies" category. Looking at Category:Government institutions, it really doesn't have geographical subcategories, and this would be lost if merged in. I see several proposals to merge above, into a variety of different categories. I'd suggest that the lack of any one obvious candidate makes this one worth keeping, and that more should be built like it. A Musing (formerly Sam) 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Organisations based in Bedfordshire. This is a minor irregularity. If a review of the overall structure is considered necessary it would be better to do it on a top-down basis, and the outcome should not be influenced by the pre-existence of an oddball category like this one. Osomec 15:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per nom and Haddiscoe. Choalbaton 15:26, 24 March 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:Templates used by WikiProject Journalism[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 CSD C1 and G7. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category, then thought better of it and used Category:WikiProject Journalism templates as the title instead. So, it's an unpopulated duplicate category. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD C1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete redundant category per nom. Doczilla 07:14, 20 March 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.