Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 14

< January 13	January 15 >

January 14

Category:Populist Party elected officials

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. Kbdank71 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Populist Party elected officials to Category:Populist Party (United States) elected officials

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguate to match Populist Party (United States) and Category:Populist Party (United States). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (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.

disambiguating Category:Kumasi

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. Kbdank71 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

(this is the only sub cat page of Category:Kumasi)

Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate where there is also Kumasi Metropolitan District Mayumashu (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2009 (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:Large family cars

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. This might be part of a classification system, but without references, it's hard to tell. Kbdank71 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. For similar reasons that Category:Small cars was deleted. We don't have Category:Large cars, as what constitutes "large" is subjective. Nor do we have Category:Family cars: a "family car" is one that is used by a family, I would guess. These cars may or may not be used by families. See also immediately below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please take a look at the main article for the category. Apparently this is part of a widely-accepted classification system. - Stepheng3 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I did look at the main article—very short, no references, apparently redundant to Mid-size car. Not very much compelling evidence for keeping it. Perhaps a merge to Category:Mid-size cars is appropriate if the intent is to refer to a car class type. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete large family cars is undefinable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2009 (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:Small family car

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. For the same reason Category:Small cars was deleted. This just adds one more subjective term to the mix. We don't have Category:Family cars; a car is a family car if a family uses it, I would think. These cars may or may not be used by families. See also immediately above. (If this is being used in the sense of a formal car classification type, the appropriate category exists at Category:Compact cars.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Small family car is highly subjective. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not definable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2009 (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:TV word game shows

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete There doesn't seem to be any clear criterion as to what a "word game show" is. Is it for puzzle games like Wheel of Fortune or Lingo where you have to identify a word given certain letters, or word-association games like Pyramid or Password where you have to describe a word? Both are in this category. Perhaps ones such as Password et al. can be spun off into a new category, Category:Word-association game shows or somesuch, as those have a more clearly-defined criterion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is basically for games where players guessed words from clues given by the host or their partners; and from letters that are shown. However, you're idea of giving word association game shows their own category is a nice one. So a split would be a better option. Knowledgeman800 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's two different types of shows though, so maybe a split would be better. Word puzzle games like Wheel of Fortune, Lingo, $1,000,000 Chance of a Lifetime, Headline Chasers, Now You See It, etc. would be one thing, whereas word association games like Pyramid and Password would be another. That could work, I don't see as much ambiguity there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not useful or defining much less definable: Here's what the cat says it is: "These are game shows that allow TV contestants & the viewers at home to identify words from clues & categories." Sounds like all question and answer game shows, we get a "clue" from a "category" (like in Jeopardy, not in the category) and we try to "identify" the "words" to put in the form of a question. Sounds like the who wants to be a millionaire type games (where we figure out our "final answer" - which is words) and all Category:Quiz shows. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2009 (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.

Vehicle registration plates by state

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

Category:Vehicle registration plates of California to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States

Category:Vehicle registration plates of Connecticut to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States

Category:Vehicle registration plates of Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States

Category:Vehicle registration plates of Massachusetts to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States

Category:Vehicle registration plates of Mississippi to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States

Category:Vehicle registration plates of New Jersey to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States

Category:Vehicle registration plates of New York to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States

Category:Vehicle registration plates of Ohio to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States

Category:Vehicle registration plates of Oregon to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. This is a series of very small categories with most containing a single article. Upmerge to the parent category Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States. No objection to creating on an as needed basis in the future in some state possesses a large number of articles that need a category like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, and also upmerge Category:Vehicle registration plates of Tennessee as nominated below. — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for a merge of Category:Vehicle registration plates of Tennessee since the article is already in the correct category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2009 (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:Tanya Huff

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete In general, we avoid creating categories named after individual people unless there's a clear reason to do so, per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. If we had some articles about her novels, then we could create Category:Novels by Tanya Huff Stepheng3 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously no need for this. Otto4711 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2009 (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:Vehicle registration plates of Tennessee

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

The result of the discussion was: delete; nothing to upmerge as the one article in the category is already in both parents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete An overly narrow category with a single member, apparently created in order to publicize a website. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the promotion of an external link came along some time after the category had been created, I agree that the category is unnecessary considering that it likely would never contain more than one article (Vehicle registration plates of Tennessee). Qqqqqq (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The spam was removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States per current upmerge discussion. — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A merge is not required since the article is correctly categorized. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Vehicle registration plates of the United States. Though I would love to here just how the nominator was able to discern that the article and category were "created in order to publicize a website". Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2009 (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:Hindu worship

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 18:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hindu worship to Category:Hindu liturgy, rites, and worship services

Nominator's rationale: Standardize naming Editor2020 (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Worship" is a term that can encompass ritual, prayer, song, and other religious practices, and besides the proposed name is not in fact a standard among WP categories.-choster (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The second name is too complicated and not standardized.Pectore^talk 00:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the present name is simpler, shorter and more accurate.HeartofaDog (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2009 (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:Sikh practices

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. Kbdank71 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sikh practices to Category:Sikh behaviour and experience

Nominator's rationale: Standardize naming Editor2020 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its article is Sikh practices. (With what is it being standardised?) Occuli (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With Category:Religious behaviour and experience, Category:Christian behaviour and experience, Category:Hindu behaviour and experience, Category:Islamic behaviour and experience, Category: Jewish behaviour and experience--Editor2020 (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All bar the first created recently by one Editor2020 ... there is no need for all the subcats to have the same format as the supercat - it is not Category:Religious behaviour and experience by religion. Occuli (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after a year of annoyance, hoping that someone would improve the inconsistent/confusing/unorganized category naming that currently exists in the religion categories, I have decided to get involved in Categories. Isn't trying to improve things kinda the point? The usage "foovian behaviour and experience" seemed to be an excellent format to use, as it is clear, consistent and will improve navigation. I was motivated to nominate these categories for renaming by this comment--Editor2020 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inherently subjective. Religious behavior for a particular religion is an invitation to add all sorts of nonsense. E.g., should we add Category:Islamic behaviour and experience as a parent of Category:Islamist assassins based on the behavior portion of category? More strife with nothing by way of helpful navigation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "Keep" - ie, keep the cat as it is and reject the proposal?HeartofaDog (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to Category:Sikh behaviour and experience per convention of other, similar categories. Alansohn (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the present name is shorter and more accurate, and matches the article. "Behaviour and experience" could be made to mean anything at all. Evne if there is a need for a standard, this most certainly is not it.HeartofaDog (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2009 (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:Buddhist practices

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buddhist practices to Category:Buddhist behaviour and experience

Nominator's rationale: Standardize naming Editor2020 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "practice(s)" in the sense of the standard expression "religious practice" does not mean the same as "behaviour and experience". And to borrow the question from above, with what is it being standardised? HeartofaDog (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With Category:Religious behaviour and experience, Category:Christian behaviour and experience, Category:Hindu behaviour and experience, Category:Islamic behaviour and experience, Category: Jewish behaviour and experience--Editor2020 (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again to echo User:Occuli, you created all these yourself, so colour me unimpressed. The present name is short, straightforward and clear, which the proposed name is not. Standardisation by itself is not enough - it needs to make an improvement: what you propose, doesn't. HeartofaDog (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2009 (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:Bahá'í practices

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bahá'í practices to Category:Bahá'í behaviour and experience

Nominator's rationale: Standardize naming. Editor2020 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "practice(s)" in the sense of the standard expression "religious practice" does not mean the same as "behaviour and experience". And to borrow the question from above, with what is it being standardised? HeartofaDog (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With Category:Religious behaviour and experience, Category:Christian behaviour and experience, Category:Hindu behaviour and experience, Category:Islamic behaviour and experience, Category: Jewish behaviour and experience--Editor2020 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again to echo User:Occuli, you created all these yourself, so colour me unimpressed. The present name is short, straightforward and clear, which the proposed name is not. Standardisation by itself is not enough - it needs to make an improvement: what you propose, doesn't. HeartofaDog (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2009 (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:Raëlian beliefs and practices

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 18:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices to Category:Raëlian belief and doctrine

Nominator's rationale: Standardize naming.Editor2020 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its article is Raëlian beliefs and practices. (With what is it being standardised?) Occuli (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:*With Category:Religious behaviour and experience, Category:Christian behaviour and experience, Category:Hindu behaviour and experience, Category:Islamic behaviour and experience, Category: Jewish behaviour and experience--Editor2020 (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (Sorry, With Category:Religious belief and doctrine, Category:Buddhist belief and doctrine, Category:Christian belief and doctrine --Editor2020 (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All bar the first created recently by Editor2020. There doesn't seem to me to be a standard. Why is 'beliefs and practices' inferior to 'belief and doctrine'? (There is Category:Latter Day Saint doctrines, beliefs, and practices a bit further down the tree.) Occuli (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(See above comment.)

That's the problem, there is no standard. There needs to be a standard. That's why I wrote "standardize usage". I think this usage is good. If you disagree, please come up with another one. We'll discuss it, and if your suggestion wins, we'll implement it.

Currently, "belief", "teachings", "philosophy", "doctrine", "practices", "views", "viewpoints", "behaviour" (and I'm sure a few more that I can't think of off the top of my head) are all confusingly intertwined. I think that some of this confusion can be reduced by trying to standardize usage and categorization.

You write " Why is 'beliefs and practices' inferior to 'belief and doctrine'?" It's not inherently better or worse, it's just not the better usage in this case because it collapses two things which are separate in the current categorization scheme. "Belief", which resolves to Category:Religious belief and doctrine and "practices", which resolves to Category:Religious behaviour and experience.

Alternatively, if these two categories were combined into Category:Religious belief and practices, then Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices would be better.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A doctrine is simply a collection of beliefs advocated by a organization with ritual practices. I have an issue with the first four letters "doct" as the sequence has subconscious association with the words "doctor", "doctorate", or "doctored". The phrase "beliefs and practices" can be substituted for "ritual and belief", with the emphasis on describing rituals with a minor description of beliefs, followed by a more elaborate description of beliefs. The phrasing has the added bonus of having the same spelling in both American English and British English. This seems to be more logical that what is currently proposed.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 17:41, 17 January 2009 (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:Sikh beliefs

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 18:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sikh beliefs to Category:Sikh belief and doctrine

Nominator's rationale: Standardize naming Editor2020 (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its article is Sikh beliefs. (With what is it being standardised?) Occuli (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With Category:Religious belief and doctrine, Category:Buddhist belief and doctrine, Category:Christian belief and doctrine --Editor2020 (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - matches article, and "belief and doctrine" doesn't seem to add enough to "beliefs" to warrant the effort. HeartofaDog (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2009 (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.

rename of some subcats of Category:Yugoslav people

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. Kbdank71 17:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

Nominator's rationale: for consistency. Although both appear to be perfectly acceptable adjectival forms and synonymous, article page Yugoslavia consistently uses 'Yugoslav' and not 'Yugoslavian' as the adjective form of 'Yugoslavia'. (Note: the other 50 or so cat pages for people using an adjectival form of Yugoslavia already use 'Yugoslav') Mayumashu (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Once I nominated the categories to all be changed to "Yugoslavian", but it resulted in an agreement to keep "Yugoslav" for those that use it. And since then I've re-considered and re-researched and agree that "Yugoslav" is more common and therefore more appropriate. "Yugoslavian" isn't really "wrong", but I agree that we should adopt "Yugoslav" as the common standard in WP. There's no sense having different categories use different adjectives for the same thing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (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.

Honorary Fellows

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. Kbdank71 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deletion - I believe these categories are fundamentally comparable to the categories for Honorary Doctorates that are up for deletion below, and to other similar categories that have recently been deleted, primarily over the relative unimportance & abundance of such honors, and attendant concerns re Category Clutter. Cgingold (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified all available category creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These are analogous to the honorary degree categories, and in the end, they can simply be seen as garden-variety awards categories, which are routinely deleted (and listified if the information is wanted for WP). I've no opinion on listifying in these cases, but as for the categories it seems to be a definite delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — being a Fellow of a college or society is a lasting connection, whether honorary or not, whereas an honorary degree is a one-off event. So I do not agree that the two are analogous at a fundamental level. This is more like a knighthood or similar honour than a degree. "Honorary" in the case of colleges generally means unpaid. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are not all the same. Honorary Fellowship of the Royal Society is indeed a great honour and only one person can be elected to the position in any one year. There are categories for all the other types of Fellowship and Foreign membership of the RS and I think this one should be kept. The College positions are different. I am inclined to think that they can be merged into the main Fellowship category for College Fellowships, of which there are a larger number than those for Honorary Fellowship, although all Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge have the latter positions. I have to say however that College Honorary Fellowships are not like Honorary Degrees as they are on-going positions with commitments to the College. So keep the Royal Society one and merge the College ones. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
College honorary fellowships tend to be given to distinguished alumni or to retiring academics of particular distinction. Both types of recipient will already be categorised in an alumni and / or a fellows category for the college and a further category is unnecessary. Sometimes, an honorary fellowship is given to someone prominent in public life with no educational link to the college - e.g. in the case of Jesus College, Oxford (my pet subject) David Lloyd George (for being a prominent Welshman) and Sir Georg Solti (whose daughter was at the college and who helped with fundraising). In these cases, categorisation of the honorary fellowship is akin to overcategorisation by award. However, the information is non-trivial and deserves to be kept. It can make quite a nice list (see List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford). So, listify the college categories. Do not merge, because that introduces confusion into the categories as to whether someone is a "real" fellow of the college or not. No opinion on the Royal Society nomination. Bencherlite ^Talk 06:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that there is no parallel with hon degrees, so different 'delete' arguments need to be made. (Can someone be an Hon fellow of several colleges?) I incline towards 'keep all' as there seem to be difficulties with a merge (unless bencherlite can volunteer to produce lists of the standard of List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford for each college - a cfd 'listify' produces a bare list of names). Occuli (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Yes, someone can be an Hon Fellow of more than one college (e.g. Harold Wilson (Jesus College (where he studied) and University College (where he taught), Anatole Abragam (Jesus and Merton, having studied at both)). (2) I am happy to help with lists, although can't promise Featured quality, at least straightaway... <naivety> Of course, all the information necessary to produce a fully-referenced list will already be found in each article in the references supporting the placing of these categories, won't they? </naivety> (3) Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford and Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Cambridge might also be interested. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm glad to see that this has attracted so much input. Thanks to one and all for your informative remarks. I will probably try to formulate an amended proposal that synthesizes what has been said. Cgingold (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2009 (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:List of United States enlisted ranks

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:United States military enlisted ranks. Kbdank71 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of United States enlisted ranks to Category:United States enlisted ranks

Nominator's rationale: Rename It's a category, not a list. Recury (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to an article. It's a list pretending to be a category.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I missing something? Looks like a valid category to me. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:United States military enlisted ranks. This seems to be a better fit with some of the related categories which either include military or the branch of service. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is probably better. Recury (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:United States military enlisted ranks per Vegas. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian religious leaders by century

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. --Kbdank71 17:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Subcategories are empty Jeffro77 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Did you also remove the contents of the other sub-categories? If so, please be good enough to repopulate them as well. Thanks again. Cgingold (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by century is a bad way to categorize religious leaders, short of some millenialist sorts, not much foofra is occasioned by the turn of a century and many of the same guys who were preaching in '99 are hard at it in '01 as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one and all related ones below. These are complementary categories to all other ones "by century." Obviously there are few articles or subcats in them at first, as is true with most categories. But to the same extent that any categories are useful "by century," these will likewise be. EstherLois (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the number of religions worldwide, an exhaustive list of all religious leaders by century is impractical. An incomplete list is unhelpful and misleading.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Delete This is over overcategoraztion, see my comments below. --Carlaude ^(talk) 02:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with sub-cats, as overcategorization.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all subcats - I don't see that any of these are necessary or add anything other than clutter (mass categorisation of bishops and church leaders, esp of American non-conformists, is something that I seem to remember has been attempted - and declined - before...)HeartofaDog (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (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:17th century Christian religious leaders

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Only contained 1 entry (removed). Category not notable Jeffro77 (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added 3 sibling categories created since cfd started. Occuli (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be good enough to restore the article that you removed. As it says right on the CFD notice, "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Doing so preempts the CFD process, and makes it nearly impossible for other editors to fully & fairly evaluate the merits of the emptied category. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the (meager) content of each of these categories. However, there is very little there, and I still believe the categories are unnecessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - now we can make a more informed assessment of these categories. Cgingold (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact Category:17th century Christian bishops which is an obvious subcat, so it's not at all empty. I expect there was a Pope or 2 as well. Whether it is needed is another matter. Occuli (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — why delete just the 17th Century? This should be an all or nothing decision. Also there is the more general issue of dividing my century. Is there any guidance on this? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The existing ones yesterday were 17th, 20th, 21st. User:EstherLois is creating more during this cfd, despite having been informed of it. Occuli (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no suggestion to delete just the 17th Century category. 'Religious leaders by century' will never be an exhaustive category; the meager content that is in them is not representative of the total, and is therefore little benefit. Careers of religious leaders very often span parts of two centuries. The sub-categories are a separate issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See above. EstherLois (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Delete This is over overcategoraztion of the tree. It is fuctionaly the same as Category:16th century Christian clergy and even if we find a case that is not so, they will still be clustered by the more logical Category:16th century Christians.--Carlaude ^(talk) 02:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept to Category:17th-century Christian religious leaders. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this whole tree really adds nothing: zap the lot. HeartofaDog (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (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:20th century Christian religious leaders

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty Jeffro77 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is another creation by EstherLois (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who seems to have rather a scatter-gun approach and does not necessarily finish things off properly. I'm not particularly keen on dividing everyone up by century (footballers by decade?) but there is Category:20th century Christian bishops + many popes who should be included. It could be argued that 'leader' is too vague but that would be a mammoth cfd. Occuli (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all subcats - I don't see that any of these are necessary or add anything other than clutter (mass categorisation of bishops and church leaders, esp of American non-conformists, is something that I seem to remember has been attempted - and declined - before...) HeartofaDog (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per HeartofaDog.--Editor2020 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per HeartofaDog. -- Mike Doughney (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See above. EstherLois (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Delete This is over overcategoraztion per above. --Carlaude ^(talk) 02:25, 18 January 2009 (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:21st century Christian religious leaders

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty Jeffro77 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently there are plenty of 21st century Christian religious leaders so the emptiness is temporary. Whether there is anything to be gained by categorising people thus is more problematic but there is Category:People by occupation and period. Occuli (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per HeartofaDog in the previous century above. -- Mike Doughney (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See above. EstherLois (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Delete This is over overcategoraztion per above. --Carlaude ^(talk) 02:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adds nothing.HeartofaDog (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (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:Mesoregions of Santa Catarina

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. Kbdank71 18:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mesoregions of Santa Catarina to Category:Mesoregions of Santa Catarina (state)

Nominator's rationale: to match Category:Santa Catarina (state). There s the need to disambiguate from Santa Catarina Island Mayumashu (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2009 (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:Anarchism by genre

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Anarchism by form. Kbdank71 18:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anarchism by genre to Category:Discuss

Nominator's rationale: Rename - "genre" does not seem the right word to describe different strains of a political philosophy. I can't recall a single instance other than this category of seeing it used. Not sure what the best replacement word would be. Someone on the talk page suggested "thread" which seems similarly obscure. "Faction" maybe? Otto4711 (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Type? Shade? Persuasion? Variety? Hue? ('by type' is the standard construct, though perhaps a little mundane for anarchy.) Occuli (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Anarchism by medium. I use the example of Category:American actors by medium for my arguement. Lugnuts (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Anarchism by type. Simplest is best. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Anarchism by type. Recury (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and alternate proposal - I agree that "genres" is a little off and support renaming the category. I just looked through the main article and Anarchist schools of thought to see which terms are favored in those articles. I found 3 words that were used more than once or twice: "schools", "traditions", and "forms", which was by far the most commonly used word. I also happen to think that "forms" is the best choice of terms, so I suggest Renaming to Category:Anarchism by form. Cgingold (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "by form" per Cgingold. Also, I have nominated a number of similar categories here. --Eliyak T·C 03:37, 15 January 2009 (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:Documentaries by topic

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: withdrawn by nominator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Propose renaming Category:Documentaries by topic to Category:Documentary films by topic~~

Nominator's rationale: I believe this category, and its sub-categories "Documentaries about..." should be renamed as Documentary films by/Documentary films about.... The category above is Category:Documentary films, so named in order to distinguish it from the two other main branches within Category:Documentaries: radio documentaries and television documentaries. Sorry, this is as clear as I can make it... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN. Sorry, I'm still not sure what if anything to do with this category. Please disregard. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2009 (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:Classical songs

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 per revised nom. Kbdank71 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Classical songs to ~~Category:Art songs~~ Category:Songs in classical music

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Present title is ambiguous. 'Classical' may refer to 'Classical music', 'Classical era music' (late 18th/early 19th century) or simply mean 'notable' or 'historic'. 'Art song' would be broad in meaning, but clear, however maybe some people will have other suggestions? Klein zach 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I have struck out Category:Art songs in favour of Category:Songs in classical music for which we now seem to have a consensus. --Klein zach 02:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added: or Rename per amended nom, as we do indeed seem to have concensus for this. (as creator) "Art songs" is even more ambiguous. As a term for song in classical music it is essentially an American usage. According to our article it includes Kundiman , "a genre of traditional Filipino love songs" and no doubt other genres not from Western classical music can be included. As to "classical", whatever it's ambiguities, the word is inescapable, clearer than "art", and there are plenty of other categories that use it. The category has a note that makes the scope perfectly clear. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kundiman ref in Art song was obviously misplaced. --Klein zach 23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's accepted that in mainstream media, "Classical" refers to Renaissance, Baroque, Classical classical, Romantic, Contemporary, etc. We've had the word used in this way before, and, as John said, "art song" would be even more elusive. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some people 'Classical' means little more than the 'Classic' in 'Classic coke'. In the past, I've found non-classical music articles (particularly Jazz) included in 'Classical' cats. ('Classical music songs' would be clearer but also bad English.) --Klein zach 08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confession - I confess that 'Art songs' conveys nothing at all to me. What about 'Songs in classical music'? Occuli (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be divided into 'European art songs', 'Asian art songs' etc. which is much more difficult with 'Classical XYZ' cats, but I'm happy to look at other solutions. --Klein zach 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, in the still-open CFD for Category:Songs by Edward Elgar, I suggested creating Category:Songs by classical composers. And that name is still available, if anyone's interested. Cgingold (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be preferable to "Art songs", but we don't use that formula for the other classical forms, & I don't myself see that the ambiguity (given the note on the category page) is sufficient to require it. Another problem is that on a strict interpretation this would mean the category should include all the songs of George Gershwin, Kurt Weill and no doubt other "crossover" composers - at a real stretch Paul McCartney. For this reason Occuli's 'Songs in classical music' would be my second choice. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harumph. This is proving trickier than I thought. I see your point re Category:Songs by classical composers, and I also think Category:Classical songs is problematic -- especially when an editor is using HotCat and may never set eyes on the category page where the headnote is. We're probably stuck with a choice between Category:Classical music songs and Category:Songs in classical music, both of which are a tad inelegant, but at least get the job done. Cgingold (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs in classical music looks like the least bad solution to me - if 'Art songs' is rejected. It's a lot clearer than 'Classical songs'. --Klein zach 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that - the lesser of a few evils, to use the phrase. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Classical has many meanings, and is used to describe many things, but I haven't really heard "Classical songs" - so something else should be adopted lest we be engaging in some OR by ascribing some meaning to the term which has no secure footing in literature or the real world. And it is odd that Classical music doesn't come from Classical civilizations, but that's beyond the scope of this... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2009 (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:Associates of King's College

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: withdrawn by nominator (me) per discussion below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Associates of King's College to Category:Alumni of King's College London

Nominator's rationale: Merge. An Associate of King's College is "the degree equivalent qualification of King's College London. ... It is the original qualification that the College awarded to its students since, not being a university, it could not award a degree." So, it's analogous to people who have earned a degree from another university. To me that's overcategorization of the alumni of the school. (Essentially a subcategory for those who "graduated"?) I am proposing merge to the alumni category. We've deleted a number of university degree categories in the past, but I haven't seen a school-specific one before (with the exception of the honorary degree ones). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sub-cat of Category:Alumni of King's College London~~a bit weakly~~ - because of the status of the Theological AKC as outlined in the article Associate of King's College as a stand-alone clergy qualification, given that the Theological Department that awarded it was not technically part of King's College. So there were at least some people with an AKC and no other degree who were not formally graduates of King's College~~(unless I have got it totally wrong, and if I have, please tell me)~~. But probably could be usefully limited to holders of the Theological AKC. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC) - and see below[reply]
Keep (as creator of the category). It is a useful category as AKC is an award given by KCL, and the category contains mentionable people who have received that award. The nominator is wrong in saying that it is given to every graduate. It is now only given to a small proportion of total graduates. It is therefore not synonymous with alumni. Those with an AKC use "AKC" as post-nominal initials, and is a rare class of university-specific award for this reason. I think it is a useful category and can't see why it should be deleted. --Oldak Quill 15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So with that clarification, it's basically an "award" category. It should be deleted because such categories are almost always deleted except for the most notable awards in the world. Another way of looking at it I suppose is it sounds akin to a degree given "with high honors" or "cum laude", and categories for those types of selective degrees have also been deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: No, not really. But apart from the use you are discussing, as I attempted (apparently in vain) to make clear the AKC is also (or until relatively recently has been) a theological degree, independently and in parallel to its other use, which was not awarded by King's College itself but by the technically separate Theological Department, and a cat needs to remain for holders of the Theological AKC. It seems to occur often enough in biogs of notable English clergy to be worth keeping separate. I expect that this is coming across as nit-picking, for which I am sorry, but it reflects a fiddly history. HeartofaDog (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's OK—I'm obviously not understanding it. Oldoak refers to it as "an award given by KCL", but you say no, not really. What is its current status? It is a degree? A type of a degree? Some other degree-like status awarded by the school? Or it not like a degree at all, and more like an award? Or does it just mean people who studied in theology at the school? After reading the article again, I really can't see how this is any different than someone who studies at a school and earns a specific designation, whether it's called a degree or something else. (I'm referring to current status here—the old use sounds like it would be a separate "alumni"-type category, but the use of mixing those with those who have the designation under the new system seems a bit, well—let's just say the two groups need to be separated since they apparently refer to two different systems.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I agree with that - its current status is a KCL internal qualification that happens for historical reasons to carry its own postnominals with it. That's different from the earlier Theological AKC as a church qualification.

There seem to be 3 types of AKC: 1) people who qualified from King's Coll before the University of London existed (1829-36); 2) the Theological AKC, held by theological students, who weren't catered for by the University of London, and for whom the AKC continued to operate as a separate qualification awarded by the Theol Dept of KC, which was at least notionally a separate organisation (1836-1976) (it's possible that it was also open in a reduced form during at least some of this period to non-theologian members of KC, as it now is, so not everyone with an AKC betw those dates is necessarily a Theol AKC); and 3) students at KCL post-1976, for whom it seems to be an optional extra course which gives you three extra letters after your name. I don't think there is any idea with it of a "distinction" or "award", however (which is what I meant by "no, not really"). It's just a separate internal course, and the letters then serve to indicate in later life that your London qualification is from King's College, and not one of the less distinguished colleges.

I can't see any reason not to merge types 1 and 3 into Category:Alumni of King's College London, but holders of the Theological AKC seem to me to be probably sufficiently distinct to warrant being dealt with separately, as you say - perhaps in a sub-cat of Category:Alumni of King's College London.HeartofaDog (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent—thanks, that was a great summary for the uninformed (me). Based on what you've set out, I think I agree with your approach to the 3 categories. But obviously, this would have to be something that is done manually, article-by-article. And I think it would be tricky to keep them separated, because dolts like me would always come along and lump them all together again. I'm happy to withdraw the original nomination proposal, though I think we can keep the discussion open in case anyone else wants to contribute something. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even though the Theol Dept was technically separate to get round the degree regs, in practice it must have been so close to King's both physically and administratively that it may as well have been an integral part of it, so to be honest it prob is no big deal if the cats were merged. But the Theol AKC will come into its own when someone sorts English clergy by theological college - someone will one day - so it may as well stay! HeartofaDog (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2009 (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:Honorary doctors

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all (listify if wanted). More categories for recipients of honorary academic degrees. We've deleted these in the past in favour of lists because invariably the people who receive them are notable and defined not for receiving the honorary degree, but for the things that they did that justified the awarding of the degree. And very prominent people could have many, many categories just for honorary degrees which would lead to category clutter. See previous discussions:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_6#Category:People_who_have_recieved_honorary_degrees_from_Harvard_University

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_10#Category:Honorary_doctors_of_Anglia_Ruskin_University

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_15#Category:Honorary_Doctors_of_the_University_of_Chicago — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just happening by, and I wanted to agree that it is now well-established that Honorary degrees are not distinctive qualities that meet category guidelines. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and extensive precedent. Indifferent to a list. Otto4711 (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no reason to treat these any differently than the other similar categories that have been deleted. Cgingold (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've also nominated another 9 categories for Honorary Fellows, which I believe are comparable to these cats. (see above) Cgingold (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category may not be interesting for those who have been awarded them (as the nominator states, they are already mentionable), but it is interesting from the perspective of honorary degrees. --Oldak Quill 15:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your point correctly, that's actually better served with list articles. Cgingold (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe

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. Kbdank71 17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe to Category:São Tomé and Príncipe people

Category:Writers from São Tomé and Príncipe to Category:São Tomé and Príncipe writers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other subcategories of this nationality category use "São Tomé and Príncipe foo", and it's become fairly standard for nationality categories to use the format "COUNTRY NAME people" when there is no satisfactory "adjective" that works unambiguously. See Trinidad and Tobago people, Bosnia and Herzegovina people, Dominican Republic people, Dominica people, Antigua and Barbuda people, Saint Kitts and Nevis people, Democratic Republic of the Congo people, Republic of the Congo people, Serbia and Montenegro people, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Per this discussion. Each case should be evaluated on its own merits and trying to shoe horn every nationality into the same format doesnt always work for various reasons. Wikipedia is robust enough to accomodate these minor variations.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Mayumashu that that example is fundamentally different (apples:oranges), since this is a true nationality category and the main rationale (as I understand it) for changing the N.I. one was is that "Northern Irish" is not a true nationality. All other true nationality category forms match the "Fooian people" or "Foo people" format when "Fooian" is too awkward or unclear. If we can have consistency, my question is—why not? No sense leaving only ST&P out in the cold among the sovereign state nationalities of the world ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

exactly. Too bad it couldn t be Category:Northern Ireland people to keep this consistent but that will have to wait or, eventually, a move to Category:People from Fooia for countries/nationalities could very well be the answer. (I attempt to elaborate on this here below) Mayumashu (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that late in the discussion as a possible compromise, but I think it might have been too nuanced for a discussion that relates in some way to "The Irish Problem". :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per precedent, for now. The discussion above and the one about American sportspeople by state have me thinking that ultimately Category:People from Fooia is a better pattern than Category:Fooian people. The two can be taken to mean the same 95% of the time but not, notably, in the case of N.I., where the concept of N.I. nationality is controversial (if not non-existent), and when an adjectival adjective form does not exist, as in this case(, so we take the noun form and use it as an adjective, which is not grammatically incorrect). In the other 95% of cases, the two are be taken (by most if not nearly all) to be synonymous. Category:People from Fooia would provide the same meaning - to include both citizens, whether resident or not, and non-citizens who are expatriate/resident, but not tourists - and would be able to include properly the remaining 5%. Mayumashu (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per precedent and per nearly everything else. Occuli (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2009 (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:The Invincibles

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. Kbdank71 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Invincibles to Category:The Invincibles (cricket)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Invincibles is a disambiguation page ("The Invincibles (cricket)" is only a redirect, but it's a valid name for this category, IMO, since the team in question is almost universally known by that name). Far too ambiguous. When I first saw this category name (in a cfd below) I immediately thought of the rugby team, then the comic book superheroes. It was only when I started reading the names listed that I realised it was for the cricket team. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for disambiguation purposes for a fairly ambiguous name, in and out of sport. Also OK with delete per Occuli below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Will no longer be confusing when renamed.--Sting Buzz Me... 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – The Invincibles (cricket) is indeed a redirect, to the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. The Australians have touring cricket teams to at least one country every year (as do most cricket playing countries). I am not aware of any other such categories for a particular team in a particular year and it looks too close to overcategorisation by performance to me. (I am interested in cricket, was brought up in the UK in the 1950s and have never heard of The Invincibles. I have heard of around 1/3 of the team.) 'The Manchester United treble winning team in 1999' - not a suitable basis for a category in my view. (If it is to be renamed it should be to Category:The Australian cricket team in England in 1948.) Occuli (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very surprised indeed that someone interested in cricket has never heard of The Invincibles. As for a Manchester United equivalent, I can well imagine someone considering "The Busby Babes" as a category, which would be a far nearer comparison.Having said that, it may make far more sense to have this as a template than a category. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of the Busby Babes. Perhaps the Invincibles are recalled with less relish in the UK - losing to Australia at cricket is not unusual and the precise degree of humiliation inflicted is not usually dwelt upon. Occuli (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete as performer/performance overcategorization (I assume that one or more of these players also played on teams in countries and years other than England and 1948, which could lead to a proliferation of such categories) or Rename to Category:Australian cricket team in England in 1948 to match the main article. That is standard practice and I'm persuaded by Occuli's comments about the familiarity of the nickname. Otto4711 (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (to match use of The Invincibles articles). Do not delete, the term is widely used in Australia. Googling for "cricket invincibles" (without the quotes) throws up hits from reliable Australian news sources such as Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Australian and The Age. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Delete. Grutness' suggestion that a template would be better appealed to me, so I had a look and a template - Template:The Invincibles squad - already exists! Having a category and a template for the same thing makes no sense - the template is really nice and allows the user to easily find members of the team, so the category serves no purpose. Delete it. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Change back to Rename. I'm withdrawning my delete suggestion because, as Gnangarra points out, the category is useful because it contains some things not in the template. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. More accurate a better reflects the goal of the category.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - do not mind whether it is renamed. It is not an overcategorisation, look at all those XXX at the Year Olympics etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What purpose does the category serve when there is already a template? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category includes 8 more articles rather than just the team members, which is whats on the template. Gnangarra 10:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies, you are right. I saw the 17 subcategories, each with a player's name, and thought they were the only 17 members of the category. So the category is OK. But then, one sub-category for every player on tour is (IMHO) a serious case of overcategorisation. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - All but one of those subcategories are currently nominated for deletion below (no prizes for guessing which one isn't...) Grutness...wha? 22:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Having googled as invited I am now convinced that this was a 'legendary' tour even if its fame did not reach me personally (or perhaps it is one of many things I knew in detail in the 60s and have completely forgotten, such as Latin and German). My main concern was that Bradman (say) should not be categorised by every tour that he was on (there was the nicknamed Bodyline tour as well, certainly remembered in England). It also seems that 'The Invincibles' is a defining characteristic for each member of its squad (see any of the newspaper obituaries). There are plenty of articles in the category which are not on the template, eg the individual test matches. I do however think that while the articles Donald Bradman and Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 should be in Category:The Invincibles, Category:Donald Bradman should be removed (as most of it has nothing to do with the 1948 tour). Ditto all the other 'people' subcats. Occuli (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is the defining characteristic if this team, but if is to be renamed do it to Australian cricket team in England in 1948 type name rather than the dab title suggested

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:Pocket PC software

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. Kbdank71 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pocket PC software to Category:Windows Mobile Professional software

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although once considered synonymous, the term "Pocket PC" is simply a phased-out name for a hardware platform, and not the OS itself. The official, modern naming convention by Microsoft is "Windows Mobile Professional". Basically it's akin to having a category such as "PC software" rather than "Windows software" which makes more sense. Brianreading (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as for the comparison between PC and Windows software some of us actually still have machines and software that was made well before Windows. Others choose not to use microsft products on their machines. Gnan garra 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose microsoft isnt the only supplier of the software and neither is it the only manufacturer of the products supported by the software in this category. Gnan garra 10:21, 16 January 2009 (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:Former academics of the University of Leeds

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. Kbdank71 17:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former academics of the University of Leeds to Category:Academics of the University of Leeds

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. We don't subcategorize people by occupation into "current" or "former" categories. None of the other subcategories of Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom have this subdivision. See also WP convention on this for occupations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- --Klein zach 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. No need for past and present - too volitile.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and well-established precedent for all such university faculty categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2009 (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.