Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 8

< June 7	June 9 >

June 8

Category:US towns named after planets

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 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing unrelated subjects by shared naming characteristic is overcategorization. (Incidentally, the name of the category is inaccurate anyway. Jupiter, Florida was named after the god, if anything, not the planet. "Vesta" is an asteroid, not a planet, as is "Juno".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization by name format. Many precedents. Otto4711 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dr Sub would have enjoyed this one, as an astronomer. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorization by naming isn't a good idea. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm especially amused by the inclusion of Ceres, Vesta and Juno. Delete as WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 Juno etc used to be classified as planets before being demoted. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very interesting, perhaps worth a list, but not a noteworthy category. Debresser (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nb Vesta, Minnesota is deliberately omitted, as it was famously named after a matchbox. Occuli (talk) 12:00, 9 June 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:Schools of thought

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 13:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Schools of thought to Category:Theories

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This term is not a well defined term. It is not a proper term for this concept as used within philosophy. The category is small, so we are able to nip things in the bud before they get out of hand. This proposal is part of an on-going effort to organize and otherwise tighten up catgeories under cat:theories. See also "ideologies" discussion below. Please help reduce unnecessary duplicate categories by supporting this proposal as well as the one for ideologies. Thank you. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per school of thought, "a collection or group of people who share common characteristics of opinion or outlook of a philosophy, discipline, belief, social movement, cultural movement, or art movement." I appreciate your intent to clean up a difficult area of categorization, but forcing everything from "schools of thought" to "ideologies" under the single term "theory" seems a poor way to do it. Postdlf (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe that the term "theory" is a well defined term in general, as well as in mathematical logic (Theory (mathematical logic)). This is an actual, proper term to use, whereas "schools of thought" and "ideologies" are nothing but vernacular. I must ask that you please consider deferring to the term used by the experts who study such things professionally in academia. There is a reason for it, even if I have failed to make that clear. I have looked at hundreds of articles to which the term theory is applicable. I find that there are articles in such categories which are not theories, but those are mostly either people, or concepts. (See also my proposal to rename Category:Abstract objects.) Seriously people, a little cooperation please. (The "schools of thought" category is particularly crappy and unnecessary quite frankly, it will not be missed.)Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Postdlf. Deletion would be better than this merge, but I think the category is justified, and could be expanded considerably. If the parent cat "Theory" was removed, which it could well be, then it would escape the ever-widening grasp of the Philosophy Wikiproject (aka the nom) & he could stop worrying about it. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad you see it that way, because the effect that I was going for, as I have stated several times, is to tighten up these categories. Why exactly would you see "schools of thought" not under philosophy? Is this "ever-widening" some kind of threat or something? I am trying to categorize things appropriately and I could use some cooperation. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the schools, like Category:Art movements are not philosophical at all - not all thought is philosophical. This would be drasticly to over-"tighten" the categories. Its no good asking people to cooperate with things they think are wrong. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art movements not philosophical at all? Yeah, that's called aesthetics as you know. That's a major branch of philosophy (not some far detached field). So I would have to say that you are clearly wrong, and I am clearly right in that regard. The category theories of aesthetics has a substantial overlap with that category. Gee, I wonder what we should do about it? I guess I could dig in and decide that art movements should be merged into theories of aesthetics, and not budge. However, instead I am open to merging as it's already under aesthetics. However, if it is merged, it should go under theories, as "schools of thought" should be deleted outright. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, members of art movements are rarely aestheticians; they are practising artists. Not that aestheticians often bother with anything as concrete as specific movements. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you have missed the point entirely. Nobody cares about members. You should probably actually read the article which states in the first sentence that philosophy is actually an essential feature of an art movement. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be news to the members of most of them! Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's true! It would be news to most of them because that is historically the way it has always been. The artist at the time of the creation of an art work does not realize the meaning of it, art critics (along with guess who? "philosophers of art") come along after the fact and write the language describing the meaning of the art. The canonical, well known example is Warhol displaying a Brillo Box causing the "end of art." Did Warhol set out with that in mind? No. This is nothing usual or obscure. The articles are about the theory, not the person or any particular art piece.

The philosophy project should concern itself with the philosophical thought and thinkers, not the things, people or works they are thinking about. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No artists, or artworks. However "concepts" and "theories" are fair game. --Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cool things down a bit, Pontiff Greg Bard. It looks like you and Johnbod have a disagreement, but let's not venture into incivility-land. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you are overreacting. I have even offered a conciliatory gesture in tolerating a merge of "art movements" with "theories of aesthetics" (provided it remained under theories) even though I am very sure myself that it should remain consistent with the rest of the "theories." I would welcome any help in organizing the whole "theories" category tree in general. Any thoughts G.O.? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None—I'm thoughtless. No really, it's all a bit over my head. Not that that usually stops me, granted. I've studied legal philosophy a bit but everything else philosophy-related is avoided by me, or at least avoidable. (A little joke there at the end for the legally-minded among us.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose' these are very different things, they shouldn't be merged. --Buridan (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As these are very different concepts, although there is a theory from a school of though that feels differently. Alansohn (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Postdlf. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the result of this proposal would be to have Platonism and Placebo as uneasy bedpartners. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No "Placebo" is an example of an article which should be otherwise categorized, and this reorganizing helps to bring that into sharp relief. A placebo would be more of a concept in medicine than a theory.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These are quite different things. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 11 June 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:Johnny Bravo

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 with recreation permissible if other articles are found or written. Kbdank71 13:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category with little or no growth potential. Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do the monkey with me! Too small a category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were apparently 67 episodes over 4 seasons. That's considerable room for growth, isn't there? What if editors start creating articles on each episode, as we have for other animated series? Admittedly, it's been around since 2007 with no sign of that happening. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't gonna happen. Where would we find the sources for episodes of the series? Spongebob's more than 10 seasons old and none of its episodes have articles as far as I know. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe WP:OC#SMALL applies, as there is potential for growth. As for it never happening, well, all it takes is ~~one person with no life~~ one committed editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand how? With what? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, any number of things, I guess. The main article has a section on something called the JBVO series, if sufficiently expanded that could be a separate article. And then there was a DVD release: I suppose that might evolve into an article if someone cared enough to make one. I think WP:IMPERFECT applies here. You're asking me to tell right here and now how many Johnny Bravo related articles there are going to be, and when. I have no clue. I say only that I think there is potential for growth and the category does not meet WP:OC#SMALL . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were sufficient reliable sources to write a separate article on the DVD release and JBVO, that's still a grand total of four articles. IMPERFECT doesn't apply IMHO as that's about articles, not categories. If there were a lot of JB articles that were poorly written and it was too difficult to navigate between them without the category, then fine, have the category. That's not the case here. Even if someone were to write articles on all of the episodes, that would necessitate Category:Johnny Bravo episodes, which does not require this category to parent it. Otto4711 (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriately organizes the subject within larger structures for a category has ample growth potential. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To transplant and paraphrase a comment from a similar CFD: It's not enough to say that expansion is limitless in its theoretical possibilities. The prospect of expansion has to be reasonably certain and/or immediate — for instance, we know that there will be more Category:Presidents of the United States in the future. We know that there will be more Category:Britney Spears albums. But if the best you can say is that there could be new [Johnny Bravo articles] someday, solely on the grounds that anything is possible but without any degree of actual certainty as to what will happen, then that's simply not good enough to meet the "prospect of expansion" criterion. If some massive new collection of [Johnny Bravo]-related merchandise actually hits the market in the future, then we can recreate this, but until that actually happens, the onus is on you to prove the expandability by showing actual evidence of actual topics that can actually be added to the category now, not on anybody else to prove that somebody won't introduce a new [Johnny Bravo]-branded fruit drink in 2057. Otto4711 (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Otto. The keepers are crazy by not providing any evidence that the category will grow, and I certainly hope that a category with only one item in it is not closed as a keep just because of reasoning that's thinner than a sheet of paper. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good to know that I am not only wrong: I'm crazy. Thank you, Dr. Freud. ;-) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're all crazy. There just isn't any particular reason to feel too strongly about deleting or keeping any category purely on the basis of smallness. It's not inherently a bad category due to any flaws such as subjectivity, blah blah blah, but it's just not particularly useful at present. Obviously if it does grow significantly, it would just be recreated, so there isn't any real point to going out of your way to defend it in its present condition either. So make love, not war, dig? Postdlf (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it dug. And for the record I have nothing but respect for TenPointHammer, his otters, his various bats, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to template -- These are a much better naviation tool for such things. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 11 June 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:Bennett S. LeBow

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 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with unclear growth potential. Lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 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 associated with e-mail controversies

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - trivial basis for categorization, also overly vague and broad. Given the prevalence of electronic communications, it will probably soon be exceedingly rare that a controversy doesn't include some email component or other. Otto4711 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep maybe so, but for the moment there is nothing trivial about this cat for people whose careers have vanished overnight like Damian McBride. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; too vague to be useful. Postdlf (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly the name could be better, as these should be controversies caused by emails, rather than having a loose connection with emails. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename I think I understand wht the category is trying to capture and agree that it is defining, but we can do better on the name. Alansohn (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Associated with" is simply too vague. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category is useful. As for aspirations that there's a better name, consider the scores of other categories beginning with "People associated with." Rammer (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest problem is with "e-mail controversies," but what other "associated with...controversies" categories do we have? Postdlf (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:People by association. A messy hodge podge of a parent category that needs a good going over. Otto4711 (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rammer has been the driving force in populating this category. The problem with this category, that it has nothing in the way of any sort of reasonable inclusion criteria, is amply illustrated by a number of the choices for inclusion. Chris Rose (journalist), included because he wrote some columns "satirizing" an email controversy while having no direct connection to any such scandal personally. James Gill (columnist), included because of the unsourced assertion that writing about an email controversy is one of his "favorite topics". Abby DeWald, included because she announced that she married her female partner via email (sending an emailed wedding announcement is an "email controversy"? In what universe?) Interestingly, her wife is not included in the category. Presumably the other half of the couple would also be involved in the "controversy" of the email announcement, if the categorization had any logic behind it. And so on and so on. It appears that Rammer simply searched for articles that included the word "email" and added it to the category with little or no regard to facts or context. Otto4711 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time Out - Those are astute points. The standard spelling is "e-mail" with the hyphen, and that is the spelling which is preferred in Wikipedia. Searches for an article on "email" go through an "e-mail" redirect. Now, as Otto4771 has observed, there's a "Category:People by association" page. At present it lists 32 such "associated with" categories. But there are many others. For example, put your I-beam into the search window and type in "Category:People associated with" and you'll see that, from the top of the alphabet, people are associated with Aberdeen, Aberdeen F. C. [Football Club], Aberystwyth, . . . far more than the 32 categories on "Category:People by association." And yes, there's a category for "People associated with Hurricane Katrina" (politicians included) although it's not clear how you could live anywhere between Tampa and Yucatan and not be associated with that. I created the e-mail category not only because of the e-mail controversies associated with New Orleans city government but also to bring together some situations which may be useful to students researching the insecurities in e-mail communication. If an article doesn't belong in there, remove it. I won't feel offended if the whole category gets the boot, but perhaps wikers, myself included, need to bestow less fascination on "associated with" categories. Rammer (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that categories for people by association are problematic and should be considered carefully before creation. At least with an institution that concretely exists like a city, a football club, etc. there are easily defined boundaries (no one who's never set foot in Aberdeen is likely to end up in an "associated with Aberdeen" category). The problem is when categories try to capture associations with something inchoate like "controversies" or "scandals" and the like. Categories are generally not well-suited to capture these sorts of associations. Otto4711 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "associated with" has problems; Category:People involved in e-mail controversies might be better, or Category:Senders and recipients of compromising e-mails - much tighter. It would have to be defining for the individual, but for some caught up in scandals it is their only notable act. See Shelley Stephenson Midura. The spammers should be in a sub-cat, linked to the spam tree. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midura is a member of the New Orleans city council and as such is likely to meet the standard of WP:POLITICIAN regardless of her involvement in this so-called "controversy" ("unflattering descriptions" of another person in email constitutes a "controversy"?) If she were not an elected official and her name hit the papers because of this situation it is likely that her article would be deleted per WP:BLP1E. The same would go for any other otherwise non-notable person caught up in such a "controversy". Otto4711 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Unknown and non-self-explanatory—and therefore arbitrary—inclusionary criteria. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly defined category. Many of the controversies have little or nothing in common. Some are sex scandals, some are hacking incidents, and others are efforts to hide public records. The only parent categories are "People by association" and "e-mail" which makes this pretty much a trivial intersection. Do we have categories for other controversies by the media through which they were carried out and/or exposed? Where is Category:People involved in telegram controversies? -MrFizyx (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrFizyx. This is, in reality, a category for people associated with controversies involving e-mail, which is much too loose a collection to merit a category. The nature and results of a controversy can be defining, but the methods of transmitting information relevant to the controversy are not. Except in cases where e-mail itself (and not the text of e-mails) is the main focus of the controversy (such as in the case of David Kernell, see Sarah Palin email hack), I see no practical difference between this category and Category:People associated with letter controversies or Category:People associated with telephone controversies. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:02, 24 June 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:Ideologies

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 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ideologies to Category:Theories

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category causes confusion with Category:Theories. Invariably all "ideologies" can be expressed in terms of being a "theory". The term "ideology" implies that the adherent believes and acts without reflecting (i.e., its pejorative). This proposal is part of an on going effort to organize and otherwise tighten up articles under the theories category. I propose the same for political and economic as well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So to be clear about your last sentence, are you proposing renames for Category:Political ideologies & Category:Economic ideologies (both sub-categories of Category:Ideologies and, it would then follow, also Category:Books by ideology (another sub-category)? AllyD (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not formally proposed it, however, depending on the outcome of this proposal, it seems like the next move. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - an ideology is a set of theories or ideas. They are not synonymous. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invariably "sets of theories" can be expressed in terms of being a theory. The fact that all cases in the Wikipedia have a title indicates that they are universally called by one name: therefore it is still a theory. Please observe a few things A) The ideologies category is still small, we should nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand. B) The political ideologies have already gotten out of hand indicated by the existence of Category:Political ideologies, Category:Political theories, Category:Forms of government, Category:Political systems, Category:Political philosophy and Category:Political culture. Please let's take the first step to sanity with some consolidation. I have been working on all categorizing all kinds of theories in WP. I have observed a great deal of confused, spread out categories. Organizing under theories is the most logical. Don't get me started on "movements" and "terminology" either. It's a mess. Please help.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this seems like a very poor fit, and a likely equivocation of what "theory" means. Postdlf (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, a "theory" is well defined, and any ideology will necessarily be expressible in terms of being a theory.

Comment - Please also observe that "theories" is the best starting point for these articles as "being a theory" is the least that we can say for sure about these articles. Did anyone ever actually believe in X-ism? It doesn't matter it's still a theory although not necessarily an ideology or belief system. Did anyone actually follow X-ism? It doesn't matter, it is still at the very least a theory although not necessarily a "movement" or "system". If it happens that these -isms, -sis's and -ologies also qualify as "movements" or otherwise, they can be moved over or the appropriate category can be added. Having an ideologies category screws things up for my efforts to organize things. Please help. At least offer some alternative proposals to tighten things up. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...nor does ideology = theory. Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - because of the implication that theories are ideologies. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the merge is to theories. the implication is that ideologies can all be expressed in terms of being a theory. "Ideology" implies that someone doesn't think about a decision, but rather its kind of in between conscious and subconscious. I think that's unnecessarily pejorative.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Invariably all "ideologies" can be expressed in terms of being a "theory"." is a fallacy. Yes, practically anything in the world can be sourced to a theory or two, so what? It's not a defining factor. Ideologies may be completely irrational, in these cases cool theory is the least appropriate choice. Nationalism of any kind may be backed by quasi-theories, but they are secondary to the "voice of the blood". NVO (talk)

No it's not a fallacy. I don't know what you think a theory is, because there is no such thing as a "quasi-theory." It's either a theory or it isn't. Theories can be empirical or non-empirical, and well supported and poorly supported, but not quasi. In any case of irrational theories we are better able to identify and categorize them too if we merge this category.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple. Example: Anti-semitism is an old and well-researched ideology. Whack the Jew, save the world. Some anti-semite theorist invented Nurnberg Laws, others wrote the Protocols... but your ordinary antisemite from the streets isn't aware of any of these "theories" and the "theories" behind them. He just wants to whack and have a beer. This ideology is irrational, perhaps imprinted in childhood, and needs no theories to exist. NVO (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- They are not the same thing at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 11 June 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:Diplomatic conflict

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 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only one page and as it is already served by two other categories, there's no real reason to keep it imo. Oc t ane ^{[improve me?]} 08.06.09 2042 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:37, 10 June 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:Invader Zim

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 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small, no hope of expansion. Contains only three articles and a template that's at TFD. And why couldn't Twinkle find the target page again? Why does it keep flubbing up CFDs? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:47, 8 June 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:Jewish fashion designers

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 13:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is one of two "typed" subcategories of Category:Fashion designers — the only other is currently Category:LGBT fashion designers.

The occupation naming convention is by nationality. Combining with ethnicity (for example, Category:Jewish-American fashion designers) would require:

The heritage may be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone, where this heritage is thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.

Hard to imagine that there were fashion designers that could only work because they were Jews, or there is a particularly Jewish fashion design. Otherwise, it's not notable.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no encyclopedic relationship between "Jewish" and "fashion designer". Otto4711 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. It makes me proud as a Jew that there are Jewish fashion designers, but we don't really need this category. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. Debresser (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Jews have long been and still are very prominent in the area and business of fashion design. Indeed, the fashion business is centered in a few large cities in the USA and Europe and Jews are definitely found working in disproportionate numbers therein. Similarly, some of the most famous and successful fashion designers in the past few decades have been Jewish (Klein, Lauren, Cole, Jacobs, Fürstenberg, and many more). --Wassermann (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wassermann raises an important point, I think. There is a long and distinctive involvement of Jews in the so-named shmatah business. I'm in the process of adding to the article on Saint Laurent Boulevard on the historic Jewish quarter in Montreal, which was in large part built around the garment trade, as was the case in other major cities. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I think an article could be written on the unique role of Jews in the garment trade. I'm not ready to tackle that: my goal is to continue expanding the Montreal article, first. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the above comments, I'll get off the fence and say Keep to this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above argument for a category (and an article) seems plausible. --Kiz o r 07:41, 16 June 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:Fire disasters involving barricaded escape routes

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete; a proposal to change the name may be appropriate at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overly specific, overly narrow categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator Can you see just how many articles are in there? That should demonstrate that the category is not narrow or specific. The category was created as a result of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire, where it was decided that there were too many articles for a 'see also' and that a category would be more appropriate. Unless you seriously believe the entire contents of the category (now at 29 articles!) can be listed on each and every aticle... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They can be with a list. If you agree with that as a direction, I'll help you set the list up to include all of the key information. You can then populate the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess we could lump them all into Category:Situations where things happened which would be far less specific but also far less useful. This category describes exactly what it contains and business owners seem to never learn this lesson. I can provide dozens more, but the Iroquois Theater Fire in 1903 is described as "Corpses were piled 10 bodies or 7 feet (2.1 m) high, around the doors and windows, having clambered over each other only to succumb to the flames, smoke and gases". Nearly a century later, the Ozone Disco Club fire where only 162 died had "Many of the bodies were discovered along the corridor leading to the only exit, piled up waist-high. Quezon City officials were quoted as saying that the club's emergency exit had been blocked by a new building next door, and that there was no proper fire exit. It was also reported that the exit had been locked from the outside by the club's guards, who had thought that a riot had taken place." This is exactly what categories are intended to provide to Wikipedia readers: a means to effectively navigate through articles that share a common defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are we confident that "barricaded" is the best word? That doesn't seem to apply to simple locked doors, and suggests intentionality rather than the negligence or indifference that may have been present in some cases. Maybe "obstructed" or "blocked" instead? Postdlf (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "obstructed" came to mins, though even that is not perfect. Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Barricaded is only one way to create the problem. Being blocked by a new building next door is very different. The entries here clearly call for more information to describe the reason for the disaster. Again this is a place where categories fail and lists are the much better solution. To respect the FA review, the category should be replaced with a see also to the list in the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm open both to renaming and to replacing with a list, it doesn't solve the name issue to simply listify. How would we title the list? We still have to thresh out name if we go down that route. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about that and there is no really great names popping up. Maybe List of fire disasters resulting from mass entrapment? It better describes the situation in more general terms. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about List of fires with deaths resulting from blocked exits? There is no need for the word "disasters" and "blocked" encompasses any type of blockage, whether that be chained doors or a new building. Otto4711 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this category should exclude disasters where there were too few exits. Having too few exits produces the same results, especially when this causes the people to block the exit. If we go with your name then we would also need List of fires with deaths resulting from too few exits. Then we can use both in some cases. I think more general here is the wiser choice. How about List of fires with deaths resulting from inadequate exits? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Inadequate" is subjective. Otto4711 (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, most disasters have multiple contributing factors, which is why I chose 'involving' rather than 'resulting from'; while most or all would have been nonfatal but for this factor, there are still other aspects at play. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not experienced with categories, but do not understand how this can be claimed to be overly specific when its contents demonstrate very well that it is a meaningful, useful categorization. Neither how it can be overly narrow when it clearly offers a wealth of information to those reading about an important, specialized topic, and no broader categorization was proposed. Could someone enlighten me? --Kizor 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Barricaded escape routes' is overly specific and very restrictive. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That depends on how you interpret 'barricaded', which in turn comes from how you define a 'barrier', although I accept that it is too ambiguous. Actually, just ignore this comment, it makes little difference ;) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No more specific than thousands of other cats. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it is very specific, but fires to which it applies are particularly notorious, because they may result in numerous deaths. The problem first hit the headlines many years ago (1970s?) with a fire in a dance hall in Grenoble. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too specific - are we going to have every various possible variation on fire disasters "involving" something. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:42, 19 June 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:Wikify from June 2009

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 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikify from June 2009 to Category:Articles that need to be wikified from June 2009

Nominator's rationale: to fit the parent directory Category:Articles that need to be wikified. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This proposal includes all other monthly subcategories of Category:Articles that need to be wikified that currently exist or will be created from now on. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alternatively we could shorten both the name of the parent category and of the monthly categories to Category:Articles in need of wikifying and Category:Articles in need of wikifying from June 2009. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...except that that would be bad grammar. Category:Articles in need of wikification, maybe. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose long complicated name -- this is a hidden administrative/maintenance category. Forget grammar, it should be short, simple, and sorted. Better "Wikify as of 2009-06" or "Wikify 2009-06" or best "2009-06 wikify".
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This opinion goes very bad with the other 48 (!) related catgories, see Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. Not to mention the strange dateformat. I think the second proposal is short enough. Debresser (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There aren't any "related" categories. There are categories from various projects that you renamed similarly without discussion, and you were chastized at WP:ANI and elsewhere. If we need a vestige of consistency, we must follow the recommendations and practices here (Category:CfD 2009-06) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions ("Choose category names that are ... independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.") No need for subcategories that recapitulate the parent category name. "A foolish consistency...."
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your comments do not make sense and are partialy misleading.

These categories are all related in that they all are Wikipedia maintenance categories.
I was not chastised, not at wp:ani nor elsewhere. I do seem to remember you receiving a third-level warning for incivility. And you don't seem to have understood its point very well, now did you?
Since you mentioned that atavism, I'll Cfr that one too. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote from the instructions page to "choose category names that are ... independent of the way a category is connected to other categories" is a misunderstanding of yours. You don't read the sentence properly. The full quote reads "Choose category names that are not ambiguous, able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories." Meaning that the name of a category should clarify its content in a way that is unambiguous even to one who doesn't know the place of that category in the category tree. See the example there. Debresser (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you are having some English as a second language issues here.

There are hundreds of Wikipedia maintenance categories. They are not "related" by a state of being.
Samples:
1. "If you had let CFD know about the changes you were about to make to the CFD administrative categories, you wouldn't have had consensus to make the change in the first place. You don't work on those categories. The people that do didn't think there is a problem."
2. "These are used by only a small number of admins who are happy with the current names. The names chosen are not correct as is demonstrated by the adding of a third variation of name to the mix. This is not the place to resolve category naming issues."
3. "... nothing here requires immediate administrator intervention."
4. And I wrote several choice words....
  - Wikipedia:Be bold#Non-article namespaces
    "Although it is acceptable to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces."
    Finally, calling for sanctions against administrators ... for properly reverting after a short discussion at the proper place is an example that would lead an RfC against you. As would ad hominem attacks calling citations of your failure to comply with policy "personal attacks", as you did here today. [emphasis added]
5. Note that your very bringing the baseless WP:ANI was a form of incivility, but we are too polite to slap templates on your talk page, as you do to the rest of us....
That is currently in the process of being rejected.
The explicit meaning described by the example is that categories should not include pieces of their parent's names, so that they can be re-categorized or category sorted easily. I've been familiar with these categories and processes for over 4 years, and that has never meant (nor previously been interpreted) as you suggest.

Enough said.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are noted, but none address the question of my nomination. Except for the last, which - I am sorry to disappoint you - is a matter of "having some English as a first language issues here". Debresser (talk) 17:19, 14 June 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:Justice Holmes cases

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 13:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, for the same arguments as the recent CFD for the now-deleted, identically structured Category:Cases involving Justice Cardozo. Categorizing cases by every justice who participated in them (as this apparently intends to do, not simply cases for which Holmes wrote the majority) could lead to as many as nine such categories on every SCOTUS case, more if this is expanded to include appellate-level judges and district court judges. Significant cases in which Holmes participated can be listed in his article or in a list article; the parent category for this, Category:Case law lists by judge, clearly was intended for list articles, not categories. Current SCOTUS justices already have list articles for all of their opinions by term for recent years (e.g., 2004 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia) that will ideally expand to cover all justices.

If this is kept, it obviously needs to be renamed both to disambiguate the name and to clarify what should be included. The same well-meaning contributor who started this category also created several for British judges; I have no opinion at this time as to whether those categories are subject to the same deletion arguments. Postdlf (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the issues with the Cardozo category apply here as well. Otto4711 (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wik idea 08:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, but I disagree with the issues with Cardozo too. We could alter the name, so "Justice Holmes judgments" to limit the number of cases caught. Wouldn't that be an appropriate way to meet your objection (rather than total deletion)? It's really useful for users to look at the range of judgments given by an individual. Both in the case of Cardozo and Holmes you have developing, through the cases, a whole approach to a given area of law. Both for instance pioneered a fault based approach to tort in US jurisprudence. They also carried particular theories on the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature. Very often textbooks can't grasp this, but it's highly useful and precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia is uniquely equipped to do. Wik idea 17:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what you describe is very useful information for Wikipedia to have, but that categories are not the way to present that information. A category just mindlessly lists articles under a particular classification without any elaboration. Even if you limit the category to Category:Cases with majority opinions by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., as I believe you intend, this would be less objectionable than the category in its current form, but would not go any length towards explaining Holmes' jurisprudence (which was inconsistent) or his particular role in this cases. This is particularly true since Holmes is often more remembered for his dissenting opinions. If you do just want to group together every case in which Holmes contributed any opinion, list articles can accomplish this without burdening the case law articles themselves with multiple justice categories, and such lists can be annotated and organized. Article text can summarize jurisprudence and highlight information. Categories merely classify and group; they do not explain. Postdlf (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right they don't explain, but categories are useful, aren't they? I take the approach that if it could be useful it should not be deleted. It doesn't HARM anybody, does it. If it did, it'd be different, but I think loads of people will find this useful. It's also a lot easier to insert categories than draw up a list page for judgments. Categories are automatic, and go in alphabetical order, whereas a list might go chronologically, etc. Come on, I know I'm persuading you! I bet you'll end up finding this useful too. :) Wik idea 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, because this category is probably 99% synonymous with "United States Supreme Court cases, 1902-1932," it's not a meaningful grouping, nor is it useful to understanding Holmes or those Supreme Court cases. Postdlf (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's why I cautiously suggested "change the name". If it's ones where only Holmes writes the opinion then it won't be synonymous, and it will be a meaningful grouping. Again, there's no HARM in this, so why insist it be deleted? Wik idea 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And to be honest, I'm not that interested personally in constitutional cases. It's the civil cases that really interest me, and the Cardozo category: that's partly why I think the categories will be useful there, because there aren't equivalent lists for contract, tort, etc. It's very, very easy to see that there is no harm in anything I've done. You shouldn't be deleting it, should you? Wik idea 08:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both sides have good points, but I ultimately agree that we could better represent the info on a list page -- "List of Holmes dissents" or "List of Holmes opinions" or something. Such a list would be accessible through the article on the particular judge, which is the natural place you'd go for that kind of information. If we're looking for a consistent way for caselaw articles to display the opinion's author, we might do that by creating a "caselaw template" like the one used on US Supreme Court cases. (If access to the judge's list-of-opinions is very important, the template might include an "Other Opinions" field beside the author's name, or something like that?) We should get that underway soon, I guess -- I'd be willing to help. Agradman (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf. Not the way to organize U.S. case law. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 14 June 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:GameCube emulators

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 13:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion

This category has just one page, so there's not much to categorize here.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:27, 8 June 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.

Revolutionary Socialist Party (India)

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 13:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Revolutionary Socialist Party politicians to Category:Revolutionary Socialist Party (India) politicians

Propose renaming Category:Mass organisations of the Revolutionary Socialist Party to Category:Mass organisations of the Revolutionary Socialist Party (India)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Revolutionary Socialist Party alone is ambiguous. Disambiguate to match Revolutionary Socialist Party (India) and Category:Revolutionary Socialist Party (India). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Occuli (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Revolutionary Socialist Party (India) is hardly populated and doesn't need sub-categories at all. Up-merge both. Drawn Some (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 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.

Current and former Indian and Pakistani politicians

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/merge per nom. Kbdank71 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Rajya Sabha Members

Suggest merging Category:Former Rajya Sabha Members to Category:Rajya Sabha Members and rename to Category:Rajya Sabha members

Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename. Per convention to not subcategorise politicians by "current" or "former" status. While we're at it we can fix the capitalisation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator as below. Can't these be grouped together? Debresser (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and precedent. Occuli (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current and former members of the National Assembly of Pakistan

Suggest merging Category:Former Members of the National Assembly of Pakistan to Category:Members of the National Assembly of Pakistan

Suggest merging Category:Current Members of the National Assembly of Pakistan to Category:Members of the National Assembly of Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per convention to not subcategorise politicians by "current" or "former" status. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator as below. Can't these be grouped together? Debresser (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and precedent. Occuli (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current and former members of the Senate of Pakistan

Suggest merging Category:Current Members of the Senate of Pakistan to Category:Members of the Senate of Pakistan

Suggest merging Category:Former Members of the Senate of Pakistan to Category:Members of the Senate of Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per convention to not subcategorise politicians by "current" and "former" status. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator as below. Can't these be grouped together? Debresser (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and precedent. Occuli (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former District Nazims of Pakistan

Suggest merging Category:Former District Nazims of Pakistan and Category:District Nazims of Pakistan and renaming to Category:District nazims of Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename. Per convention to not subcategorise politicians by "former" or "current" status. While we're at it we can fix the improper capitalisation of a common noun. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and precedent. Occuli (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the merge to "District nazims of Pakistan." The word Nazim should start from capital as it is an important political title. 58.165.99.54 (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's essentially equivalent to something like "mayor". We don't capitalize it when used in the abstract because it's not a proper noun. It's also not like President of Pakistan, which is often capitalized simply because there is only one President at a time. At any given time there are multiple nazims in the country, so it's not the type of word that gets capitalized unless used as a title, as in "Nazim Bhutto". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and precedent. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 16 June 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:Speaker of National Assembly, Pakistan

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 13:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Speaker of National Assembly, Pakistan to Category:Speakers of the National Assembly of Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Pluralise and reformat name to match National Assembly of Pakistan. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with pluralise. Reformat also sounds good, unless there would be precedents against. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Occuli (talk) 14:12, 8 June 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:Cities and towns in Azad Kashmir

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 13:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Cities and towns in Azad Kashmir to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Azad Kashmir

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
Support per nom. Occuli (talk) 14:12, 8 June 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:Cities in the Great Lakes Area

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Cities in the Great Rift Valley for now, mainly because the "area" is not clearly defined. However, similar concerns might also be relevant to the target (Category:Cities in the Great Rift Valley), but that would need to be addressed in a new CfD. If someone creates a category for cities or settlements that are actually on the lakes, that would also have to be addressed in a new CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities in the Great Lakes Area to Category:Cities in the African Great Lakes area - if it is actually needed. Ian Cairns (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename Great Lakes is ambiguous if applied to Africa. Use existing disambig formula. Ian Cairns (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great Lakes could more readily mean the ones in North America (ie, the largest collections of fresh water in the world that isn't an icesheet) 70.29.210.130 (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – firstly African Great Lakes is not well-defined (see the article), and 'area' adds a second level of confusion - the city Lilongwe is about 60 miles from Lake Malawi, so it may or may not be in the 'area' of a lake which may or may not be one of the lakes in question. Secondly I am not sure whether it makes sense to group cities in different countries via a shared geographical feature. An alternative such as 'Cities in the Great Rift Valley' seems to suffer from the same 2 problems. (We do have Category:Settlements on the Rhine.) Occuli (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless a reason for being exists for the category and is mentioned in all the included articles. Drawn Some (talk)
- Not necessarily; category deletion is not normally indicated if article categorization is valid, irrespective of category topic being mentioned in the article. It would be nice if categorization didn't outpace article copywriting, to be sure. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Settlements on the African Great Lakes per African Great Lakes. Occuli's points are valid, but this can be rescoped as a perfectly logical subcategory of Category:Lakeshore settlements. "Cities" has been deprecated for such categories, v. CfD 2008/Sep/14 Lakeshore cities and towns, and the redefinition would also require the removal of the following: Busia, Kenya, Busia, Uganda, Gatuna, Iganga, Kaliro, Kamuli, Kigali, Kira Town, Luweero, Masaka, Mbarara, Mpigi, Mityana, Mubende, Nakasongola, and Rakai. -choster (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Settlements on Lake Kivu would also be a subcategory.-choster (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that there is Category:Cities in the Great Rift Valley, parent of Category:Settlements on Lake Kivu (assuming, boldly or rashly, that settlements are cities). There could just be subcats Category:Settlements on Lake XXX for the various XXXs. Occuli (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to something like 'Category:Settlements in the African Great Lakes area'. However, I'm thinking that there are cities within the African Great Lakes area, and towns and villages on the lakes themselves. Would there be a difference between the categorization of a city to an area vs the categorization of a town or village to an area? Meaning that if a city is an hour from the lake, it would go in the category, but a town or village might have to be on the lake or nearby on a inflowing/outflowing river? To be categorized? --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- upmerge to Category:Cities in the Great Rift Valley -- and I'd support a rename of Category:Cities in the Great Rift Valley to Settlements....
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:36, 14 June 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:Main topic classifications

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Main topic classifications to Category:Articles by topic

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Makes more sense. —Ruud 01:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Main topic classifications is a top-level category. I think this needs an RfC. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more sense to whom. The current name is more precise and descriptive. The new one would become a dumping ground for any topical scheme. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suggested rename does not seem an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about Category:Classification by major topic or Category:Main topic classification? —Ruud 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No better, imo - I don't really see a problem with the existing name. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A category such as Category:Books is in plural, because is contains multiple articles about or related to books. In this case, however, the category itself is the classification (containing multiple "main topics".) I may not be a native speaker, but use of plural here seems kind of awkward. The current naming is also inconsistent with categories like Category:Books by author, Category:Books by date, etc. —Ruud 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominated or simpler Category:Topics -- either would intersect well with various "by topic" subcategories. The current name is awkward, and feels more like English as a second language. "Classifications" plural should be a set or list, each element would be "Applied sciences topic classifications", "Culture topic classifications", etc.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:32, 14 June 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:Title cards

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 as empty. Kbdank71 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Title cards to Category:Television program logos

Nominator's rationale: To me, this newly-created, hardly-populated category seems redundant of its parent category Category:Television program logos. — TAnthony^Talk 01:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's narrower than the program logos category, in that not all presentations of logos are title cards; a title card is a particular frame from within the television program itself that displays the show's title/logo on-screen. Which is not to say that this distinction necessarily makes this category useful... Postdlf (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but from what I can tell, most items in Category:Television program logos are in fact screencaps of the title card ... but either way, as you note, I'm not so sure the differentiation is notable enough to have two categories, even if they were equally populated.— TAnthony^Talk 21:44, 8 June 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.