Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 27

< February 26	February 28 >

February 27[edit]

Category:Baltic history[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The intention (I think) is Category:History of the Baltic states but I don't see much use for that either. I suppose it could be a container category for Category:History of Estonia, Category:History of Latvia and Category:History of Lithuania but I see no advantage in this extra layer. Note that History of the Baltic States is a disambiguation page pointing to the three national articles. That's a pretty good sign that Category:History of the Baltic states would be an unwelcome addition. Pichpich (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- the sole content is already in Category:Baltic states, otherwise I would have voted for merger with that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG. Steam5 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2012 (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:African-American people[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:African-American people to Category:American people

Nominator's rationale: African Americans should not be separated from the main American people category. Americans are Americans. By separating out African Americans from the American people category, we are giving the impression that they are not true Americans. I know that is not the intent, but it is how it looks. So this category should be merged into the American people category. Noting which people are African American would be an acceptable compromise. SMP0328. (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend all the sub-categories to be merged too, then they should be added to this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this implicit in the proposal? Do I have to create a long list of African American subcategories to be merged into American categories? SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some historically based racially distinct subcategories may be proper, but I believe that generally there should be none. So I would like the above general subcategory to be merged into the above general category. SMP0328. (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the rationale is flawed. "By separating out African Americans from the American people category, we are giving the impression that they are not true Americans" is not the case. Oculi (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and duck barrage of WP:SNOWballs Possibly some subcats could be criticized as non-notable, but the overall distinction is surely defensible as historically significant. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to think of this as an uphill battle. SMP0328. (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, that's not gonna happen.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines are very clear in WP:EGRS. We do not classify race. Well, except that we do and it goes on to list African Americans as a specific exception. That actually doesn't help at all; never mind. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's premise is wrong: this category does not "separate out African Americans from the American people category". That's because African-American categories are structured in accordance with WP:CATGRS, so that they are never the final rung in a category tree, and no article is removed from another category to be placed in an African-American one. There is a further problem in that the nominator wants to keep some of the sub-categories for historical purposes; so why remove their container category, rather than identifying the problematic subcats?
As to the claim that African-American is a racial rather than an ethnic grouping, I'm not so sure. There is a case to be made for that approach, but ethnicity is a somewhat fuzzy concept and it seems to me to be quite reasonable to call this an ethnic group, even if it is also a racial one.
The 2 previous CFD discussions linked from the category's talk page, in May 2008 and October 2008 are both about the naming of this category rather whether to keep it. So I hope that this discussion will be allowed to run its course, and spared a WP:SNOW closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ethnic groups and WikiProject United States have been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I approve of SMP0328's sentiment, given that people earn degrees in African American studies, I think that it should stay. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The USA contains many ethnicities. This is one of the larger ones. Strictly to conform to categories elsewhere it should be "American people of African descent", but the term is so well known that any change would be counterproductive. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename and creation of two subcategories. Keeping with the renaming of the category of Asian Americans and other such American ethnicities and races the category should be renamed as indicated by Peterkingiron to American people of African descent. Additionally due to the statistical and cultural difference between recent African immigrants and those whose ethnicity goes back to the period of slavery there should be two separate subcategories for each group. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My frustration with ethnic/racial/religious cats is not that their existence offends me but that they are applied to every possible bio article. For instance, Barry Goldwater is categorized in American people of Jewish descent even though he was Episcopalian, so he is also in that category. While technically true, he was not notable for either of these things. Unless someone is known for being the first African American to accomplish something or is known for being a civil rights leader or scholar in Africana studies or the like, I don't think it's notable that they're African American or appropriate to categorize them as such. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole of both WP category trees for people by ethnicity and people by ancestry should be gotten rid of, both for a lack of sources and because of the impossible nature of determining ethnic membership for an individual, but in a nomination that lists several of the categories and not just one. 'African American' does seem to be considered an ethnicity, by some anyway, more so than does "Irish American" for instance and far, far more so than "English American", which is not an ethnicity but an ancestry, but who, even amongst sociologists, has the authority to say to what degree an individual subscribes to a particular culture to belong to it (that is to be of its ethnicity)? The very few sources that there for the ancestry and ethnicity of notable people, biographies, etc., simply report the self-identity of the person they are writing about or do what we all can do and look at a picture of an American who has dark skin pigmentation, know they have family roots to where in the U.S. there was an influx of people of sub-Saharan African descent at some point, and then (most often correctly, but without hard proof) say therefore that the person is 'African American', if one defines the term to mean of full or partial sub-Saharan African "racial lineage" (irrespective of language use, religious affiliation, or other cultural features that tend to help indicate ethnicity). We should be basing WP categorization of any sort only on the professional or legalistic determination (even if only implied), as available in publications (to state the obvious about why OR is necessary to forbid), and where none exists we should avoid categories. Mayumashu (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to broaden the nomination. This is the first time I've made this type of nomination, so I don't know all of the categories and subcategories that could be included. SMP0328. (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the nominator likes it or not, "African-American" is encyclopedically relevant as a notable cultural grouping, with extensive sociological and academic research to support the fact that they constitute a distinct subset of the larger general American experience. There are even examples of people who are notable specifically because they're African-American — for example, the first-ever African American mayor of a small town could very well qualify for an article even if the 50 Caucasians who served as mayor of the same town before him don't. And furthermore, the existence of the category is not ghettoizing anybody from Category:American people; since American people are supposed to be subcategorized by occupation and/or specific state, region or city, Category:American people itself is supposed to be empty of individual articles anyway. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that it's relevant and notable. However, I don't accept that African-Americans should be placed in separate lists. To take your example, imagine if a small town had 100 past mayors, some White, some Black. Would it be fine for the town to have a list of "past mayors" that contained the names of only the White mayors, while having a separate list of "past African-American mayors"? Why not simply have a single list of "past mayors" and, if appropriate, noting the race/ethnicity of each person? Merging in this case would not necessarily include deleting any reference to who is African-American; it would only mean ending the racial/ethnic separation we currently have in the categories. SMP0328. (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's suggesting that this would entail having separate lists. However, the African American mayor, if he has his own separate article that's specifically about him, does legitimately belong in Category:African American politicians in addition to, say, Category:Mayors of places in Mississippi (or whatever state). They're not mutually exclusive categorizations; note that we do not have a separate intersection for Category:African American mayors of places in Mississippi (and trust me, it would get deleted as an WP:OCAT pretty damn fast if someone ever tried.)

Inclusion in a category for one particular characteristic doesn't preclude his inclusion in any other category that's relevant and appropriate — and if there are inappropriate lists being created somewhere to separate white from African American mayors of the same town, that's for AFD to concern itself with, not us. But the African American category is added alongside, not replacing, any other category that he would otherwise belong in, and therefore it's not "separating" him from anything or anyone that he should be categorized next to. In fact, not having the category would separate him from other relevant articles, such as the first-ever African American mayors of other towns and cities elsewhere in the country — but having the category is not excluding him from any other relevant category. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then was this edit in error? SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That edit has nothing to do with this category; it pertains to a religion-specific subcategory whose existence or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on whether this should exist or not. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an example of an African-American being excluded from a parent category on account of being included in the parent's African-American subcategory. It's the type of separation I've been describing. SMP0328. (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question of whether intersections should be created between Category:African-American people and other categories, such as Category:American Christians. It has no bearing on whether Category:African-American people should exist at all; Category:African-American people, by itself, does not create any such exclusions unless you start creating hasty, poorly constructed intersections. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2012 (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 empires[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Former empires to Category:Empires

Nominator's rationale: This category was mean't for former empires. However pretty much all empires are former empires barring one possible exception. Japan is the last remaining country with an emperor but the empire was abolished after WWII, and thus it is now a constitutional monarchy. Green Giant (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom is quite right to identify that most of the empires are defunct, or at least that the formal empires are gone. However, Category:Former empires has other sub-cats, and AFAICS this would require a triple upmerger: to Category:Former countries by characteristic and Category:Former monarchies, as well as Category:Empires. That would cause a lot of category clutter, which I think is best avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless as is, so per BrownHairedGirl. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 29 February 2012 (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:Wikipedian professional engineers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge subcats to Category:Wikipedians by profession; Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian engineers

Category:Wikipedian professional engineers

WP:USERCAT#BROAD. As shown by Regulation and licensure in engineering (which Professional Engineer redirects to), the term "engineer" is a rather broad term. Category:Wikipedian engineers may be useful as a container/parent category, but really, the only thing the topic of each subcat has in common is that the job title has the word "engineer" in it.

Upmerge the subcats of Category:Wikipedian engineers to Category:Wikipedians by profession, and Delete. Alternately (if the consensus goes this way) retain as a container/parent, but depopulate. Delete Category:Wikipedian professional engineers. If no consensus to delete both, at least merge it to Category:Wikipedian engineers. - jc37 19:06, 27 February 2012 (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:African-American Christians[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:African-American Christians to Category:American Christians

Nominator's rationale: Merge. African American Christians should not be excluded from the American Christians category; noting that they are African Americans is one thing, but separating them from the main category sends the wrong message. SMP0328. (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How do you think that your concerns relate to: a) long-standing and stable guidance at WP:CATGRS; b) all the other subcats of Category:African-American people?
Do you see some particular problem with this category which doesn't apply to other categories of African-American people? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, couldn't this be simply resolved by tagging it with Template:Distinguished subcategory, and/or a clear category description that it is a non-diffused category? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Race should not be a factor. I have no objection to expanding this proposal to instances where African Americans are placed racially-separated from a category and thereby placed in a subcategory. SMP0328. (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Ethnicity and race, but appear not to have read it. It specifically says: "Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations, even if race is a stereotypical characteristic of the ethnic group, e.g. with African-Americans or Anglo-Indians." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
African Americans are primarily a race. Cultural distinctions exists because of their being victims of racism. SMP0328. (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that your concern is not specific to thus category. It relates to the whole of Category:African-American people, so you should seek the merger and deletion of the lot, rather than singling out African-American adherents of one particular religion. See Category talk:African-American people for links to previous such discussions. They were both more than 3 years ago, without consensus, so there is no problem in you reopening the issue, but I suggest you look at the arguments raised in the previous CfDs before proceeding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For now let's stick to discussing whether American Christians should be separated by race. We can always have the broader discussion later. I don't see a good reason for racially separating the listings of who are American Christians. Can anyone provide a good reason? SMP0328. (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you see a general problem with the categories, rather than a specific problem with this one, then have the discussion in the appropriate place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator offers no valid reason per WP:CATGRS to delete or mere this category. Since the nominator has not identified a particular concern with this specific category, zie should address hir concerns to the whole of Category:African-American people by a nomination of that category and all its sub-cats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Let's take Harry Burleigh, a black Episcopalian. So he would go both in this category and in Category:American Episcopalians, and when we get enough of them, he would be moved to Category:African-American Episcopalians, which would be a subcat of both of his previous categories? Mangoe (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:CATGRS#Other_considerations, we avoid ghettoisation, so he would not be removed from Category:American Episcopalians just to go into an ethnically distinct categ. See the note at Wikipedia:CATGRS#Other_considerations: "an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear on this. Does that mean that Category:African-American Episcopalians should never be created, or that its members should stay in the parent "by church" category but not in the parent Category:African-American Christians category? Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a broader merger proposal (see above), per BrownHairedGirl's suggestion. So what should be done with this proposal? SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, you can withdraw this nomination by just leaving a note at the top of this section. An admin will then close it for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WP has 100s of ethnic categories. African-American is a well understood ethic category, hence there is no reason why those who are also Christians should not be listed as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2012 (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.

Misleading, ambiguous or obscure Old Fooians[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating obscurity and ambiguity. This change is nor related to the status or worthiness of the school; it is about ensuring that the category names are clear and unambiguous, to assist readers in using the categories for their primary purpose of navigation.

In the case of these categories, the problems fall into three groups: ambiguity, obscurity, and both

Obscure (the "Foo" in "Old Fooian" is not part of the school's common name)

Old Dowegians (Douai School) -- "Dowegians" is an obscure and non-obvious adjective. Even this readers who have encounter the name of the school will not readily associate the adjective with "Douai", because the commonality of spelling extends only to the first two letters of the name. (Linguistically, it is an English-language format of adjective built on a French word, a construct unfamiliar to most readers of English)
Old Monovians (Sir George Monoux College) -- similar problems to the Dowegians, with the added complication of being very close in spelling to the Liberian city of Monrovia. "Monovian" is such a rarely-used term that it appears to be simply a spelling error.

Misleading (the clear primary usage of the "Fooian" term does not relate to the school)

Old Oratorians (The Oratory School). Per the S.O.D, an "Oratorian" is either a) something pertaining to an oratory, or b) a member of a religious order such as the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri. That order alone has over over 70 oratories around the world. Readers not already familiar with the school will associate the term with the wider religious usage.
Old Wordsworthians to (Bishop Wordsworth's School). The S.O.D defines a "Wordsworthian" as admirer of imitator of poet William Wordsworth. It does not mention the school, and given the prominence of the poet, his name will be the first association which readers make with the term
Old Skinners (The Skinners' School). A "skinner" is defined in the S.O.D. as a person whose works involve the preparation of animal skins, and Merriam Webster offers furthers meanings: a driver of draft animals, or a swindler.

Ambiguous (the "Fooian" in "Old Fooian" may refer to other topics)

Old Peterites (St Peter's School, York) -- the same term is also used by alumni of St Peter's College, Colombo (see example here), and there are dozens of schools and colleges named after St Peter (see St Peter's School, St Peter's College, and St Peter's. How is the non-specialist reader supposed to know which of those institutions the term refers to, or even to know that it is not a generic reference to followers of St Peter?

Misleading and ambiguous

Old Haberdashers (Haberdashers' Aske's Boys' School). In England a haberdasher is a dealer in, or maker of, hats or caps. In American usage, the term refers to a mens outfitter. Changing patterns of retail mean that neither usage is as prevalent as it used to be, but both are generic usages of a term which would be associated with the school by only a small minority of readers.
Apart from the misleading title, there is also ambiguity: there are in fact two Haberdashers' Aske's Schools in England, plus 2 academies and 1 college.

Obscure and ambiguous (the "Fooian" in "Old Fooian" may refer to other topics, and is not part of the school's common name)

Old Churcherians (Churcher's College). "Church" as a verb means bring someone to church to receive its rites, most commonly used after childbirth, a practice known as churching. If a reader has any idea what the term "Churcherian" might means, they are more likely to associate it with this religious practice than a particular school
Old Fidelians to (St Faith's School). "Fidelian" derives from the Latin word "fides", for faith. Even if the reader knows enough Latin to figure out that it refers to "faith" rather to high fidelity (hi-fi) music players, they still have 2 more steps before figuring out this meaning: a) they need to guess that it relates to the saint; b) that it refers to a school named after that saint.

There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format.

For an extended rationale, see CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (old fooians)[edit]

Rename. No way to know what these contain without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename how insular could you get in using a category "Old Haberdashers" and assume it's not about retired clothing salesmen... and Oratorians is exceedingly ambiguous, Peterites... followers of Peter the Apostle?... fans of Wordsworth? ... animal skinners... Fidel Castro admirers... 70.24.251.71 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to give the school name for clarity and per past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I made a mistake in the nomination. I hadn't spotted that the Haberdashers are ambiguous as well as misleading. There are in fact 2 Haberdashers' Aske's Schools in England, plus a 2 academies and 1 college. Thus is like the problem with the Old Merchant Taylors: a misleading name which is also highly ambiguous even for those who figure out that it relates to a school. In both cases, a London Livery Company is involved; in this case it is the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency and clarity. --Bduke (Discussion) 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to cure ambiguity and clarity and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. How many still to go? Oculi (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for the usual reasons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the usual reasons. Moonraker (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Steam5 (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2012 (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-14 episodes of The Simpsons[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too U.S.-centric for one, plus films aren't categorized this way (see WP:CFD/2006 Sep 25, for example), so why should TV shows? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also part of an related article by the creator, who is creating so many subdividing and inane categories and articles it's quickly building beyond WP:FANCRUFT. Too specific, and also unsourced, and easily modified (on Fox it could be TV-14, in syndication? Easily TV-PG with a few cuts). Nate • (chatter) 09:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the creation of his own little wikiproject for Programming Blocks, which I see little use for as well. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I can snag a Programming Block Barnstar if I vote Keep? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial to the point of being meaningless. Gran² 09:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and block editor per WP:DISRUPT. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unhelpful over categorization. Reso lute
Delete - obvious WP:OC, and as Mrschimpf points out, meaningless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I believe there's no Simpsons episodes that is rated TV-14. Steam5 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - empty, unnecessary category. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; somehow I can't imagine the U.S. TV rating of an episode of The Simpsons is the most significant aspect of such an episode. It certainly doesn't merit a whole category. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial and empty. SMP0328. (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary trivia. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (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:Ornamental Crops[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but per WP:SMALLCAT. The only content is Category:Bonsai. Do upmerge that to Category:Horticulture and gardening though. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2012 (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:Rumors[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a very helpful category. None of the pages in it will suffer if the category is deleted. It is quite a disparate collection and apart from the rumor article they don't really belong is a category with this name. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reverse the categorization changes made by the category's creator. For instance Category:McCarthyism, Koro (medicine) and Fan death were added to the rumors category but removed from Category:Mass hysteria: that's a very poor trade-off. There's no need for Category:Rumors and even less need for a random depopulating of Category:Mass hysteria. Pichpich (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pichpich. Steam5 (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2012 (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:Status of religious freedom by country[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Freedom of religion by country. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Status of religious freedom by country to ~~Category:Religious freedom by country~~ Category:Freedom of religion by country (update)

Nominator's rationale: to suit convention and "Status of" is redundant". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. -- Beland (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Rename to Category:Freedom of religion by country to match parent Category:Freedom of religion and Category:Freedom of expression.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. Yeah. I agree. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Freedom of religion by country to match the parent cat. Robofish (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2012 (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.